Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Meet Howard Zinn

Parents beware! America's public schools are failing our children. Whatever happened to teaching about the great Americans of the past who had an impact on our country? Sure, most schools teach these foundational truths regarding our nation's history, but more and more of them are omitting instruction on key moments in American history and replacing them with tales about how evil America is. American exceptionalism is MIA in today's public schools.

Read about such a history textbook author from Michelle Malkin:

“Social Justice” for grade-schoolers: The Howard Zinn Education Project

school indoctrination
Photoshop: Leo Alberti

"Howard Zinn’s Marxist history book, “A People’s History of the United States,” is de rigeur reading on college campuses and in Hollywood salons.

Dan Flynn wrote a trenchant review of the book several years ago, concluding:


'More striking than Zinn’s inaccuracies—intentional and otherwise—is what he leaves out.

Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate all fail to merit a mention. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are entirely absent. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers. While Zinn sees fit to mention that immigrants often went into professions like ditch-digging and prostitution, American success stories like those of Alexander Hamilton, John Jacob Astor, and Louis B. Mayer—to name but a few—are excluded. Valley Forge rates a single fleeting reference, while D-Day’s Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles are left out. In their place, we get several pages on the My Lai massacre and colorful descriptions of U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

How do students learn about U.S. history with all these omissions? They don’t.

Zinn utters perhaps the most honest words of A People’s History of the United States in the conclusion of the book’s 1995 edition, conceding that his work is “a biased account.” “I am not troubled by that,” he adds, “because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction—so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people’s movements—that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission.” Two wrongs, he seems to be saying, make a right.

More recently, Zinn made clear that it is not just the idea of objectivity that he finds fault with, but facts themselves. In the current updated version of A People’s History, the author declares: “there is no such thing as pure fact.” Whether Zinn really believes this, or if it serves to rationalize intellectual dishonesty, one can only guess.
'


Now, there’s a documentary version scheduled to air on the History Channel — reportedly bankrolled by Zinn groupie/actor Matt Damon — and Zinn, Inc. has launched an 'education project' to support wider dissemination of his anti-American, anti-capitalist propaganda material to K-12 schools.

Actor Adam Baldwin wonders about the legality of Zinn’s indoctrination plans:


'In “A People’s History,” Prof. Zinn declares:

Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable… because if you have any kind of a social aim… then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.

Moreover:

Professor Zinn announces the overtly political agenda of A People’s History in an explanatory coda to the 1995 edition. Zinn explains to the reader that he has no interest in striving for objectivity, and that his history is ‘a biased account.’ Professor Zinn explains: ‘I am not troubled by that. I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of the social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself is a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.’


That subjective social aim and biased accounting, when used as the basis for student instruction, is inconsistent with state education codes, local school board policies and administrative regulations.

Public schools are required to provide varying points of view and deal with issues in a factual, rational, objective manner and in a spirit that clearly indicates an attempt to promote greater understanding. They are prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

…Hopefully schools will become more cautious before agreeing to institute such curriculum and lesson plans in their classrooms.

Howard Zinn is a famous educator.

Does what he and his Zinn Education Project collaborators and celebrities think will advance causes of humanity comply with the law, and is it ethical instructional material?

If not, then it is inappropriate for use in America’s public schools
.'


Reason #99,999,951 to home school or start your own charter school.

Fight the power."

14 comments:

Diogenes said...

Good gosh. you really ARE clueless when it comes to American history, aren't you?

Howard Zinn has been around forever. he's nothing new. And he sure as hell has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama. But, hey, everything's fair game to you, isn't it? Anything you find objectionable, you find a way to tie it into a President you cannot stomach -- whether or not your contention is true.

Yeah, he's widely read on college campuses -- but almost always as an "alternative" to the traditional views on American history.

I don't know of a single K-12 school that uses -- or would even consider using -- Zinn's book as a history textbook, in any way , shape or form. I certainly wouldn't, even if my school system would allow it.

Zinn's ideas are, in my lowly opinion, possibly good for one thing: to play devil's advocate and encourage kids to look at things from a different angle that the usual.

The irony of you going after Obama via Howard Zinn is in Zinn's contention that objectivity isn't possible. You're walking, living proof of Zinn's hyposthesis. You cannot be objective about anything that disagrees with your Religious Rightwingnut view of the world. Obama is your Devil. And you lose all objectivity when it comes to him.

The thinkg I still can't get is this: how do you reconcile your "anything for the cause" mentality with the Ninth Commandment, "thou shalt not bear false witness"? You lie, and you spread other's lies, in your quest to bring down Obama. How do you live with that?

Debra Moore said...

A little sensitive are you? I did not even mention Obama. This liberal indoctrination in public schools has been going on long before Obama.

No lying here. When you can't think of anything better to say, you attack me.

Diogenes said...

Yeah, once again, I point out to you how stupid you are, that you do things you don't even remember... and the comment mysteriously disappears.

Hide your head in the sand, Ms. Moore. We're all better off for it.

Diogenes said...

By the way, see if you can manage to print it this time:

You suggested I was "a little sensitive" because you didn't even mention Obama in your post.

Did you not even look at the graphic YOU posted with YOUR comment? Notice the colorful Obama logo you so slyly included?

You lie SO MUCH that you don't even realize you do it anymore.

And you call yourself a "Christian"? You're a disgrace to the very idea. And whoever your "spirituasl leader" is, they need a refresher course, 'cause you sure ain't getting it.

Anonymous said...

Diogenes: Blah blah blah, don't you have some papers to grade?
Remember don't use a red pen it might offend someone.

Diogenes said...

"Blah blah blah"

Your best comeback yet, Anon! Congrats!

(By the way, I haven't ever graded in red. I use green, just to be different. And guess what? I'll stack my kids up against you any day of the week!)

Diogenes said...

BTW, you may be on to something about this nefarious communist drivel on History Channel. After doing a little research, it appears that it's a string of actors reading the words of dangerous subversives like Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

You probably don't know Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ms. Moore. She, along with the more recognizable Susan B. Anthony, was one of the women who worked her entire life to get YOU the right to vote. And America -- being the unquestioned Land of Opportunity For All -- allowed women to vote.... in 1920.

Debra Moore said...

Diogenes, you are right. The photo does include Obama, and America's children are being indoctrinated by his policies.

But, the article itself really had nothing to do with him. It was actually a slam against America's educational system.

Diogenes said...

It was a slam propagated by that truly vile creature, Michele Malkin, and pushed out by rightwingnuts. You suggest that it "really" didn't have anything to do with Obama? It had NOTHING to do with Obama whatsoever -- but you found it necessary to throw in a gratuitous swipe just out of habit. And it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the public school systems in America. It's one guy who helped generate a show on History TV. No ocnnection with public education or Obama whatsoever.

You're one sick witch.

Rosemary said...

I think Diogenes has something personal going on and has a difficult time dealing with it. Belittling others who have differing opinions is how he/she deals with it.

I hope you get better Diogenes and for once in your life, chill out!

Anonymous said...

Let me start off by prefacing with the fact that I am a sophomore in high school, currently taking AP US I.

By no means would I ever consider Zinn's book to be the sole source for an entire course in American history. We have another textbook (which is largely unbiased "The American Pageant" if you want to know) which supplies all of our basic information on everything relating to the course. Sections from Howard Zinn's book have been assigned to us as homework occasionally. I believe that as an addition, nothing but good can come from this. It is important to learn about the good qualities of America, I agree, but not just that. Everyone must be aware that America is not the perfect nation that it is made out to be in children's books. Without this "other side" that Zinn mentions throughout his book, we would be stuck believing that America is always right. Without an explanation of both sides, we are doomed to have a political system where the uninformed masses are making the key decisions, incorrectly.

Dave said...

So should people not talk about social movements? Not all history books are written to be text books for schools.
Also, anybody who has taken even elementary history understands that the concept of "unbiased history" is laughable to anybody who actually understands the study of history.
No history book contains everything that has ever happened, all authors, be it school text book authors or authors of the histories of people's movements, must make a decision on what aspects of history are important to tell, and which can be omitted in their recounting.
The problem is that every history book chooses to omit the same facts is a disservice to the study of history, because agree with it or not, it is good to know about important victories and failures of all sides.
In conclusion, the fact that you don't see the history that you study as biased makes you completely indoctrinated to the point where you don't even understand that you have only read one perspective of history and one part.
Why not learn about the problems that have come up in America?
Maybe if we had we would realize the deregulatory policies of the past several decades had been tried before and had resulted in unstable economies and exploitation. Instead we pretend like exploitation never occurred, and learn nothing from its occurences in the past.
By omitting that aspect, America set itself up to be f-d again by greedy right wingers and their failed policies and weak legitimizations that have never worked.

Anonymous said...

What cracks me up most is that, whereas Zinn and others like him claim to be presenting the "other side" to "balance" the dominant view... they are the dominant view. How many times were you saturated with the left-wing version of US history before you ever even heard of, say, the election fraud Democrats have committed, or the real danger of Communism worldwide in the mid-20th Century, or the two-sided nature of the earliest Indian wars, or the inventions and innovations American businesspeople made that improved lives everywhere, or the violence many leftist "activists" have wreaked etc? What Zinn compiled was the party line itself.

Anonymous said...

lol, I don't understand how you can write a whole article against Howard Zinn, but you don't NAME ONE THING he made up, or lied about. Just a couple of historical events he left out, probably because they have already been written about in history books a thousand times over, and are irrelevant to the point he is trying to make.