Objective Recount Of History

Punk, the truth of history, just like of everything else, is contextual. Zinn, Chomsky, Moore, take facts out of context and string them together. Thus to verify whether they are right or not, it is not enough to ask whether their facts are accurate,but also whether it’s accurate how these men strung those facts together, and what they try to achieve by it.

Thank you Free Capitalist, that was my point exactly. I believe I’ve made my point here, so I’m going to bow out of this discussion for the moment.

Punk, that’s TWO leftist capitalism-hating crackpots that you’ve attempted to construe as legitimate. I wonder who the third will be…

Punk, the truth of history, just like of everything else, is contextual. Zinn, Chomsky, Moore, take facts out of context and string them together. Thus to verify whether they are right or not, it is not enough to ask whether their facts are accurate,but also whether it’s accurate how these men strung those facts together, and what they try to achieve by it.

I agree, FC. In bare bones form, I look at a particular historian’s book for three factors he offers: facts, interpretation of facts, and evaluation. A historian may make an error – or worse, an act of evasion – at any step in that chain.

Few historians are Objectivists (and even if they are, there is no guarantee they are accurate in facts, interpretation, and evaluation). We must read about history through books written by conservatives and leftists. Both are biased. They both have values which might distort their collection of facts, their interpretation of the facts collected, and their evaluation of the results – might, that is, if they don’t use all their tools of objectivity (for example, inviting early critical reviews by other historians in the field of study).

A book that is defective in its evaluation (America is rotten) may still have its facts straight (the U. S. government largely tolerated slavery for decades and made radical changes only after a civil war had started) and even its historical interpretation correct. Such a book has value for some objective readers.

A book that is defective in its evaluation and even in its interpretation can still offer some value if the historian has brought to light facts not otherwise known to historians. Such a book has value for some objective readers.

A book that is careless in collecting facts, mistaken or dishonest in interpretation, and false in its evaluation has no value to objective readers.

If I were doing a study of the U. S. Civil War, for example, I would deliberately read histories by both conservatives and leftists – and then compare the results for facts, methods of interpretation, and standards of evaluation.

If you are only going to read one history of the US dont read Zinn

If you are going to read several histories of the US, Zinn is a good one to read among them.  There is much in there that is normally left out and provides a more complete picture.

But we cannot dismiss a book just because it presents facts we are uncomfortable with.

That is a snide insinuation–implying that we are somehow evading historical truths because we are “uncomfortable” with them. We are not “uncomfortable” with the facts presented by Zinn or any others like him. We simply consider their methodology to be invalid and the motive behind the methodology to be (allegedly) sinister.