What follows is a transcript of a conversation on FB that turned fairly ugly. You can read it all or skip to my comments. The essence of the issue is my title- what is history?
T-Tom- too many to count. He reports a fictional story of Ben Franklin, of Polly Baker, as fact. He himself described the book as 'biased' in favor of socialism. He omits theGettysburg address, the
moon landings (!) and crucial events in Vietnam Soviet Union believed
history should not be a record of facts but instruct. Whether you like the book
or not it is in no way a text book of anything, and completely unsuited to
school use. I don't see how anyone can defend a book of US
VR-So what if the book is biased toward socialism? The rest of kids' history books are biased toward imperialism. So what's there to be proud of about imperialism? Maybe that's cool to boys, but as a girl, I was not impressed with that one-sided narrative. I was also always cognizant of the missing stories, I just didn't know where to find them.
T-Tom , Victoria-
VR-You cannot make a case that the current history books used in classrooms are *not* lousy! Let's start there.
T-And I don't. I am an original source person, and deeply interested in history. Our classroom texts are the simplest of brushovers, making the broadest and coarsest generalizations. So much of the controversy over books seems to me to be a reflection of the deep divide in our society. We are, to one extent or another, ashamed of ourselves, and so can no longer write books about our victories in war without talking about civilian death, can not talk about settling the West without whipping ourselves over displaced indigenous populations. In an age of widely diverse cultural opinion it is essentially impossible to write a text that someone will not see as 'biased'. Zinn's achievement is also his limitation- to have written a book with a plain point of view, and one that is contrary to the 'established' view of history. He covers very important topics but omits so much that it cannot be a general text. It would be a fantastic 12th grade or college history text to look at social movements of the 20th century, however...
VR-You yourself admit: "One big difference is that the imperialistic view of American history is assumed." Like it or not, that is nationalistic propaganda (edited "history" told to make us look good, leaving out all the rest of history that makes us look bad). You can't apply one standard to Zinn and Tuchman (flawed perspective) and another to what is actually used in the classroom (imperialism assumed, therefore it's OK). No. Apply the same standard.
T-Indeed. See my last, longer comment. It is essentially impossible to write a text without offending someone today. The shared value system that makes a point of view acceptable is no longer operating. Please note the difference between history and polemic: history ultimately expresses a point of view but does not seek to 'make a point'. Polemic does seek to establish or make a point. Any history of necessity has a point of view, but that does not make it a polemic. Zinn is polemical.
VR-I disagree with your definition of history vs. polemic, Theodore Tsaltas, at least in the way you are expressing it here—particularly "history ultimately expresses a point of view but does not seek to 'make a point.' " Writers of history (predominantly male) are always making a point (which you call "point of view"); they simply have different *styles* of making those points, and those points are, of course, mostly concerned with the Great Males in History. You are free to disagree with this, but please know you are not persuading me. Not because I am uneducated—you keep trying to school me, thinking it's my ignorance you are correcting rather than my informed experience as a nonfiction writer. All historical texts are biased, written by human beings who are not objective and read by human beings who are also not objective. Here's something I've written about that very issue, which is based on an experiment historian Stephen Woodburn performed with his classes: http://www.silvercentury.org/polBlogs.cfm... The American Experience as it is taught in our schools is our founding mythology. Getting to the truth of a historical event requires multiple points of view, which is seldom ever attempted (or wanted). You find Zinn's "polemics" distasteful. I am unmoved by your taste. You will disagree it is "taste" you are promoting. The text Zinn means to counter is propagandistic (it has an agenda: to presentU.S.
T-No, not trying to school you, or to persuade you. The nature of your posts suggests your mind is quite made up with regard to the nature of history, its authors and how it is written. It is interesting to me to seeUS US
VR-Theodore Tsaltas's first comment "nothing like rewriting your own country's history to make people unproud. A horrible and distorted book" is echoed in his last comment (I mean his last comment to me, not his comment to Tom): "I think we serve our students and our society better by being aware of our triumphs rather than by engaging in self-flagellation over our failures. Finally, the history of groups not usually a part of history books is not irrelevant, but it doesn't have to be made into a counter-cultural story either."
Teaching kids that there have been history-making mass movements of ordinary people against (i.e., that "counter") the entrenched institutions of slavery, child labor, race discrimination, etc., is actually empowering to them, not demoralizing. That's because kids are ordinary people themselves. Ted thinks we must teach only the parts that make people (read: him) "proud." He then criticizes Zinn for being inaccurate, not noticing his self-contradiction.
The trouble with Zinn is not historical accuracy; the trouble with Zinn is that he challenges the status quo propaganda narrative that currently exists in schools (just teach those accepted proud-making parts) and supplements that narrative with the story of the people. God forbid we teach kids that they have power to *change* the status quo, as demonstrated by mass movements of ordinary people throughout history, including our own. The abolition of slavery, the amending of the Constitution to give women and blacks the right to vote, the abolition of child labor, and the striking down of Jim Crow laws are some of the greatest achievements we can embrace, all of which came about because of the relentless persistence of mass movements of people, not because of individual white men.
T-You made my blog! I invite you to take a look at www.porsh1957.blogspot.com. Zinn's problem is indeed historical accuracy. I don't have a problem with the view of history you describe. If we are talking the teaching of US history your view is as incomplete as the view you ascribe to me. I have no problem with mass societal pressures, although it is a worthy question to ask how to balance that view with others. My major problem with Zinn remains polemical. Not point of view, the deliberate mis-attribution of events and the use of stories known to be false. Such a book has no place as a history text, and it is a sad statement on any values that they can use or require the use of materials known to be false and misleading.
It is now fashionable in academic circles to acknowledge the many experiences and points of view regarding a single event. There is merit to this. All arguments, all events, have more than one side. There are two problems with this approach, as I experience it. First, history makes no sense without a point of view. To include others' experience is comprehensive. But any history has a point of view. It is simply impossible to write an objective history. Second, the honoring of all points of view has led to a denigration of our own culture's view. It is now fashionable not simply to write of other groups' experiences but to belittle and even completely ignore our own. We have become our own destroyers.
Zinn's book is filled with overt, factual error. This in itself is bad in a history. Worse yet, as expressed in the long wrangle above, Zinn has written not with a point of view but with a point. He seeks to make history about something, as opposed to a record with a viewpoint. That is a significant distinction. One is history, with a flawed point of view like all histories. The other is using history as an illustration for a belief or argument. It is why the Gospels are not history. By definition, being 'good news', they are polemical.
In examining the experiences of what VR variously refers to as mass movements, women and other oppressed groups, we must ask how to balance the various views and experiences. This is especially important in a textbook. I have many, many books about Napoleonic and military history. Napoleon and his marshalate comprised less than 50 men. His armies contained, all told, more than 1 million. At a ratio of 20,000:1 it would appear napoleon's soldiers' history is more relevant than Napoleon's. VR states that it is the view of white men that renders the experiences of Napoleon more relevant than his soldiers. But all of them were white men, too.
It seems to me that to understand the experiences of the Grande Armee it is necessary to examine the experiences of soldiers, but to understand the history of France, it is necessary only to know the thoughts and motives of those generals. That does not make the soldiers' stories irrelevant. it means that the story you tell is a reflection of the history you want to write. VR confuses social movement history with US history, of which it is only a part, and not the main mover and certainly not the main actor in overall US history.
If Zinn is writing a history of mass social movements and their impact on US history I am all for that. It needs to be written, especially for a democracy. People need to understand, especially in this time of highly dysfunctional government, that their acts and votes mean something. But if Zinn is writing a history of the United States, then such social movements are only a part of a much larger picture. Zinn uses false stories, mis-attributes events and omits great and important acts and events in US history simply to make his point, as he says in his own words.
It appears to gall VR that so many decisions, battles and documents were made, fought and created by white men. That is the nature of the large motions of history until very recently. If other groups want that to be different then they need to become decision makers, and it seems to me that is happening in a major way in the US and in other countries as well. Using factual error and distortion to promote such a change is a disservice to the very changes desired.
However we are going to tell history, and that is a subject worthy of serious discussion, it can not be with a book as erroneous as Zinn's. It is a sad, sad thing that those who wish to promote popular history, mass history or socialistic history must resort to overt distortion and error to make their points. Seems to me their ideas are better served by the truth.
Ted
T-nothing like rewriting your own
country's history to make people unproud. A horrible and distorted book.
TL-Be specific, TedT-Tom- too many to count. He reports a fictional story of Ben Franklin, of Polly Baker, as fact. He himself described the book as 'biased' in favor of socialism. He omits the
VR-So what if the book is biased toward socialism? The rest of kids' history books are biased toward imperialism. So what's there to be proud of about imperialism? Maybe that's cool to boys, but as a girl, I was not impressed with that one-sided narrative. I was also always cognizant of the missing stories, I just didn't know where to find them.
VR-You cannot make a case that the current history books used in classrooms are *not* lousy! Let's start there.
T-And I don't. I am an original source person, and deeply interested in history. Our classroom texts are the simplest of brushovers, making the broadest and coarsest generalizations. So much of the controversy over books seems to me to be a reflection of the deep divide in our society. We are, to one extent or another, ashamed of ourselves, and so can no longer write books about our victories in war without talking about civilian death, can not talk about settling the West without whipping ourselves over displaced indigenous populations. In an age of widely diverse cultural opinion it is essentially impossible to write a text that someone will not see as 'biased'. Zinn's achievement is also his limitation- to have written a book with a plain point of view, and one that is contrary to the 'established' view of history. He covers very important topics but omits so much that it cannot be a general text. It would be a fantastic 12th grade or college history text to look at social movements of the 20th century, however...
VR-You yourself admit: "One big difference is that the imperialistic view of American history is assumed." Like it or not, that is nationalistic propaganda (edited "history" told to make us look good, leaving out all the rest of history that makes us look bad). You can't apply one standard to Zinn and Tuchman (flawed perspective) and another to what is actually used in the classroom (imperialism assumed, therefore it's OK). No. Apply the same standard.
T-Indeed. See my last, longer comment. It is essentially impossible to write a text without offending someone today. The shared value system that makes a point of view acceptable is no longer operating. Please note the difference between history and polemic: history ultimately expresses a point of view but does not seek to 'make a point'. Polemic does seek to establish or make a point. Any history of necessity has a point of view, but that does not make it a polemic. Zinn is polemical.
VR-I disagree with your definition of history vs. polemic, Theodore Tsaltas, at least in the way you are expressing it here—particularly "history ultimately expresses a point of view but does not seek to 'make a point.' " Writers of history (predominantly male) are always making a point (which you call "point of view"); they simply have different *styles* of making those points, and those points are, of course, mostly concerned with the Great Males in History. You are free to disagree with this, but please know you are not persuading me. Not because I am uneducated—you keep trying to school me, thinking it's my ignorance you are correcting rather than my informed experience as a nonfiction writer. All historical texts are biased, written by human beings who are not objective and read by human beings who are also not objective. Here's something I've written about that very issue, which is based on an experiment historian Stephen Woodburn performed with his classes: http://www.silvercentury.org/polBlogs.cfm... The American Experience as it is taught in our schools is our founding mythology. Getting to the truth of a historical event requires multiple points of view, which is seldom ever attempted (or wanted). You find Zinn's "polemics" distasteful. I am unmoved by your taste. You will disagree it is "taste" you are promoting. The text Zinn means to counter is propagandistic (it has an agenda: to present
T-No, not trying to school you, or to persuade you. The nature of your posts suggests your mind is quite made up with regard to the nature of history, its authors and how it is written. It is interesting to me to see
VR-Theodore Tsaltas's first comment "nothing like rewriting your own country's history to make people unproud. A horrible and distorted book" is echoed in his last comment (I mean his last comment to me, not his comment to Tom): "I think we serve our students and our society better by being aware of our triumphs rather than by engaging in self-flagellation over our failures. Finally, the history of groups not usually a part of history books is not irrelevant, but it doesn't have to be made into a counter-cultural story either."
Teaching kids that there have been history-making mass movements of ordinary people against (i.e., that "counter") the entrenched institutions of slavery, child labor, race discrimination, etc., is actually empowering to them, not demoralizing. That's because kids are ordinary people themselves. Ted thinks we must teach only the parts that make people (read: him) "proud." He then criticizes Zinn for being inaccurate, not noticing his self-contradiction.
The trouble with Zinn is not historical accuracy; the trouble with Zinn is that he challenges the status quo propaganda narrative that currently exists in schools (just teach those accepted proud-making parts) and supplements that narrative with the story of the people. God forbid we teach kids that they have power to *change* the status quo, as demonstrated by mass movements of ordinary people throughout history, including our own. The abolition of slavery, the amending of the Constitution to give women and blacks the right to vote, the abolition of child labor, and the striking down of Jim Crow laws are some of the greatest achievements we can embrace, all of which came about because of the relentless persistence of mass movements of people, not because of individual white men.
T-You made my blog! I invite you to take a look at www.porsh1957.blogspot.com. Zinn's problem is indeed historical accuracy. I don't have a problem with the view of history you describe. If we are talking the teaching of US history your view is as incomplete as the view you ascribe to me. I have no problem with mass societal pressures, although it is a worthy question to ask how to balance that view with others. My major problem with Zinn remains polemical. Not point of view, the deliberate mis-attribution of events and the use of stories known to be false. Such a book has no place as a history text, and it is a sad statement on any values that they can use or require the use of materials known to be false and misleading.
It is now fashionable in academic circles to acknowledge the many experiences and points of view regarding a single event. There is merit to this. All arguments, all events, have more than one side. There are two problems with this approach, as I experience it. First, history makes no sense without a point of view. To include others' experience is comprehensive. But any history has a point of view. It is simply impossible to write an objective history. Second, the honoring of all points of view has led to a denigration of our own culture's view. It is now fashionable not simply to write of other groups' experiences but to belittle and even completely ignore our own. We have become our own destroyers.
Zinn's book is filled with overt, factual error. This in itself is bad in a history. Worse yet, as expressed in the long wrangle above, Zinn has written not with a point of view but with a point. He seeks to make history about something, as opposed to a record with a viewpoint. That is a significant distinction. One is history, with a flawed point of view like all histories. The other is using history as an illustration for a belief or argument. It is why the Gospels are not history. By definition, being 'good news', they are polemical.
In examining the experiences of what VR variously refers to as mass movements, women and other oppressed groups, we must ask how to balance the various views and experiences. This is especially important in a textbook. I have many, many books about Napoleonic and military history. Napoleon and his marshalate comprised less than 50 men. His armies contained, all told, more than 1 million. At a ratio of 20,000:1 it would appear napoleon's soldiers' history is more relevant than Napoleon's. VR states that it is the view of white men that renders the experiences of Napoleon more relevant than his soldiers. But all of them were white men, too.
It seems to me that to understand the experiences of the Grande Armee it is necessary to examine the experiences of soldiers, but to understand the history of France, it is necessary only to know the thoughts and motives of those generals. That does not make the soldiers' stories irrelevant. it means that the story you tell is a reflection of the history you want to write. VR confuses social movement history with US history, of which it is only a part, and not the main mover and certainly not the main actor in overall US history.
If Zinn is writing a history of mass social movements and their impact on US history I am all for that. It needs to be written, especially for a democracy. People need to understand, especially in this time of highly dysfunctional government, that their acts and votes mean something. But if Zinn is writing a history of the United States, then such social movements are only a part of a much larger picture. Zinn uses false stories, mis-attributes events and omits great and important acts and events in US history simply to make his point, as he says in his own words.
It appears to gall VR that so many decisions, battles and documents were made, fought and created by white men. That is the nature of the large motions of history until very recently. If other groups want that to be different then they need to become decision makers, and it seems to me that is happening in a major way in the US and in other countries as well. Using factual error and distortion to promote such a change is a disservice to the very changes desired.
However we are going to tell history, and that is a subject worthy of serious discussion, it can not be with a book as erroneous as Zinn's. It is a sad, sad thing that those who wish to promote popular history, mass history or socialistic history must resort to overt distortion and error to make their points. Seems to me their ideas are better served by the truth.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment