Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Very much this. I was an exchange student in the US in 2005 and my US history teacher (yes, their history classes are commonly split between us and "rest of the world") exclusively worked with excerpts from Zinn.
I understood once I leafed through the official textbook. It was about as bad as you can imagine.
So yes, Zinn is far from "objective" or "neutral". It's a deliberate choice because
a) it's supposed to counterbalance the terribly whitewashed school books and b) there's a case to be made that no text, not even scientific ones, is ever truly objective or neutral because reality is a construct.
The latter is a more philosophical debate, but nonetheless an important one. Since there is no single objective truth, you'll usually dare better by considering varying interpretations of "truth" before making your mind up.
In other words: you'll never get the full picture, but if you assemble enough puzzle pieces you increase your chances of understanding the bigger picture, and, more importantly, you'll gain a sense for when somebody is just off their rocker.
Well, you don’t have to get to “reality is a construct” with a history textbook. No textbooks can include the entire past. History is made at a constant rate and you have to learn it faster than it is made. So history textbooks by definition have to omit some things, and bias can always creep in when you choose which things to include or omit.
That said, it’s really important that Americans read Howard Zinn. We still have people who don’t have a proper understanding of why the Civil War was fought. Or the Revolutionary War. Or the Iraq War.
If you average a lie with the truth do you get a more accurate truth or a less accurate one?
How did you jump from a discussion about opposing perspectives on a single, unknowable truth to "one must be right and everything else a lie"?
I didn't?
I mean, you're going back a to true/false dichotomy.
Good point I should embrace the only thing real is our outrage truth of our society. No wonder Zinn is so popular. Hey let's save some time. Whatever strawman you want me to make why don't you use the power of imagination and make it real? That way I say what you want me to say so you can deliver the counter-arguments you want to make.
Fuck truth, we don't need it. Go read People's History, use horse dewormer to cure Covid, only eat "organic", and deny that our planet is burning.