Howard Zinn: On History by Howard Zinn (2011) is a collection of previously published essays ranging from Freedom Schools in the 1960s, issues in scholarship, to the American Empire. Even though the essays were written over several decades there is a constant theme throughout the work—the activist scholar. Zinn feels that scholars should not be passive citizens concerned with their research alone, but active citizens that use their research to change society. Zinn, unlike other historians, is not afraid to place what he views as right and wrong into his scholarly work. In fact he sees nothing unethical about inserting his opinion or politics into his writing. The society of higher education teaches historians to be objective by removing the person from the reading—removing opinion from writing. Zinn feels that this is a fruitless enterprise, for in the end opinion and politics will enter writing. In Howard Zinn: On History the case is made that for a different kind of historian. Zinn challenges the traditional notion of an historian a more passive scholar that endlessly tries to remove himself, or herself, from their research. Zinn sees this as an impossibility and instead argues for a more active scholar. This is the central theme that runs through Zinn’s book, a theme that should run through scholarship itself.
In “Historian as Citizen (1966)” Howard Zinn first codifies his views of an opinion based activist scholar in terms of a historian. The first type of historian that he introduces is the mainstream version of the historian, “traditionally, he is passive observer, one who looks for sequential patterns in the past as a guide to the future (…) but without participating himself in attempts to change the pattern or tidy the d...
... middle of paper ...
...nges the traditional notion of the objectivity claiming that it is impossible. People cannot remove their biases and therefore are subjective in nature. Therefore, that objectivity is lost because the historian is no longer a “disinterested scholar;” however, that does not mean that the end result, i.e. research, cannot be truthful, and therefore, objective. Just because people are subjective that does not meant that truth is unattainable. The notion that “specialization” harms scholarship by making the “activist-scholar” impossible is simply not pragmatic. It is impossible for a single person to be a true holistic scholar, and, therefore, a panel of “activist-scholars” is a more practical solution to the issue of “specialization.” Howard Zinn’s book is his attempt to become a “activist-scholar” as he uses his research to try and change society for the better.
According to West, “the attitudes of white scholars in the academy are quite different than those in the past” (West pg. 303). In the dilemma of the black intellectual Afro-American intellectual often known better as “black’s” have a stressful time in being acceptance in whites universities and find themselves in one of the black educational institutions for potential black intellectuals. Many black’s begin their intellectual career with hopes of self worth and self confidence in a way that is in alignment with certain values. Under the effects of their own emotional pain however, some black’s become removed from those values, removed from the purpose behind their intellectual. Black’s can feel like a ship in stormy seas, floundering with nothing solid to anchor to. When black’s make demands, use criticism or labeling to be taken seriously as potential scholars and intellectuals in our universities and colleges to vulgar perceptions fueled by
Authority and structure make Zinn’s argument very effective, even though some of his assertions do not have much evidence. Throughout the essay, he makes it very clear how he feels about the government and war. He feels soldiers are dying for their government so the U.S. can gain more power. Towards the end of the essay, he writes, “[instead] of being feared for our military prowess, we should want to be respected for our dedication to human rights” (161). I could not have said it better myself.
Zinn, Howard. "A People's War?" Howard Zinn's A People's History. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2014. .
[3] But claiming that history is biased is not to imply that it is irrelevant and should stop being written. According to Walter Benjamin, history should stop masking itself as objective and homogeneous and instead focus on the monad: "where thinking suddenly stops in a configuration pregnant with tensions, it gives that configuration a shock" (262). Instead of charting the victor's path, history must examine how colonizer and colonized interact during a specific moment of time.
...in our collaborative endeavors as progressive scholars in cultural studies, I had never considered until now just how much of my own work I would actually compromise if a circumstance similar to that of Toelken’s Yellowman tapes ever arose. Considering his position pushed me to identify a nameless discomfort that has left me uneasy about so much of the material I consume—“one party [enjoys] inherent advantages by virtue of controlling the infrastructure and the output.” In the end my own morality and the relationships I choose to maintain in my research will dictate the decisions I make in actually practicing praxis.
Howard Zinn is a compelling writer in the context of American history. While sometimes his opinions may be overbearing in certain topics, his overall analysis of America's struggles during the 1920’s and 1930’s captured and focussed my attention to understand the situation more as a whole. I especially learned of the ever growing determination of a union striker during the time. Zinn pinpoints key information and details it and as always he seems to enlighten the
The ideal historian is someone who wants to find the answer, but does not care what the answer is, curious but not committed. One might only look at the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg Address to see how even a valuable historical document contains what some might call bias. Bias, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is defined as “an attitude that favors one way of feeling without considering other possibilities.” Subsequently, if Founding Fathers, and Abraham Lincoln wrote documents that fit the definition of being biased, what document is not. One such document, Memorable Decision of the High Court of Toulouse, is written impartially, and is styled with such particularity, that the reader is left wondering, what did
To correct the fatal flaw our society is experiencing, both authors have arranged a theory they believe to be the most efficient. Dewey believes there are two aspects to our society: play which correlates to a process oriented society and work which is a product driven society. Dewey says too much play leads to fooling and too much work leads to drudgery. We need to find a balance between the two; however, is this easier said than done? Zinn confesses that his idea for societal change is a revolution, a social revolution. The trouble is, our society does not know how to engage in such a revolution, especially when the majority of the population unconsciously believes nothing to be wrong with the operation of our society. In my opinion, the most feasible solution to correct our unbalanced society is to find a way to follow Dewey’s philosophy. Life cannot be all work and no play and vice versa. I find Zinn’s idea of a revolution to be farfetched.
John Lewis Gaddis, in his book, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddis’s work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid. Historians must face the fact that there is an “accurate” interpretation of the past ceases to exist because interpretation itself is based on the experience of the historian, in which people cannot observe directly (Gaddis 10). Historians can only view the past in a limited perspective, which generates subjectivity and bias, and claiming a piece of history to be “objective” is simplistic. Seeing the world in a multidimensiona...
Nussbaum, Martha C. "Chapter 10 Democratic Citizenship and the Narrative Imagination." Why Do We Educate?: Renewing the Conversation. Ed. David L. Coulter. Comp. John R. Wiens and Gary D. Fenstermacher. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 2008. 143-57. Print.
The Radical Reader: A Documentary History of the American Radical Tradition, ed. Timothy Patrick McCarthy and John McMillian (New York: The New Press, 2011), 584.
It’s truly fascinating how there are so many different approaches to history, how so many different types of minds and schools of thought can come together to study the events of the world’s past. There are so many ways to approach what happened in our past, and the groups of historians previously mentioned are only a fraction of the actual number of different ways of researching and thinking that exists as it pertains to the study of history. History is in some ways, always a mystery, and all historians, regardless of schooling, training or biases, seek to accomplish one goal: to understand what occurred before us and why, and to use that knowledge to learn how the world was shaped into the world we live in today.
Howard Zinn was a communist that wrote a book about his view on how and why our government was created. He believed that the goal of our Founding Fathers was not to create a new better government, but to give the power to themselves; and give just enough power to its people for them to think that things were better. In an excerpt called, “A Kind of Revolution,” from the book, A Peoples History, Zinn explains why the Revolution was fought, what the impacts of these wars created for those who were not white men, and why the Constitution was written.
ABSTRACT: Historical research was one of Jean-Paul Sartre's major concerns. Sartre's biographical studies and thought indicate that history is not only a field in which you gather facts, events, and processes, but it is a worthy challenge which includes a grave personal responsibility: my responsibility to the dead lives that preceded me. Sartre's writings suggest that accepting this responsibility can be a source of wisdom. Few historians, however, view history as transcending the orderly presenting and elucidating of facts, events, and processes. I contend that Sartre's writings suggest a personally enhancing commitment. A lucid and honest response to the challenges and demands of history and the dead lives that preceded my own existence is an engagement that requires courage, wisdom, and thought. The consequences of this commitment for teaching history is discussed.
Marc Trachtenberg is questioning if objectivity is possible and desirable in today's society, and this is a question that many historians have pondered. Keith Jenkins and Richard Evans are the two historians that will be used in relation to this debate. Trachtenberg believes that history should be ultimately obtainable however, he is worried that the way in which society is heading that it will soon become an obsolete ideology. His believes that history's ultimate goal is to discover the truth. Trachtenberg believes that you should "put your political beliefs aside and frame questions in such a way that the answers turned on what the evidence showed." He realizes that this may be a slightly naïve idea however he still stands by this belief even when others such as Keith Jenkins have totally given up on objectivity.