TexasCHLforum.com

So I mentioned in a previous post recently that my mom's boyfriend is a hard core old school socialist, and he likes to have political conversations with me because I force him to make his case.......which he fails to do. Anyway, he was here last week with my mother, for my son's wedding, and highly recommended two history books to me, which I have just received as a gift from him. I'm going to have to read them so that I can mount a reasoned defense—I think he believes in his heart that he can "reeducated" me—but if anyone here has read either of these two books, I could use some suggestions of books to send him....to be read under the same intellectual burden he seeks to place upon me.

The two books he sent me are:

• "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn. This is a "history" written from the viewpoint of someone who viscerally hates the U.S. Zinn is a hardcore socialist, and he writes a history of the U.S. as a racist, genocidal nation bent on turning the world into its empire. He cherry picks quotes from the Founders in a way to suggest that they deliberately set up the Constitution so that their own personal interests would be preserved and promoted to the disadvantage of everyone else......etc., etc., etc. The only reason I'm going to read it is that I promised to.
• "The End of History and the Last Man," by Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama is, or was at one time anyway, apparently a proponent of the modern "neocon" movement. I think that my mom's boyfriend thinks I am a neocon, although I keep telling him I'm a libertarian........ thereby displaying one of the flaws of leftist thinking that cannot distinguish between people who are not leftists.

If anyone has read either of these two books, I would appreciate your perspective, and if anyone has an suggestions in terms of books which specifically address these two authors, I would appreciate the recommendation.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

• "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn. This is a "history" written from the viewpoint of someone who viscerally hates the U.S. Zinn is a hardcore socialist, and he writes a history of the U.S. as a racist, genocidal nation bent on turning the world into its empire. He cherry picks quotes from the Founders in a way to suggest that they deliberately set up the Constitution so that their own personal interests would be preserved and promoted to the disadvantage of everyone else......etc., etc., etc. The only reason I'm going to read it is that I promised to.

Haven't read either, but based on his book's title I'm sure Mr. Zinn would absolutely love to see the "People's Republic of the United Sates" come about.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So I mentioned in a previous post recently that my mom's boyfriend is a hard core old school socialist, and he likes to have political conversations with me because I force him to make his case.......which he fails to do. Anyway, he was here last week with my mother, for my son's wedding, and highly recommended two history books to me, which I have just received as a gift from him. I'm going to have to read them so that I can mount a reasoned defense—I think he believes in his heart that he can "reeducated" me—but if anyone here has read either of these two books, I could use some suggestions of books to send him....to be read under the same intellectual burden he seeks to place upon me.

The two books he sent me are:

• "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn. This is a "history" written from the viewpoint of someone who viscerally hates the U.S. Zinn is a hardcore socialist, and he writes a history of the U.S. as a racist, genocidal nation bent on turning the world into its empire. He cherry picks quotes from the Founders in a way to suggest that they deliberately set up the Constitution so that their own personal interests would be preserved and promoted to the disadvantage of everyone else......etc., etc., etc. The only reason I'm going to read it is that I promised to.
• "The End of History and the Last Man," by Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama is, or was at one time anyway, apparently a proponent of the modern "neocon" movement. I think that my mom's boyfriend thinks I am a neocon, although I keep telling him I'm a libertarian........ thereby displaying one of the flaws of leftist thinking that cannot distinguish between people who are not leftists.

If anyone has read either of these two books, I would appreciate your perspective, and if anyone has an suggestions in terms of books which specifically address these two authors, I would appreciate the recommendation.

Once I found out that Howard Zinn was pushing that "smallpox blankets" mess, I knew he was far beyond just the run-of-the-mill liberal-progressive ivory tower academician. If I run across something, I'll be sure to put you in the loop.

TAM - Have you seen or heard David Barton speak? take a look at Wallbuilders.com (?, might be a .org) I would maybe start with Original Intent for this guy, but he may be beyond hope. knowing you, you would enjoy any of his books.
David and Wallbuilders has more Founding Fathers original documents than the Smithsonian. We heard him speak when we were young married kids and I was pregnant with our oldest, we learned we knew NOTHING about our country and our history, we determined the first night (it was a 4 night speaking marathon!) we would be at all 4 nights, by the last night we were exhausted and had decided our daughter would be homeschooled. (Yes, they've actually met )
Some of you will recognize him from Glenn Beck.

Why are you letting this guy waste your time?

Jumping Frog wrote:Why are you letting this guy waste your time?

Because he is my mother's long time boyfriend. I love her....despite her politics.....and I appreciate that he dotes on her and looks after her best interests. He is in all other respects a nice old guy. He's just politically crazy far out in left field. If he were not my mother's companion, I wouldn't waste a minute of my time on him, and that relationship is the only reason I do. My mom is 88 now, and I likely will only have to endure this stuff for another few years, and it makes her happy that I am willing to engage with him. And given his health and predilection for vodka and eating that which puts him in the hospital, she will likely outlive him.

He is a former professor of aeronautical engineering at UCLA, and for a while he actually chaired the department. He's REALLY smart, and he's REALLY wrong. My mother is a former professor at Caltech, and while she is a confirmed liberal with a globalist viewpoint, she is not nearly as radical as he is. She lives 1500 miles away from here, and so I work at maintaining the connection with her. He is a big part of her life, and so consequently he is part of the whole package.

I started reading the Zinn book yesterday, and I feel dirty. The book opens with tales of Christopher Columbus murdering and enslaving the peace-loving natives of the Bermuda and Cuba, who if one is to believe the book, had no such concepts as "property," "war," or "marital fidelity," and which (if it is to be believed, and this would be nearly unique in primitive cultures) held women to be of absolutely equal stature to men in their tribal customs. From the very first page, venom drips from his words. It is painfully obvious that he started with a premise—that everything about white America is evil—and then set out to prove it by cherry-picking his data........and this is going to be the primary foundation of any rebuttals I send him.

I am going to challenge him to read the entire 3,000 pages of Shelby Foote's excellent Civil War Trilogy. Foote is an example of a historian who manages to respect and even love his subjects, even when he disagrees with them. He does so by not stripping them of their humanity, and by accepting them with all their strengths, weaknesses, and foibles, and simply writing about them from a position of respect. I will point out that I cannot respect a historian who starts with a premise to prove a political point, and then sets out to defame every historical figure whose life does not support the premise. Foote knows how to avoid that trap, while Zinn willingly gives himself over to it.

Zinn opens by casting Columbus and all white europeans (except one, a priest who also happens to be the source for his "facts," which may or may not be true.........but we're never allowed to find out) as monsters. And they may well have been so by modern definitions, but if so, they were no more or less monstrous than any other developed societies and/or cultures around the world at that time in history. That is a perspective that is completely lacking from Zinn's writing. In fact, one could say that lack of perspective is just another way to state that Zinn begins with a premise and then sets out to prove it, instead of simply recording history. For instance, in those opening pages, Zinn makes a big deal about the fact that europeans shot the natives with guns, whereas the natives only used bamboo spears......and then goes on to say, in one of the greatest moral equivalencies I've ever read, that while the natives occasionally raided and killed one another locally over unspecified grievances, that was somehow less immoral than white men using guns in their raids. .........as if the natives would not have used guns if they had possessed the technology. He is basically making the argument (perhaps without intending to) that technology and its uses are inherently evil when applied against people who do not possess that same technology. By extrapolation, medical missionaries would be practicing immorality by bringing advanced healing arts to people who do not possess them.

Anyway, I am determined to try and slog my way through this book, but I find that it actually involves an element of spiritual warfare; and after yesterday's experience, I will no longer read it without first spending time in prayer, asking for protection from its evil, and then finishing in prayer asking for wisdom and discernment and cleansing.

TAM, as you are also an intelligent person I think you'll give him a run for his money. I, too, would find it difficult to read those books and might not be able to get through them myself. However, I enjoy discussions with people on the left because their arguments always fall short on facts and ultimately rely on feelings and that frustrates them to no end.

I was thinking the same things as you with regards to the types of civilizations in the 15th and 16th centuries. There was a lot of slavery in the world and had been for many centuries before America was "discovered." We did not invent slavery and even various American Indian tribes practiced it on both north and south american continents, but you are already aware that you mother's boyfriend ignores many things that don't fit his views.

Good luck and have fun.

I avoided this tome due to the Rush Limbaugh endorsement, I am not a fan, then gave it a look when NR interviewed one of the authors, I am a William Buckley fan.
http://old.nationalreview.com/interroga ... 180736.asp
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... alreviewon

Jumping Frog wrote:Why are you letting this guy waste your time?

I'm interested to hear TAM's take on these books, and may actually grab them myself to have a look. One of the key elements to being articulate on any subject, and being able to effectively debate the other side is to know and understand their basis and viewpoints. I'm more than aware of the venom-spewing and unsupportable bias the proponents of the "other side" of most arguments engage in, and I'll be the first to admit that BOTH sides of most arguments are guilty of this.

As such, I think it's important to understand the enemy, and investigating the other side has always strengthened my own argument and knowledge. As a (some would say rabid) conservative (not republican,) my recent research into FDR and the new deal/depression era has been eye-opening and educational. I suspect this venture would be too.

As for wasting time with people like this--sometimes I find it entertaining to get them whipped up into a nice lather!

A true historian will not attempt to pick a side in an argument and push an agenda - which it sounds as though Zinn does. (I've never read anything written by him.) I am wary of any author purporting to write history when he clearly has a one-sided agenda. Shelby Foote is a good example of a true historian. They report the facts, they can draw conclusions, but they shouldn't cherry pick and vilify. One must tell the whole story.

Example...

I read James Bradley's Imperial Cruise - another revisionist history - a couple years ago. I had enjoyed his two previous books - Flags of our Fathers and Flyboys, but he completely lost me with Imperial Cruise. He was clearly pushing an agenda... that being that Teddy Roosevelt was the source of all evil in the 20th Century and he alone was responsible for the war in the Pacific with Japan. While I am sure TR made his share of mistakes, I can't overlook the fact that Bradley gives the Japanese empire a complete pass on their atrocities that began long before war broke out with the US.

Buckley is very good, he used alot of the FF documents in his books.

That's what I look for when I look for history books, what are they using for the research? in American history, they should be using Founding documents, letters, etc. In Biblical History type books it should be scripture, Josephus, and other Ancient documents, not just oral tradition. And now you know where a couple of my passions lie

kragluver wrote:A true historian will not attempt to pick a side in an argument and push an agenda - which it sounds as though Zinn does. (I've never read anything written by him.) I am wary of any author purporting to write history when he clearly has a one-sided agenda. Shelby Foote is a good example of a true historian. They report the facts, they can draw conclusions, but they shouldn't cherry pick and vilify. One must tell the whole story.

Example...

I read James Bradley's Imperial Cruise - another revisionist history - a couple years ago. I had enjoyed his two previous books - Flags of our Fathers and Flyboys, but he completely lost me with Imperial Cruise. He was clearly pushing an agenda... that being that Teddy Roosevelt was the source of all evil in the 20th Century and he alone was responsible for the war in the Pacific with Japan. While I am sure TR made his share of mistakes, I can't overlook the fact that Bradley gives the Japanese empire a complete pass on their atrocities that began long before war broke out with the US.

During our discussions, my mom's boyfriend (his name is Andrew) asked me if I thought the outcome of WW2 in the Pacific was advantageous to the U.S. He believes that we were engineered into entering the war to seek some kind of mercantile advantage on behalf of dark and mysterious oligarchical forces (capitalism being the bane of all socialists) rather than as a national defense response to an unprovoked military attack. I said that of course it was advantageous to win the war............for ALL nations, not just the U.S. Japan is unquestionably a more prosperous and free nation today for having lost the war. It benefitted Andrew's soviet coreligionists for the Japanese to lose. It benefitted Andrew's Chinese coreligionists for the Japanese to lose. It benefitted all the peoples of all the Pacific islands, from Hawaii to Guam to Okinawa. It benefitted New Guinea and Indonesia and India and Korea, etc., etc, etc. Every single nation large and small that Japan invaded benefitted by Japan losing the war, and even Japan benefitted........but somehow in Andrew's eyes this is immoral because somewhere along the line, some people also profited economically by supplying the war effort........never mind that this war effort also raised the standard of living for the average American on the home front, who suddenly had nearly zero unemployment, as well as the untold millions of civilians the world over who were freed from the boot-heel of fascist oppression.

He thinks we invaded France at Normandy for the same reasons—to serve the economic interests of oligarchical overlords, rather than because it was simply the right thing to do either geopolitically or morally. In his view.......and I am repeating his words, "there is no truth; only interpretation."

This morning at church, I asked a friend of mine who teaches history at a local JC if he had ever read the Zinn book. He said that he had deliberately avoided anything Zinn had written because it reflected a vile world view. He also said that this particular book is currently the most widely used U.S. History textbook in American universities........and that is both frightening, AND one of the reasons I believe that there is some possibility of witnessing the end of the nation as we know it in my lifetime, and a near certainty of it within my son's lifetime. The only possible goal of this kind of "history" is to teach people to hate their nation so much that they are willing to see an end to it.

The Annoyed Man wrote: This morning at church, I asked a friend of mine who teaches history at a local JC if he had ever read the Zinn book. He said that he had deliberately avoided anything Zinn had written because it reflected a vile world view. He also said that this particular book is currently the most widely used U.S. History textbook in American universities........and that is both frightening, AND one of the reasons I believe that there is some possibility of witnessing the end of the nation as we know it in my lifetime, and a near certainty of it within my son's lifetime. The only possible goal of this kind of "history" is to teach people to hate their nation so much that they are willing to see an end to it.

That is unfortunate. It will be interesting if this is what my daughter sees when she get to college in about 10 years. I guess I should read this book before then and know how to deal with it if that does happen. She will probably already know how to deal with it herself, but it also might be good for me to know.

Andrew sounds like a very interesting, albeit warped, man.

From what you've said about this Andrew, you are never going to change his mind. He has it made up and believes his revisionist history. There's no point in even trying to argue with him unless you just enjoy the conversation

kragluver wrote:From what you've said about this Andrew, you are never going to change his mind. He has it made up and believes his revisionist history. There's no point in even trying to argue with him unless you just enjoy the conversation

I actually don't enjoy the conversation. I endure it, because it makes my mother happy for me to endure it.....because it makes Andrew feel relevant and involved in the lives of her family. If it weren't for these conversations, I would think Andrew to be a delightful old man because he really does have that old-world charm and courtliness about him. I just can't stand his politics and engaging with him in order to keep the peace with my mother is just my cross to bear.