tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7896336562539866758.post4666519693317663330..comments2024-01-09T01:14:01.156-08:00Comments on Patriots and Peoples: Fragments from Bartolomé de Las CasasJames Stripeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13437334325501974461noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7896336562539866758.post-73759381419414190492013-11-08T11:46:58.231-08:002013-11-08T11:46:58.231-08:00Hi James,
Liked your post about Las Casas.
Are y...Hi James,<br /><br />Liked your post about Las Casas.<br /><br />Are you interested in taking on any guest posts? <br />Feel free to view samples from my own blog:<br />http://algonkianchurchhistory.blogspot.com/<br />Algonkian Church History<br />(Some of the posts are only recommendations or referrals to other media, but other posts have real original content. If you let me write a guest post for you, it would have original content.)<br /><br />Either way, I'll keep an eye on you blog for posts of interest.Jeff Siemershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162729454401137173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7896336562539866758.post-1305940102330719122010-01-17T14:20:56.913-08:002010-01-17T14:20:56.913-08:00Thanks for the comment, James. Although Zinn's...Thanks for the comment, James. Although Zinn's Marxist tendencies are well-known, your rant grossly distorts his politics and his scholarship. Zinn makes no pretense of being objective, as you correctly note. But he does not seek to indoctrinate in the manner that you suggest.<br /><br />Your point regarding MLA documentation is both welcome and horrifying. I share you desire for better documentation in Zinn's work, but must reject your recommendation. Historians should use Chicago, <b>never</b> MLA. MLA eschews the footnotes that should characterize serious historical scholarship. MLA is fine for some forms of literary criticism, but wholly inappropriate for many other modes of scholarly writing. Zinn uses neither MLA nor Chicago, but a form of documentation that is common. Publishers favor his sort of loose documentation. It's what you'll find in most popular histories when they have any at all. <br /><br />I make no claim to be an authority on Zinn's entire <i>oeuvre</i>, so he may have addressed my next point explicitly in something that I have not read. I sense from his writing that he regards nationalism and patriotism as barbaric, and it matters not whether the nation is Marxist or Capitalist, totalitarian or democratic. I do not share his animosity towards all nationalism, but I find that his analysis of certain excesses of American nationalism are trenchant. I find your criticism of his alleged "anti-Americanism" both erroneous and offensive. It has become part of the reactionary mantra in the United States to call "anti-American" all views that differ from the narrowly jingoistic point of view that sees US domination of the world as necessary and just, but this mantra is indefensible historically, politically, morally. It is time for constructive criticism of American excesses to be recognized for what it is: true patriotism. Zinn's motives may differ from that of the true patriot, but he helps point to some tendencies that deserve scrutiny. In this self-criticism, Zinn correctly highlights the work of Bartolomé de Las Casas as exemplary.James Stripeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437334325501974461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7896336562539866758.post-28764901239484294282010-01-16T14:21:49.027-08:002010-01-16T14:21:49.027-08:00Who is the most influential historian in America? ...Who is the most influential historian in America? Could it be Pulitzer Prize winners Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. or Joseph Ellis or David McCullough, whose scholarly works have reached a broad literary public? The answer is none of the above. The accolade belongs instead to the unreconstructed, anti-American Marxist Howard Zinn, whose cartoon anti-history of the United States is still selling...http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html zinn has more fiction than fact in his writings and is self serving in his desire for social engineering and revisionist writings of history. Plainly put he has never seen an American patriot that was not in some way self serving or corrupt. Conversely he has never seen a corrupt Marxist society that didn’t have the "Peoples best interests at heart. There is far more fabrication than fact in his writings, plainly seen by his Obfuscation of any validations of facts in the simple use of basic MLA to site any of his sources.<br />He has also plainly stated, "Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” so, justifies his selective reporting of the facts to further his own political agenda and hatred for American values. Please see for background of my comments to Mr. Sinn" biased history. I am sure my view point is going to draw more hateful venom than I am interested in but, the fact I am required to read this and be tested on it later for a grade. One that evaluates my knowledge of American history before 1865 is incredibly disappointing. It is social engineering of young minds and not exactly valid true. Sorry if Im unwilling to be a socialist pupet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com