Howard Zinn

[Richard Nixon]

What do you think of historian Howard Zinn and his works?

[IcarusAngel]

The problem with the People's History of the United States is that it can be a difficult read if you've never learned anything about American history, and indeed, if you went to American schools, you might not know anything about the founding fathers, the debates they had, where they got their influences from, the revolution war, the differences between anti-federalist and federalist, etc.

For that reason I recommend people read some introdoctury history book or even political science book (The Democratic Debate can be bought for a couple books) or learn something about American history form the internet first, before diving into the book.

The Beards' Basic History of the United States might be a good precursor at least in the sense that you'll know some history before you go into the work.

He has a collection of essays published in the Zinn Reader that deal with various subjects. This is a huge book that is also recommended. I like his essay Just and Unjust war, where he takes on World War II from a leftist perspective. This is much, much better than the modern, right-wing Libertarian criticism of WWII that is nothing beyond "War is bad" (and they say we're the hippies?).

The essays also deal with class and how he came at his leftist political beliefs. Some of these have anecdotal evidence, like how his father worked really hard but never made it very far into the world.

Overall, people like him are an asset to the left as they try to be as rational and logical as they can (and this is why Zinn rejects the notion that history is could always be objective, something which I mostly agree with him on), while not being ideological or dogmatic.

Zinn can be read as a Marxist, an anarchist, or maybe even social democrat.

[GPDP]

I haven't read A People's History yet, but I did read Declarations of Independence, which I found very enjoyable and enlightening. I believe "Just and Unjust War" is in that book. It's where he basically argues that WWII was an unjust war for the US to fight, right?

Zinn is interesting among leftist intellectuals in that he does not cleanly fit into any one section of the left. He has on occasion referred to himself as an anarchist, but in an "I guess I'm an anarchist" fashion more than a clear ideological commitment to anarchism. He also frequently mentions how Obama can be pressured to do progressive things only if a movement rises up to demand genuine change, a stance which can be thought of as reformist.

[jake williams]

Zinn is interesting among leftist intellectuals in that he does not cleanly fit into any one section of the left. He has on occasion referred to himself as an anarchist, but in an "I guess I'm an anarchist" fashion more than a clear ideological commitment to anarchism. He also frequently mentions how Obama can be pressured to do progressive things only if a movement rises up to demand genuine change, a stance which can be thought of as reformist.
Pretty much this. He's a nice guy, he's definitely a leftist of some sort, and his writings on American history are important. I wouldn't say he's very radical. He did drool over Obama more than some other American leftists. It's interesting that he self-identifies as an "anarchist", even passively, because he seems more excited about the idea of "leaders" than even a lot of American social democrats.

[GPDP]

Pretty much this. He's a nice guy, he's definitely a leftist of some sort, and his writings on American history are important. I wouldn't say he's very radical. He did drool over Obama more than some other American leftists. It's interesting that he self-identifies as an "anarchist", even passively, because he seems more excited about the idea of "leaders" than even a lot of American social democrats.

Well, from what I've seen, he doesn't so much drool over Obama as much as he believes he might be more susceptible to pressure from progressive movements. However, without those movements, he doesn't really have illusions about Obama more than, say, Chomsky.

[jake williams]

Well, from what I've seen, he doesn't so much drool over Obama as much as he believes he might be more susceptible to pressure from progressive movements. However, without those movements, he doesn't really have illusions about Obama more than, say, Chomsky.
He drooled over him for awhile before and immediately following the election (though of course he wasn't the only one). He's smartened up a bit since.

[GPDP]

He drooled over him for awhile before and immediately following the election (though of course he wasn't the only one). He's smartened up a bit since.

Yeah, I might have missed that particular episode, then.

Still, it doesn't really detract much from his insights. All it means is his politics are quite fuzzy, and I would sooner go to Chomsky for an in-depth analysis of American politics than I would Zinn. But his historical accounts are great.

[jake williams]

Still, it doesn't really detract much from his insights. All it means is his politics are quite fuzzy, and I would sooner go to Chomsky for an in-depth analysis of American politics than I would Zinn. But his historical accounts are great.
I basically agree.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Obama is extremely charismatic. Falling for him is often the result of the human condition more than any flaw in one's rationality.

I was skeptical of Obama from the start. First I thought he couldn't win the election. I'll admit, I was a bit happy that he did. On its own, it doesn't mean anything. However, it does let me know people are somewhat less racist than I thought. It's nice to know people aren't "quite" as horrible as you think they are.

After that, I was still skeptical that Obama would accomplish anything significant. It all depends on your definition of significant. If someone bakes a pie and gives everyone a slice, only to let 90% of the pie go to waste, most people will be happy. He gave us a piece of pie. Their happy. Hurray.

Obama has done a little bit. The problem I have is he has done barely anything relative to what he can do. If a poor man gave me a dollar when I needed change for the bus, I'd appreciate that more than Bill Gates giving me 100. The rationalists, economists, and such will say I'm illogical. Maybe I am.

Zinn is cool in my books. I haven't encountered him much. I'm more of a fan of Chomsky, although I hate whoever is responsible for publishing Chomsky. His books are overpriced, often rehashed versions of his old books, and somewhat of a capitalist profit machine. The ideas themselves often contain historical context that provides "more than I needed to know" for filler, and the substance in the book itself is somewhat low.

To be fair, I think most books are "filler." If a book was all great ideas from start to finish, most people couldn't write 10 pages, myself included.