Great Howard Zinn article about Nationalism for fans of A People's History.
 

http://www.progressive.org/june05/zinn0605.php

He's bang on about nationalism if you ask me.

In my eyes Zinn is one of the great writers and historians of our time. If you haven't read A People's History of the United States, you're really missing out, it's something everyone should read.

Dont you have a boxing match today?

very good article

Here's the book for anyone who hasn't read it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...926147-1100119

funforone, since this isn't a coloring book, that link is probably not for you.

Howard Zinn writes biased crap.

Sore from the karate lesson?

Howard Zinn has written the best history of the United States to date. Maybe your mind is too clogged up with biased crap?

Good article, but he's missing the point.

Not really. I tend to read regardless of political affiliation, and judge arguments by their merit. Unfortunately, Howard Zinn writes biased crap.

I bet you think Noam Chomsky's great too, huh?

What point?

He seems to think that people give a fuck about what happened 110 years ago to a bunch of Fillipinos.

Noam Chomsky is also a great author. What's wrong with telling the truth about US foreign policy? I realize inside the US this is called bias, in the rest of the world it's called logic. Chomsky and Zinn are obviously progressives, that doesn't mean that what they're saying is wrong. If you don't read Chomsky chances are you don't know less about world issues than someone who does.

A lot of people do. Not everyone is conditioned to disregard history as irrelevant.

another thread were rich focuses his time and energy at the us. :sleep

Leave your witty comment below:

Just imagine in 50 yrs when theres a war over clean drinking water.
Thats where we are heading.

Your heroes are my terrorists and vice versa. :2 cents:

Sound familiar?

A real understand of history is the first step to understanding the present.

That's true I'm sure, but how can someone who documents what other people and governments are doing be a terrorist?

If we make it that long.

I'm not interested in the past. If one dude says that people with turbans are bad - that's good enough for me.

You make the unforgivable mistake of believing that if something fits your worldview, it must be the truth. The exact same mistake that conservatives, extremist muslims and christians, communists and radical socialists, laissez-faire capitalists and anarchists all make.

People like you read Zinn, Chomsky, Hertz, Barber, Klein, but never things that go against your worldview. And if, by chance, you do read something that goes against what you believe, the principle of charity will be the last thing on your mind.

The best way to find the truth is to use as many sources as possible, and weigh them all against eachother. If you do that, it's plain that authors like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky use only that information which suits their agenda - they ignore everything which doesn't suit their rhetorical needs.

You know how 12clicks ignores every argument that could go against his position? You do exactly the same thing.

ing


fucking mondays

"Great"? "Truth"? He's writing page up and page down about his opinions.

In my own opinion protectionism and love towards one's immediate or extended group is perfectly natural and valid. In any case it has good fundations in the genetic makeup itself, so the extension of the group and family instincts to cover your nation has more merit certainly than ideologically fostered postulations about everyone having the exact same "value" (as if that is relevant to the issue), and consequent rights to place their feet and do whatever they want wherever they want.

I agree with you though that nationalism has LEAD TO some unfortunate incidents at various points in time, and that USA compassionates are often taking their nationalism and forming it into an ideology where they are some kind of chosen people that have the right to do whatever they wish to other peoples.

You're wrong about me, I read as much as I possibly can. I don't ignore any arguments. I look up and verify facts from Chomsky and Zinn books just as much as I do with anything else. I'll read anything you suggest to me. I don't take on these people's ideologies, but there are a lot of things I agree with them about. Obviously I am a progressive who is against imperialist war and a supporter of human rights, I certainly share that with both of these two authors. That doesn't mean I just mindlessly follow whatever they have to say, I don't. Chomsky is one of the best and only sources for finding the UN resolutions that are doubled vetoed by the US, for example.

For once I would like you or someone else to explain what's wrong about what they're saying instead if just complaining that they have a political ideology. Everyone does. So, you're not going to listen to what progressive intellectuals have to say? That's just what you accused me of being guilty of.

What is it that they're saying that you disagree with? What is their agenda, what are they twisting around to fit their argument, and what is your take on the actual situation? I'm more than willing to listen.

I agree with you that it is natural, and you're right, it has led to some unfortunate incidents... that's wording it nicely. The natural sense of nationalism gets exploited very easily, as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and present day North Korea and United States. When nationalism starts to take priority over free speech and open debate, it's a problem.

Rich, one more thing. Wouldn't a family locking their house at night (or day for that matter) and only letting guests in after they've knocked and introduced themselves be comparable to a nation only letting in people who have first spoken to border agents who have judged them to not be of detriment to the nation?

I don't really believe you read as much as you possibly can. If you did, you wouldn't be into Zinn and Chomsky. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

I'm not guilty of what I'm accusing you of... I actually have half a dozen books by Chomsky, and apart from his stuff on language and - to a lesser extent - Manufacturing Consent, it's all empty rhetoric.

I'm drunk at the moment, so I won't be able to give a very strong argumentation, but I'll try to explain why it's crap by referring to that article you posted a link to.

The article you posted does several separate things and tries to pass them off as one and the same. It gives a number of examples of atrocities by groups, it talks about nationalism and it refers to contemporary politics.
What if I were to write an article where I combined the atrocities of the French Revolution with those of stalinism, the inefficiency of social democracy and today's left-wing politicians. That would make just as little sense as this article.

Strong logical connections are needed when one makes an argument, and authors like Zinn and Chomsky fail to give them for the most part, relying instead on emotional association and slippery slope fallacies. Aside from that, they also fail to take into account the harsh nature of reality.

I think you would win the bet hands down.

You saying it does not make it true...now does it...Richy boy. I say he writes history with a POV...an agenda.

..."telling the truth"...from their POV's and agenda. There is more than one "truth"...eh Richy boy.

Valid points indeed.

Once again...all valid points.

Illegal immigrants are one of the vampires sucking the life out of our country.

Zinn does a disservice by mindlessly supporting people who break the rules.

Illegal immigrants are criminals. They have no right to cross into our country.

Zinn and Chomsky are just two more assholes...with an opinion...and are of no import in the scheme of things.

Whether you agree with their opinions or not, their opinions are much much more powerful and important than yours, simply because people actually listen to them. They have the ability to influence others towards their way of thinking.

Just because you don't like what they're saying, doesn't mean it isn't important. I don't like Ann Coulter, but I'll admit that her opinions are important simply because people listen to her and follow her. Hitler's opinions were important, not because I agree with them, but because people were influenced by them and followed him.

Zinn an Chomsky are both commies and should be hanged :2 cents:

I love American History...

I've read a People's History... He tends to lean to heavily on an externalist explanation for history. Externalist (class, economics, hegemony, etc) pressures do exist, sure... but CULTURE and RELIGION (or use of religion for political means) are powerful factors as well. :2 cents:

I believe in their case...fan...would be more applicable than follower...though both words have similar meanings.

ok, fuck is this Introduction to International Relations 101 all over?


so whos' buying the GLOOMY MALTHUS THEORY?


dammit, I thought these discussions were over already?



come on people, let's get back to more important rants like 2257 and I'd hit it shit...

. :thumbsup

Anyone who questions the government at all is helping the terrorists!

Bush should be made king and Christianity is the only true religion!

Liberals are helping the terrorists by reading books!

I've been meaning to read that book. It's on my "to read" list....along with alot of other stuff I need to read.

sounds very familiar to what you'd hear from radical wahabi sunni muslims that I spent some time with overseas :/


scarey, but we have become our enemy in some ways, seriously...


.