I think I might be finally done with one of my favorite channels on TV. I’m 10 minutes into it, and its obvious that its just a venue for Howard Zinn to spout his left-wing view of US history. He trashes the US Constitution barely 7 minutes in. If you don’t know who Zinn is, he wrote the book A People’s History of the United States, basically a history book that says that the US and white European settlers have done nothing but oppress the rest of the world and minorities. This book was famously mentioned in Good Will Hunting:
If you want to read a real history book, read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. That book will knock you on your ass.
Zinn is probably a big reason we hear so much leftwing hate speech from Matt Damon, since Damon grew up next to Zinn in Massachusetts.
Guys they ALL do, but the more letters (intelligently well written ones) they (channel owners) receive in protest the better chance of them reducing the libtards (show producers) editorial license in the docos. These days we should accept that the media is our enemy, but they are still whores to the soon to be very inflated dollar & they will take letters seriously.
Funny, I saw the commercial for it and saw Damon in the ad and I instantly wondered if it was going to be his liberal, Bourne Conspiracy BS. Thanks for saving me time for “Whale Wars”.
In the opening, he says he kept having students ask him if he knew of a book that gave a different, or radical/critical history of American history. He said he couldn’t find one so he decided to write one himself.
When libtards like him write crap like that, its accepted, but when you see libertarian revisionist history, or from a conservative viewpoint, its panned and ridiculed. The wording he uses leads me to believe that he’s basically trying to say “Hey, I couldn’t find a history book that supported my fucked up viewpoint, so I made some shit up and wrote it myself.”
After an opening with Matt Damon :rolleyes: reading the Declaration of Independence, and highlighting the part where it says “when government becomes destructive… it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” (strangely enough, if Damon actually followed this, he would have supported the Tea Party groups), it moves to Zinn talking about the Constitution:
The Constitution, by design, created a government that would be controlled by slaveowners and bondholders. You’re not supposed to say things like that about the Constitution, which is a holy document (said with sarcasm), but the fact is, that while the Constitution created a government that was more representative than a monarchy, more representative than other places in the world, it was not a democracy.
News flash, fucktard, it was never supposed to be a democracy, nor is that what it should have been.
He continues:
In fact, the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, was not in the original Constitution. It was only added later, after popular protest. And when one looks at American history this new way, one sees that there has always been a conflict between the ideals of the people set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the interests of the wealthy classes, expressed in the Constitution.
And from there on, he uses letters and documents written by historical figures to support his view, people like Eugene Debs, a Socialist, and Emma Goldman, an anarchist who supported violent revolution. All dutifully read by a host of famous actors and actresses who can’t come up with a thought of their own, only what has been fed to them by people like Zinn.
Later in the show, Zinn also advocates class warfare and redistribution of wealth.
History, for the most part, is a conservative discipline. There is little “conservative revisionism” because the conservative narrative has been dominant in teaching subjects like American history until recently. And status quo narratives remain dominant through secondary school.
The wording he uses leads me to believe that he’s basically trying to say “Hey, I couldn’t find a history book that supported my fucked up viewpoint, so I made some shit up and wrote it myself.”
Be honest, you haven’t read the book, have you?
You have absolutely no idea what information is contained in the book, much less what was new and different information.
News flash, fucktard, it was never supposed to be a democracy, nor is that what it should have been.
Which part of his statement is untrue? Was the Constitution not friendly to slaveholders (ensuring their system of bondage) and landowners (the function of the original Senate)?
Your argument isn’t really a response to Zinn’s statement as you quote it. Your claim that we were never “supposed to be a democracy” in no way contradicts his statement.
However, you’re wrong. Our system of government from day one was designed to be a democratic republic. It was, of course, a flawed (if not failed) democracy owing to the exclusion of women and millions of slaves.
As Zinn correctly notes - it was more representative than elsewhere in the world. But it in no way lived up to the promise of its stated ideals.
If you don’t think the US is a democracy, you should probably visit a polling station on Election Day.
And from there on, he uses letters and documents written by historical figures to support his view, people like Eugene Debs, a Socialist, and Emma Goldman, an anarchist who supported violent revolution.
Yes, I know who Debs and Goldman were. And Big Bill Heyward, and a host of other political characters from the late-19th and early-20th centuries.
How much do you know about Emma Goldman? Have you read her collected essays?
All dutifully read by a host of famous actors and actresses who can’t come up with a thought of their own, only what has been fed to them by people like Zinn.
How do you know that? Can they not say the same about your beliefs?
Yes, I have. My bookshelf is filled with books of various viewpoints, from Mein Kampf, to the Communist Manifesto, to Atlas Shrugged.
You have absolutely no idea what information is contained in the book, much less what was new and different information.
I knew exactly who Zinn was, and what his theories were. After seeing constant promos for the show on the History Channel, I went to their website to find out more about it. That’s when I saw that Zinn was behind it, and I knew what it was going to turn out to be.
Which part of his statement is untrue? Was the Constitution not friendly to slaveholders (ensuring their system of bondage) and landowners (the function of the original Senate)?
Your argument isn’t really a response to Zinn’s statement as you quote it. Your claim that we were never “supposed to be a democracy” in no way contradicts his statement.
However, you’re wrong. Our system of government from day one was designed to be a democratic republic. It was, of course, a flawed (if not failed) democracy owing to the exclusion of women and millions of slaves.
As Zinn correctly notes - it was more representative than elsewhere in the world. But it in no way lived up to the promise of its stated ideals.
If you don’t think the US is a democracy, you should probably visit a polling station on Election Day.
It was originally designed to be a constitutional republic, a collection of sovereign states with a limited central government. A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A democracy is rule by majority instead of rule by law. Say you have a posse of 20 men, hunting a murderer, who they capture. Under a democracy, if 11 of the men vote to string the guy up, he gets strung up, under a republic and rule of law, the guy goes to a fair trial, because that’s what the law says. Now I know you’ll have something to say about my analogy, but I’m giving a basic overview of the theory.
Yes, I know who Debs and Goldman were. And Big Bill Heyward, and a host of other political characters from the late-19th and early-20th centuries.
How much do you know about Emma Goldman? Have you read her collected essays?
I’m not an expert, but I know her views. No, I haven’t read all of her essays. I found her explanation of patriotism amusing. I know about her support for Margaret Sanger, who believed in eugenics. I know that the Haymarket affair/riots/bombing influenced her and views towards anarchism. I know about her relationship with Alexander Berkman and her minor involvement in the assassination attempt on Henry Clay Frick. I know about her deportation and her disillusionment with Russia after the Bolshevik revolution.
How do you know that? Can they not say the same about your beliefs?
So you think that Damon growing up as a neighbor to Zinn had no influence on him? Fortunately, I grew up in the country, with parents that were fairly apolitical. My father was a Republican union member and my mother taught elementary school. I figured out most of my views on my own because of my own boredom and curiousity. I debated my leftist history teachers in high school and won, beating them on documented facts. I was an AP honors history student.
If there’s one thing I can’t stand, its being accused of being stupid.
This country has been a center of right country for a very long time, but the hard core left has been growing in leaps and bounds. Sub rosa for the most part until recently where they have become mainstream due to their political insurgency that led them to take the white house.
Now, they are the “victors” and have a body of work with which they have been converting and growing their base of support. Their main bastion of operations has been the education system which allows them access to young, malleable minds from which they grow their ranks.
This socialist love fest that just hit the History channel is a direct result of the fact that now they own the white house, there is no need for them to follow the “Rules for Radicals” anymore.
Be honest, you haven’t read the book, have you?
You have absolutely no idea what information is contained in the book, much less what was new and different information.
Apparently it’s not necessary to do so. All one needs to do is look up the authors history, see what kind of spin was put on this History channel program, and it’s all too clear what kind of socialist drivel is contained within this book.
Which part of his statement is untrue? Was the Constitution not friendly to slaveholders (ensuring their system of bondage) and landowners (the function of the original Senate)?
What part of “spin” don’t you understand?
The Constitution was friendly to all who believed in freedom. Just because there were slave holders that benifited as well, it doesn’t mean that it was intended specifically for them. You’re drawing weak conclusions based on what you want to believe rather then on reality.
If it were as simple as you and Zinn want it to be, slavery would have been specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Which, strangly enough, it isn’t until the Thirteenth amendment where it is abolished.
Your argument isn’t really a response to Zinn’s statement as you quote it. Your claim that we were never “supposed to be a democracy” in no way contradicts his statement.
However, you’re wrong. Our system of government from day one was designed to be a democratic republic. It was, of course, a flawed (if not failed) democracy owing to the exclusion of women and millions of slaves.
Total fucking fail.
Our govt. was intended to be a Constitutional Republic, not a democratic republic. Your understanding of govt. and history is fundamentally flawed as is the rest of your spurious argument.
As Zinn correctly notes - it was more representative than elsewhere in the world. But it in no way lived up to the promise of its stated ideals.
Bullshit. It held up just fine until politicians took over and used it’s flexibility to twist it into something unrecognizable by the founding fathers.
It was fine until people like you fucked it up.
If you don’t think the US is a democracy, you should probably visit a polling station on Election Day.
Jesus fucking christ… your failure continues and snowballs.
A Constitutional Republic that uses a representitive system of law. Not a democratic system. Our founding fathers understood that democracy always devolves into tyranny of the majority.
The Constitution is there to protect the minority from the majority. The most important minority is the individual, hence we have the bill or rights which protects individual freedoms from the will of the majority.
Our Constitutional Republic is what was designed and intended because it was well understood by the framers that “Without specific protection for the individual, a democracy will rapidly consume itself, as soon as the majority of the people realize they can vote themselves largesse from the ‘public’ coffers”.
Yes, I know who Debs and Goldman were. And Big Bill Heyward, and a host of other political characters from the late-19th and early-20th centuries.
How much do you know about Emma Goldman? Have you read her collected essays?
How do you know that? Can they not say the same about your beliefs?
Yeah he is. He is consistently anti-capitalist. And he seems to have no objections to leftist totalitarianism. And if the historical underdogs don’t conform to Zinn’s political worldview, you can forget about any mention in their book. Leftist movements only.
Zinn is like a broken clock. At least he gets it right once in a while when he targets big government. But how many pages did he spend on the Whiskey Rebellion versus supporting the nihilist terrorists running wild in the late 1800’s? That includes Emma Goldman, whom I refuse to call an anarchist because that is an insult to the term.
History, for the most part, is a conservative discipline. There is little “conservative revisionism” because the conservative narrative has been dominant in teaching subjects like American history until recently. And status quo narratives remain dominant through secondary school.
That’s a riot. I went to an Ivy League college with a respectable history department and was force-fed hardcore leftist revisionism in every class I took. You wouldn’t believe how many professors simply assumed everyone agreed on their assertions that “property is theft”.
Even in high school the standard AP curriculum was heavily leftist. I recall no critique of FDR the uber-tyrant, unlimited praise of LBJ, and heavy mockery of anti-communism, all the standard statist garbage.
The problem I have with these people over and over again is they’re all for freedom of speech as long as its their speech, as long as you agree with them. Zinn’s description of the Bill of Rights was very telling. No mention of the 2nd or any others, just freedom of speech and assembly. If they truly had their way, the conservative or libertarian point of view would be completely wiped out. Naomi Wolf is another example of this. She talked about all the oppression of the Bush administration, but when it continued under Obama, just against the opposite end of the political spectrum, not a word.
Just because the title of the Channel has always been The History Channel, does not mean they are representing or portraying a full account of historical events.
I have always maintained that the History channel engages in revisionist history and generally slants in a way that seems to help the current group in power.
I don’t believe Zinn has ever put a term on himself, but I think he’s most likely a libertarian socialist and he just doesn’t like to use the ‘S’ word. Maybe you could drop him into the LaFollette Progressive camp - but really, the democratic left fractures of the early 20th century (democratic socialists, libertarian socialists, Progressives, populists of various stripes) all look largely the same until you get into certain philosophical issues.
Yes, I have. My bookshelf is filled with books of various viewpoints, from Mein Kampf, to the Communist Manifesto, to Atlas Shrugged.
Well, then, what did Zinn get wrong?
It was originally designed to be a constitutional republic, a collection of sovereign states with a limited central government. A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A democracy is rule by majority instead of rule by law. […] Now I know you’ll have something to say about my analogy, but I’m giving a basic overview of the theory.
Yes. I will say that you are fundamentally wrong.
Your use of “constitutional republic” is a bit of a neologism - we wrote a Constitution ergo we are a constitutional republic. All states using a modern republican form of government are ‘constitutional republics.’
But even at that, “constitutional republic” in no way contradicts democratic.
You are referring to direct democracy, which we are not - though individual states have forms of direct democracy in place (including the election of heads of states, referendums) and aspects of the Constitutional amendment process can be directly democratic.
At its core, though, ‘democracy’ is very simple - to quote the folks at Oxford, “a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.”
A democratic state could be directly democratic, it could be republican, it could be parliamentary, it could be a mixed system. However, any form of government designed to place power in the hands of the people (indirectly or directly) is a democracy.
Which is why Zinn wasn’t wrong. The Constitution and federal governance in the US, as devised, is democratic. It was never designed to be a direct democracy - but even by the self-limiting standards, it failed to live up to its own promises of democratic rule.
So you think that Damon growing up as a neighbor to Zinn had no influence on him? Fortunately, I grew up in the country, with parents that were fairly apolitical. My father was a Republican union member and my mother taught elementary school. I figured out most of my views on my own because of my own boredom and curiousity. I debated my leftist history teachers in high school and won, beating them on documented facts. I was an AP honors history student.
If there’s one thing I can’t stand, its being accused of being stupid.
I’ve not accused you of being stupid - I’ve accused you of being wrongly judgmental.
Because Damon (or Other Celebrity X) disagrees with you, he must have been indoctrinated at the heels of Howard Zinn - there’s no way that anyone could arrive at a viewpoint other than your own without that indoctrination.
Never mind that Damon attended Harvard (I’m no particular fan of the Ivy Leagues, but I’m not going to get sucked into the anti-intellectualism that holds them in little regard) and is, in fact, a grown-ass man with a functioning mind.
This would be the fundamental reason he is not a liberal. American liberals are, and always have been, capitalists.
And he seems to have no objections to leftist totalitarianism.
Nonsense. Zinn is wholly critical of totalitarianism on the left.
And if the historical underdogs don’t conform to Zinn’s political worldview, you can forget about any mention in their book. Leftist movements only.
If I’m writing a book about minor league baseball players who languished because they were stuck behind a star and were unable to dislodge them to play in the majors, I’m not going to mention Roger Clemens (unless he was the blocker).
A People’s History is written as a corrective - hence the title.