[Big Mac]

Howard Zinn, [So-Called] Historian, Is Dead at 87 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes, I rejoice in the death of those I disagree with.

[Big Mac]

I'm glad we agree. Those who spread evil in their lives, and especially those who profit off their evil, don't deserve to be mourned, sorry.

[SpaceMonkey]

And this evil was?

[The Final Dakar]

So what did this guy do that was so horrible? The obituary didn't manage to reveal it to me.

Edit: Other than have some very obvious liberal leanings

[Big Mac]

Profiting off of counterfeit, Marxist revisionist "history" that a large portion of college students are compelled to buy and read and be indoctrinated by. Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

[SpaceMonkey]

So "counterfeit, Marxist revisionist 'history' = evil. Got it. I have to say your views are more extreme than mine. I usually reserve the adjective "evil" for things that actually hurt people, not ideas which may or may not have some influence but which, fundamentally, do not. Your second sentence is even more disturbing, because it suggests that you identify the interests of the United States with morality.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, I am extreme in my hatred of the radical left. And yes, I do believe propaganda can be evil and do harm. I also believe that in spite of all its faults and flaws, the United States has been the most benevolent super power the world has ever known. Agitprop labeled as historical truth that seeks to undermine the United States based on mostly falsehood and libel is evil.

[The Final Dakar]

I'll give Big Mac a pass on the evil thing, if only because I think people like Falwell and Robertson are pretty much the opposite number on the other end of the spectrum*

*not that I'd use the term evil, but I think basic attitude towards these people is shared

[Big Mac]

I'm not much of a fan of Falwell, either, for the record.

[OreoCookie]

I think it's despicable to start cheering when someone has died. Especially when this someone has only tried to communicate his ideas peacefully. You don't have to agree with him/her, but to wish someone bad is just low.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, perhaps it was a little harsh. I don't like communists. I think the world is a better place without them.

[The Final Dakar]

Out of curiosity, was anyone in this thread compelled to buy and read any of his books?

[Big Mac]

I bought A People's History because it was required reading for a course, skimmed it, then dropped the course.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I am extreme in my hatred of the radical left. And yes, I do believe propaganda can be evil and do harm.

Of course propaganda can do harm. But we're not discussing in the abstract here, we're talking about a specific individual. What harm did Zinn inflict? If, because of Zinn's general influence, my history courses made a point to mention that, in addition to freeing the slaves, Abraham Lincoln was also a racist, I don't view that as moral or immoral.

I also believe that in spite of all its faults and flaws, the United States has been the most benevolent super power the world has ever known. Agitprop labeled as historical truth that seeks to undermine the United States based on mostly falsehood and libel is evil.

I would agree with your characterization of the United States, but I believe the United States has been mostly benevolent because it has had the luxury of doing so and because its interests have coincided with the global public good (both of these factors are the result of America's historically peculiar position at the end of World War Two). But whether the United States succeeds or fails at its interests fundamentally can't be a moral question because the outcomes, good or bad, depend on where you sit. When you get right down to it, both you and I want the United States to succeed because we live here. I suspect that Howard Zinn would have told you that he wanted the United States to succeed as well, but on his own terms.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, perhaps it was a little harsh. I don't like communists. I think the world is a better place without them.

I prefer to fight ideas and not spread hatred towards people. Especially when these people are convinced they're fighting a fair and just fight. I believe that you're convinced that your ideas are `right' and I think your motivation is just, for instance.

In either case, the best way to get rid of stupid ideas is to discuss them in the open.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, perhaps it was a little harsh. I don't like communists. I think the world is a better place without them.

How many communists do you know? Maybe some of them are great people.

[Big Mac]

Don't think so. I hate Nazis in the same way. Do you think any of them are good people?

[sek929]

So this dude was evil, and turned our colleged-aged kids into communists.

Why the hell have I never heard about this man before?

Seems to me he is just some lefty who some righty doesn't like, unfortunately that's business as usual around here.

"I disagree with this man, HE IS EVIL!!! RARRR!"

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Don't think so. I hate Nazis in the same way. Do you think any of them are good people?

Even though there is no mention of Hitler I'm still gonna throw down a penalty flag for Godwin's Law here.

You do realize you just compared this man to the Nazis right? Maybe, uh, you'd like to rethink that outlandish claim?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Don't think so. I hate Nazis in the same way. Do you think any of them are good people?

I think there is a difference between people who actually did do bad things and people whose ideas you may think are bad. If all the nazis (in Germany) did was spout out their brain dead ideas, they wouldn't have been a big deal. It's what people do with ideas.

And to compare this guy to people who are directly responsible for the death of millions is ludicrous.

[RobOnTheCape]

About 15 years ago Howard Zinn came to my University and spoke to us. He mentioned that he, in his writings gives one side of American history, and that the course books that universities usually require students to read, (even moreso the books in grade schools), give the other side or version. He said that we should all read both sides and then come to our own conclusion as to the truth of American history. He then started his lecture.

That doesn't sound to scary to me. In fact I wish that each of my history teachers and professors opened their semesters with the same intro and taught students to think critically, and for themselves instead of force feeding one side or another.

I've read his books and found them to be eye opening. He cites his work enough where the events that he's writing about did happen, though the background which lead to those events might be seen through different color glasses by different people, the events themselves are hardly disputable. Reading the books I've often wondered why people feel so threatened by a history they don't agree with.

Remember, unlike our schools, he is not asking you to believe his work. He's simply asking that you look at both sides and come to your own conclusions.

[Big Mac]

If that truly was his message, then I owe his memory something of an apology. The problem is, the text that many history classes have students read is Zinn's or those intimating him, and there is most often no balance because most professors are left-wing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, perhaps it was a little harsh. I don't like communists. I think the world is a better place without them.

This does raise an interesting point that deserves to be discussed more frequently: In general, what the hell is up with the left's idolization of communist dictators, thugs and tyrants?

I've asked for a straight answer a million times, and of course, never received one, and can only conclude that it's due to (at worst) complete and total ignorance of, or (at best) whitewash of actual history. This probably helped along by people like Zinn and others who've crafted this total fantasy around some of the worst mass-murdering thugs of all time.

Take Zinn- he held a very typically leftist fawning view of Marx- who in reality was a vicious racist and much of his *actual* writing reads as inseparable from Mein Kampf. Hitler even borrowed much of his political ideology from Marx. Marx and Engels together even invented the concept of the gas chamber for all those 'undesirables'.

To put communism in perspective with Nazism (and by the way, any actual reading of real historic context reveals clearly that the name National Socialism is no accident as it's made out to be)- Nazism killed 6-10 million people, communism killed over 100 million people.

National Socialists who believed in pretty much exactly the same things only with a German Nationalism spiel tacked on, are (deservingly) reviled and held up to be the worst thing that ever happened. Anyone you disagree with, no matter how absurd the charge, gets accused of being one, and anyone who actually does express any sort of agreement with the real McCoy is (deservingly) scorned.

And yet, on the left, the ideological founders of communism are often celebrated, and dictators who carried out all the dirty work are warm and cuddly guys to be fawned over.

Che Guevara (mass-murderer, thug, racist, terrorist, etc.) is glorified in movies and displayed on t-shirts. Celebrities often worship him, when the *actual* guy banned their works.

Fidel Castro (mass-murderer, thug, dictator, etc.) is fawned over. Members of the US government go down and kiss his feet, and Hollywood nitwits sing his praises.

Mao- a guy who personally oversaw more mass-murders than ANYONE in all of human history- is 'no big deal' when an Obama cabinet member invokes him as one of her favorite philosophers. I mean, this is the guy who's *actual* philosophy was that anyone who opposed him should be led in the streets and beaten by mobs. His *actual* philosophy was that "half of China will probably have to die in order to implement my goals."

This guy's image on the white house Christmas tree, "no big deal."

All of these things, again, one can only attribute to complete and absolute ignorance of who these people really were. I mean, do I really believe Anita Dunn agrees (as her favorite philosopher did) that hundreds of millions of people dying to achieve the states goals is okay? I really just can't believe that she does- she's just like a lot of leftists, she simply has NO FRIGGEN CLUE who the guy really was, has read nothing but claptrap like that written by other clueless people like Zinn, and so she spouts something so utterly stupid about a person she really knows nothing about. At the end of the day, I believe this has to be what it really is- so many on the left simply don't know anything about the actual history of communism, of Marx, of Engels, of Lenin, of the real origins and belief system of socialism, etc.

They believe in the fantasy that's perpetuated by others who are just as ignorant of the reality.

The left loves to crow on about the right being aligned with people like Hitler, but the reality is, you'll never see any mainstream right-leaning person walk around with some Goebbels t-shirt on. You won't find them writing fawning plays about Hermann Göring, or saying that Mussolini was one of their favorite philosophers. And keep in mind, that all of the above were *lightweights* when it comes to mass-murder, terror and genocide compared to their communist counterparts.

And yet from the political left, we DO see people spouting clueless accolades for communist thugs who ultimately have done a hell of a lot more damage in the world.

I ask again- WHAT THE F IS UP WITH THAT? Is it really so hard to crack a history book (no, not one written by someone else equally clueless) and then actually read it?

[OreoCookie]

I don't want to be nitpicky, but you lost your chance to `balance' the argument when you put his book aside and dropped the class.* If your professor was any good, he should have encouraged his students to read not one but several books.

* I haven't heard of this guy before so I don't know anything about the ideas he has put into his books.

[SpaceMonkey]

And Crash ruins another thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If that truly was his message, then I owe his memory something of an apology. The problem is, the text that many history classes have students read is Zinn's or those intimating him, and there is most often no balance because most professors are left-wing.

I thought you dropped this course?

[besson3c]

Big Mac: do you feel as strongly about the KKK?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And Crash ruins another thread.

Don't worry- I certainly didn't expect you to be able to give an honest answer to the question.

[SpaceMonkey]

I don't think you expected anyone to give you an honest answer to your question. I mean, really, are you surprised that you can't get a "straight answer" to "What the hell is up with the left's idolization of communist dictators, thugs and tyrants?" If your question is insulting, don't expect much of an answer at all. Really, just a common-sense idea that I would expect most people who have interacted in the world on an adult level to understand.

There is maybe a germ of a point in your post that could be discussed intelligently, but the way that you have decided to go about it means it is all-but inevitable that any discussion would devolve into name-calling.

[OreoCookie]

This `germ of a point' has nothing do to with the current thread, it's offtopic.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

If you're insulted by an honest question (and my post contains many examples of why it's an honest question, you just, as usual, can't deal with the facts) then that's on you.

But like I said, I didn't expect an honest answer from you.

I do notice this a lot too, leftists often will argue not to bring up history and facts in a debate- and you'll of course deny that too, but I've witnessed it right here several times, just in the last few months. So when you bring up history, quotes, reveal the real Marx and Mao and others, it's 'unfair' and 'insulting'.

When you point out exactly what I pointed out- that leftists have often so snowballed themselves on the realities of these people that they HAVE created an atmosphere where one can praise history's greatest mass-murderer as a great philosopher, or walk around with the image of a brutal mass-murdering thug on themselves and not only do other people not look at them with disgust, but actually take it as a sign of how 'progressive' they are, then you're being insulting. Merely by pointing out an uncomfortable FACT.

When asked for an explanation- hell, I've even given you a pretty good one- sheer ignorance- then it's OH BOO HOO stop being so mean Crash.

It's amazing, but then again, I'm not surprised.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This `germ of a point' has nothing do to with the current thread, it's offtopic.

It's only offtopic to you, because you don't really understand the context of the topic.

Zinn was one who wrote fawning plays of a man whose ideas and philosophy led to the deaths of millions of people. It's a bit like writing a fawning play for Josef Mengele, except Mengele was, as I said, a lightweight when compared to the outcomes fostered by some of the people Zinn admired so much.

Why is that such a thing with people on the left to whitewash the real nature and character of people like Marx and Engels simply because they admired some of their social ideas?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If you're insulted by an honest question (and my post contains many examples of why it's an honest question, you just, as usual, can't deal with the facts) then that's on you.

Your question is insulting because it's prejudicial. To paraphrase: "Why does the left [including, we must assume, members of this forum who you would describe as 'leftist'] idolize mass murderers." Anyone answering must defend themselves against the inherent charge that they, too, might like to see millions slaughtered. Anyone not answering gets more snide commentary from you about how you're "not surprised" they can't answer (presumably because if they won't answer, it must be that they actually do idolize mass murderers).

It's a stupid question, and as OreoCookie mentions, off-topic.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Your question is insulting because it's prejudicial. To paraphrase: "Why does the left [including, we must assume, members of this forum who you would describe as 'leftist'] idolize mass murderers." Anyone answering must defend themselves against the inherent charge that they, too, might like to see millions slaughtered. Anyone not answering gets more snide commentary from you about how you're "not surprised" they can't answer (presumably because if they won't answer, it must be that they actually do idolize mass murderers).

It's a stupid question, and as OreoCookie mentions, off-topic.

Do you consider yourself a represenative of all things 'left'?

There's an example of what I'm talking about right here in this very thread.

Big Mac hates communists. Considering that communists have killed in excess of a hundred million people, why wouldn't he?

He's asked if he's met a communist he likes. He says he doesn't like Nazis either.

THAT is a perfectly fair answer IF one actually understands the true nature of communism. WHY should Big Mac have any more respect for a follower of a political ideology that's slaughtered countless millions and has ravaged the world for nearly 100 years, compared to a follower of a political ideology that slaughtered around 10 million people, and ravaged the world for a little over a decade?

He's called out on some false 'Godwins Law' for that answer- when in fact, it's more than a valid answer -when one doesn't see communism through some phony lens, but rather what it actually is.

So again, one has to ask- WHY has this been allowed to happen? We're told never to forget what the Nazis did (and we shouldn't) and yet the real legacy of Marxism and communism are routinely forgotten, if they were ever known by some people to begin with.

Now, again, keep in mind I'm not asking you personally- I don't expect an honest or straightforward or knowledgeable answer from you personally. I'm asking in general.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Do you consider yourself a represenative of all things 'left'?

Does it matter? I can critique your question independent of my own political views.

Now, again, keep in mind I'm not asking you personally- I don't expect an honest or straightforward or knowledgeable answer from you personally. I'm asking in general.

This again. Why do you think you can have an honest, straightforward, or knowledgeable debate while simultaneously being insulting?

Edit: to address your point above, the reason why the question about equivalence between communists and Nazis is off-topic in the context of why someone might think Zinn was "evil" is because, to the best of my knowledge, Zinn did not describe himself as a communist.

[andi*pandi]

History is written by the winners, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

[RobOnTheCape]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

History is written by the winners, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

Professor Zinn couldn't have said it better himself.

[SpaceMonkey]

An interesting article:

An experts' history of Howard Zinn - latimes.com

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Don't think so. I hate Nazis in the same way. Do you think any of them are good people?

Yes. Also, viewing America from the point of view of the losers is not necessarily anti-American or revisionist; it makes you ask questions (which is the important part.) American history from the view point of Native Americans is vastly different than the way it's usually portrayed in text books.

[hyteckit]

The South will rise again!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's only offtopic to you, because you don't really understand the context of the topic.

Your post was nothing but flamebait and a diversion from the thread's topic.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Why is that such a thing with people on the left to whitewash the real nature and character of people like Marx and Engels simply because they admired some of their social ideas?

`Real nature and character of people like Marx and Engels,' what kind of non-sense is that? Marx and Engels were just two guys that wrote a social commentary and who've tried to outline an alternative. They weren't deviants or mass murderers.

It was people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao who committed atrocities in the name of communism. It's them who `need to be' whitewashed.

[besson3c]

Crash: do you know what a leading question is?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Your post was nothing but flamebait and a diversion from the thread's topic.

`Real nature and character of people like Marx and Engels,' what kind of non-sense is that? Marx and Engels were just two guys that wrote a social commentary and who've tried to outline an alternative. They weren't deviants or mass murderers.

Marx (the REAL Marx, the one you've clearly never learned anything about due to people like Zinn) wrote at length about the racial superiority of whites, and that: "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

Both Marx and Engels referred to other races constantly as 'trash' they both used the n-word in it's full racial context when referring to blacks, they as I said before, advocated and invented the concept of rounding up the 'undesirables' and killing them with gas or some other supposedly 'humane' solution. Hitler took many of his ideas of genocide from Marx and Engels. Both were deep-rooted in the race-based eugenics beliefs of the 20th century that holds that all 'lesser' peoples are overpopulating the world and should be eradicated.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others were following Marx and Engels to the letter of their philosophies, not just the 'warm and cozy' parts about 'down with the capitalists!' that you think are trendy and hip.

Again, one has to ask, what's up with this excusing of these thugs from leftists? Why can't you admit you're ignorant about much of the philosophy of the actual people- not the fantasy people some of you think is cool to wear around on t-shirts, but the REAL people- and then bother to learn what the truth is? If you're 'insulted' by the truth being pointed out, what does that say about the house of cards you may have built a lot of your beliefs on if you think Marx et al were such stand up guys?

It was people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao who committed atrocities in the name of communism. It's them who `need to be' whitewashed.

Right, and they just did what they did in a vacuum. And why would anyone seek to 'whitewash' what the true record of what their regimes did? SO some dipshit can wear around a t-shirt with Lenin on it and not have to think about what it really means? What the F is so 'progressive' about any of that? It's just stupid.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought you dropped this course?

I had a wonderful thing that outlined the entire course called a syllabus, and that book was the core text of the course. I also saw that the professor gushed over Zinn's book and therefore that staying in the course would have been counterproductive/unenjoyable.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: do you feel as strongly about the KKK?

Absolutely, why wouldn't I?

Also, when I said I hate Nazis and asked if any were good, I obviously wasn't talking about those who tried to do good like assassinate Hitler, or Oscar Schindler types. They were decent people, not authentic Nazis.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Big Mac hates communists. Considering that communists have killed in excess of a hundred million people, why wouldn't he?

He's asked if he's met a communist he likes. He says he doesn't like Nazis either.

THAT is a perfectly fair answer IF one actually understands the true nature of communism. WHY should Big Mac have any more respect for a follower of a political ideology that's slaughtered countless millions and has ravaged the world for nearly 100 years, compared to a follower of a political ideology that slaughtered around 10 million people, and ravaged the world for a little over a decade?

CRASH has defended my position in this thread much better than I did. Far better. Thank you, CRASH!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

THAT is a perfectly fair answer IF one actually understands the true nature of communism.

Just for the sake of clarity, CRASH, what do you think is "the true nature of communism"?

[OldManMac]

I have to admit, it is pretty uncomfortable to find out how the U. S. was really "found" by a butcher and torturer.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I am extreme in my hatred of the radical left. And yes, I do believe propaganda CAN be evil and do harm. I also believe that in spite of all its faults and flaws, the United States has been the most benevolent super power the world has ever known. Agitprop labeled as historical truth that seeks to undermine the United States based on mostly falsehood and libel is evil.

Glad you qualified that ....now you can keep wearing your Roger Ailes shirt AND hold your head high! LOL!

[besson3c]

Big Mac: honestly dude, your self-professed hatred is really not healthy for you.

[Big Mac]

besson, what was the point of asking me about my view of the KKK?