Let the Readers Decide

Compare two descriptions of the same historical event… the American Revolution.  The first is an introduction by the esteemed Colonial era scholar, Gordon Wood.   The second passage is the analysis of “radical historian”  Howard Zinn.  Two very different ideas by men who cannot possibly be writing in the same discipline.

“The Revolution did not just eliminate monarchy and create republics; it actually reconstituted what Americans meant by public or state power and brought about an entirely new kind of popular politics and a new kind of democratic officeholder. . . . Most important, it made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people — their pursuit of happiness — the goal of society and government. The Revolution did not merely create a political and legal environment conducive to economic expansion; it also released powerful popular entrepreneurial and commercial energies that few realized existed and transformed the economic landscape of the country. In short, the Revolution was the most radical and most far-reaching event in American history.”

“Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”

Liberty, equality, pursuit of happiness… be damned.  The founding of the United States was simply  for exploitation and profit.  Now, Mr. Zinn can prove all of this with documentation, right?  Ummmmmm…..

About these ads

1 Comment

Filed under News

One response to “Let the Readers Decide

  1. Dave

    As a professional provocateur, Zinn did not concern himself with meddlesome things like evidence, substantiation, etc. He simply took Goebbels advice and ran with it: tell a big enough lie often enough, loudly enough, and people believe it. To call his book “history” is to cheapen and degrade history, and it substantially soften his own radical revolutionary bent. To call his book history is to consider Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals an effective treatise on responsible governance and public policy. Thanks for shaking the trees on Zinn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s