Howard Zinn Bad History Analysis
The “Bad History” of Howard Zinn and the Brainwashing of America
By Mary Grabar
America’s Survival, Inc.
443-964-8208 1
www.usasurvival.org
CONTENTS
I. II. III. IV. V. VI.
A History That No Self-Respecting Marxist Historian Would Consider Reinventing the Wheel The History of the Scottsboro Case as Prelude Reshaping Humanity for Utopia For Kids: The Radical Historian as Super-Hero Zinn’s Real Scholarship
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Although Howard Zinn denied membership in the Communist Party when he was questioned by FBI agents in 1953 and 1954, he continued to work on behalf of the Communists through his teaching and writing. In both activities he played the role of subversive. As a history professor, he targeted young and …show more content…
Where to begin with the multitude of facts left out? Such hints equating material inequities with injustice abound in Zinn’s history. Zinn banks on the fact that schools produce graduates with only “a smattering of knowledge about the American past” at best—and almost no understanding about the foundations and intellectual history of our government. Other questions come up in regards to the rationale of our system of government. Zinn, in what has now become standard practice, indicts the founders for leaving out of the idea of all men being “created equal” black men, property-less men, and women. Then he preempts the reply that such exclusions have since been corrected by claiming that The problem of democracy in the post-Revolutionary society was not, however, Constitutional limitations on voting. It lay deeper, beyond the Constitution, in the division of society into rich and poor. For if some people had great wealth and great influence; if they had the land, the money, the newspapers, the church, the educational system—how could voting, however broad, cut into such power? There was still another problem: wasn’t it the nature of representative government, even when most broadly based, to be conservative, to prevent tumultuous change?20 Indeed, this sets up the basis for the rest of Zinn’s critique through over 700 tedious pages. All of Zinn’s analyses of succeeding events and developments follow from the flawed premise and the unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that his question had already been answered by the founders. Differences arise also from Zinn’s goals. Zinn is after “tumultuous change.” He seeks to overthrow the government rather than reform it. And he will display this view in his academic activities, especially when it comes to the civil rights movement. The need for “tumultuous” change will inform like-minded radicals who will keep raising the bar even as
By Mary Grabar
America’s Survival, Inc.
443-964-8208 1
www.usasurvival.org
CONTENTS
I. II. III. IV. V. VI.
A History That No Self-Respecting Marxist Historian Would Consider Reinventing the Wheel The History of the Scottsboro Case as Prelude Reshaping Humanity for Utopia For Kids: The Radical Historian as Super-Hero Zinn’s Real Scholarship
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Although Howard Zinn denied membership in the Communist Party when he was questioned by FBI agents in 1953 and 1954, he continued to work on behalf of the Communists through his teaching and writing. In both activities he played the role of subversive. As a history professor, he targeted young and …show more content…
Where to begin with the multitude of facts left out? Such hints equating material inequities with injustice abound in Zinn’s history. Zinn banks on the fact that schools produce graduates with only “a smattering of knowledge about the American past” at best—and almost no understanding about the foundations and intellectual history of our government. Other questions come up in regards to the rationale of our system of government. Zinn, in what has now become standard practice, indicts the founders for leaving out of the idea of all men being “created equal” black men, property-less men, and women. Then he preempts the reply that such exclusions have since been corrected by claiming that The problem of democracy in the post-Revolutionary society was not, however, Constitutional limitations on voting. It lay deeper, beyond the Constitution, in the division of society into rich and poor. For if some people had great wealth and great influence; if they had the land, the money, the newspapers, the church, the educational system—how could voting, however broad, cut into such power? There was still another problem: wasn’t it the nature of representative government, even when most broadly based, to be conservative, to prevent tumultuous change?20 Indeed, this sets up the basis for the rest of Zinn’s critique through over 700 tedious pages. All of Zinn’s analyses of succeeding events and developments follow from the flawed premise and the unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that his question had already been answered by the founders. Differences arise also from Zinn’s goals. Zinn is after “tumultuous change.” He seeks to overthrow the government rather than reform it. And he will display this view in his academic activities, especially when it comes to the civil rights movement. The need for “tumultuous” change will inform like-minded radicals who will keep raising the bar even as