The People Speak on the History Channel

General General Discussion
21

History is history. Its black and white. The moment you attach a political doctrine to history it no longer is history. It becomes a story or fable if you will concocted by people by an political motive.

History is never black and white. Hence the old adage that “the victors write the history books.” In reality, history is complicated - which viewpoints have been left out, what are we taught that is flat out wrong?

All history is written with a political motive. Human beings are biased - if that bias is for the the status quo of history as we know it, that remains a political bias.

Not to defend slavery but in the vast majority of cases its not what people think it was in the late 1700’s. Everyone has this idea it was a bunch of mean white guys whipping on blacks all day picking cotton. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most slaves were treated fairly well, and many white kids were raised by their black nannies. If slavery was such a cruel thing then the white kids would not be let alone with a black. Some of the largest slave owners, in fact, were other blacks. They were treated like shit before arriving in the US, and getting to a homestead but that has more to do with the slave trade, and Africa

This manages to be both abhorrent (“Slavery wasn’t so bad! The nannies didn’t kill the little white kids!”) and untrue (the bit about black slaveholders).

No. As I said the people were supposed to be removed from direct votes for the Federal government. Our states elected senators, and the electoral college elects the president. We are a constitutional republic which is very different from a democracy.

You’re wrong, sorry.

I’m as fond as anyone of the argument that words and concepts change over time, common usage reigns, etc… But democracy in every common usage and definition (aside from propaganda such as Stalinist and Maoist states using democracy and republic) refers entirely to the ultimate power resting with the people. Either through a direct vote, representatives, whatever.

The people of that time were much more free than we are today. Our government has had 230+ years of law making to inject itself in every aspect of our lives. Much of this has come in the last 80 years of our history.

More free? Women couldn’t vote, often weren’t allowed to own property. Black men and women could be held as property, their children sold away. American Indians were being ethnically cleansed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

The idea that man was more free in 1776, 1790 or 1847 is absurd.

22

No such historiographic school. Zinn indeed is a Revisionist and a self-avowed one at that. As a political school a “libertarian socialist” is a contradiction in terms.

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.

Uhm…who taught you the above? The Progressive School is typified by people like Charles Beard who predates Zinn by half a century. You’re confusing political school with historiographic schools.

Well, then, what did Zinn get wrong?

You mean other than ignoring evidence and otherwise twisting the evidence that remained to fit a predetermined outcome?

Zinn is something of a gadfly amongst historians. You won’t find him taught and rarely is he ever referred to amongst Americanists. As a historian he’s no longer relevant to the field. “A People’s History” wasn’t written to be academic, it was written to be “public” or “popular” history and appeal to a certain segment that cannot separate their political perspectives from history as a discipline.

Yes. I will say that you are fundamentally wrong.

Given your selective analysis the above conclusion is dubious.

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.’

The word you’re looking for is “tautology” meaning “true by definition” and yes “constitutional republic” in that vein is a tautology.

In order to be a “constitutional republic” you must have a constitution. All states using a modern republican form of government are constitutional republics because they do indeed have constitutions.

But even at that, “constitutional republic” in no way contradicts democratic.

You’re playing semantic games. Constitutional Republic is theoretically a “democratic” (small-d) form of government. It is not Democracy.

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.

Oh come on, we all knew what he meant, don’t be silly. The following is pedantic nonsense.

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.

You’re talking in circles.

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.

What government has ever lived up to its own promises of democratic rule? The problem with our republic is that we SOMETIMES fall short of our very high standards. The problem with others is that they almost always do.

I’ve not accused you of being stupid - I’ve accused you of being wrongly judgmental.

The same can be applied to you.

As for your claim that “history is intrinsically conservative”, that is completely incorrect. The modern discipline of history comes about as a result of liberalism of the 19th century and the rise of the “nation” in the wake of Napoleon. You might say that history is inherently “nationalistic” but that would be as close as you can get, many nations aren’t “conservative.”

23

Classical liberals, perhaps. Certainly not the modern day liberal. The modern liberal is a corporatist pining for a government takeover.

Just like Michael Moore, the average leftist is too stupid to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism.

Nonsense. Zinn is wholly critical of totalitarianism on the left.

Sure he is, that’s why he supported the fascists in North Vietnam. Probably still does. All communists are fascists, only intellectuals try to distinguish between them.

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.

Corrective my ass. Whitewash is more like it. Many of Zinn’s heroes advocated political murder and total deprivation of property rights, they all gets a pass. The infiltration of the anti-anti-communist movement by the NKVD/KGB doesn’t get a word. The fervent support for racist eugenics by many of the suffragettes is ignored.

You don’t need Zinn’s garbage to get slavish praise of leftism in the US, your standard unionized public school will get you 90% of Zinn’s content, taxpayer funded.

24

We were discussing his political beliefs - “liberal” or other.

And no, “libertarian socialist” is not a contradiction in terms. Libertarian described the anarchist movement long before it applied to conservative laissez-faire capitalists in the US.

You’re confusing political school with historiographic schools.

We were still discussing his political beliefs…

Given your selective analysis the above conclusion is dubious.

The conclusion that the United States is a democracy is dubious? Really?

You’re playing semantic games. Constitutional Republic is theoretically a “democratic” (small-d) form of government. It is not Democracy.

I never said it was a Democracy. Nor did Zinn. Nor did either I or Zinn (as he’s been quoted here) state that the country was set up to be a Democracy and failed in that regard.

What I have said is that no matter what word you want to throw in front of ‘republic,’ we remain a democracy.

Oh come on, we all knew what he meant, don’t be silly. The following is pedantic nonsense.

Yes, I know that he states that the United States is not a democracy, even after I corrected him with “democratic republic.”

He remains wrong.

What government has ever lived up to its own promises of democratic rule? The problem with our republic is that we SOMETIMES fall short of our very high standards. The problem with others is that they almost always do.

A fair argument - and Zinn is himself critical of pretty much every state that has existed.

However, the relativism in play doesn’t make Zinn (again, as quoted to us) wrong.

As for your claim that “history is intrinsically conservative”, that is completely incorrect. The modern discipline of history comes about as a result of liberalism of the 19th century and the rise of the “nation” in the wake of Napoleon. You might say that history is inherently “nationalistic” but that would be as close as you can get, many nations aren’t “conservative.”

Nationalism in the west, and particularly in the US, is conservative - but I’ll stick with my phrase. The reason People’s History went over so well is that there’s little history like it - the status quo taught in schools and colleges is overwhelmingly positive about our history and leaves out the inherently leftist critiques.

25

Red again.

26

Yes, Bob Rubin is just dying to lose his job on Wall Street.

Modern liberalism is a capitalist movement - welfare capitalist in some ways, certainly not laissez-faire, but it has no underpinnings in a Marxist or other socialist school of thought.

Sure he is, that’s why he supported the fascists in North Vietnam. Probably still does. All communists are fascists, only intellectuals try to distinguish between them.

This one’s mind-boggling.

Yes, he was positive toward the North Vietnamese in the '60s. It was an immoral, unnecessary war we were waging - and the NV were not a terribly political movement. The Vietnam War was the continuation of a long nationalist and anti-colonial struggle.

By your argument, anyone who was pro-South Vietnam was equally in favor of military coups and corrupt one-party states.

Corrective my ass. Whitewash is more like it. Many of Zinn’s heroes advocated political murder and total deprivation of property rights, they all gets a pass.

Um… what?

The infiltration of the anti-anti-communist movement by the NKVD/KGB doesn’t get a word.

Ditto the above.

The fervent support for racist eugenics by many of the suffragettes is ignored.

By “many of the suffragettes” you mean Margaret Sanger and the proper club for beating this horse is abortion, not suffrage.

27

Hey, I like Ancient Aliens! They are coming back, you know! :slight_smile:

28

History is interpretation. History is not a list of dates.

We can never gain the totality of history - there will always be new perspectives and new evidence to incorporate.

It very much is true that blacks owned other blacks (slaves).

This is not what your argument was.

Its also perfectly true that most slaves were well treated (considering the time period).

Being owned as property is being treated well? Having no right to literacy, to your personal religion, to marriage, to vote, to move as you freely wish is “being treated well.”

Even to this day there is slavery in Africa with blacks owning other blacks. It was true then, too.

This is patently irrelevant apologism.

Democracy, and republic (or constitutional republic in our case) are two different things, and cannot be interchanged.

No one is interchanging them. They are phrases that work alongside each other.

Republics are, by definition, democratic.

What do indians have today? Government money? A life of poverty, unemployment, and alcoholism? There are very few successful modern indian tribes, and their rates in the above categories I mentioned are far above the rest of the US population.

Contemporary poverty and social diseases - this certainly makes them less free than, say, the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, right?

And you obviously can’t pin any of that poverty and disease on removing them from their lands, repeatedly ignoring legal treaties and decimating populations…

You’re right. The extremely high taxes we pay

You got me there. Paying an income tax is certainly a greater abridgement of freedom than human slavery.

29

You were discussing Zinn and his relevance “revisionism” is not a political concoction, by definition the discussion is of his role in historiography. Both “revisionism” and “progressives” are being invoked incorrectly.

And no, “libertarian socialist” is not a contradiction in terms. Libertarian described the anarchist movement long before it applied to conservative laissez-faire capitalists in the US.

I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The conclusion that the United States is a democracy is dubious? Really?

Oh so that’s what you’re arguing now? That the US is a democracy? Don’t be retarded.

I never said it was a Democracy. Nor did Zinn. Nor did either I or Zinn (as he’s been quoted here) state that the country was set up to be a Democracy and failed in that regard.

What I have said is that no matter what word you want to throw in front of ‘republic,’ we remain a democracy.

You don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore.

Yes, I know that he states that the United States is not a democracy, even after I corrected him with “democratic republic.”

He remains wrong.

It is a small-d democracy. It is not a big-D Democracy. The dispute is trivial and semantic.

Nationalism in the west, and particularly in the US, is conservative - but I’ll stick with my phrase. The reason People’s History went over so well is that there’s little history like it - the status quo taught in schools and colleges is overwhelmingly positive about our history and leaves out the inherently leftist critiques.

Uhm no. I can name dozens of historians and multiple historiographies taught in schools and colleges that are not only critical but overtly leftist. The notion that history is either inherently “conservative” or “revisionist” is moronic.

Among others the Annales School, the Progressives, Revisionist, Neo-Progressive, Neo-Revisionist, Post-Modernist and others which all are extremely critical of the “Traditionalist” school (the only one that might be considered overtly nationalistic) which hasn’t been relevant since say 1911. This isn’t to say you have to ascribe to their interpretations but you do have to be familiar with them.

30

You have social security and medicare, socialist roots and all, dominating the American economy. FDR, the liberal hero, is a flat-out socialist who hated free enterprise. Today, your standard left-liberal politician will support anything that moves economic resources from the private to public sector. Even the Wall Street “capitalists” are subject to the federal government.

No socialism indeed.

Yes, he was positive toward the North Vietnamese in the '60s. It was an immoral, unnecessary war we were waging - and the NV were not a terribly political movement. The Vietnam War was the continuation of a long nationalist and anti-colonial struggle.

By your argument, anyone who was pro-South Vietnam was equally in favor of military coups and corrupt one-party states.

The North Vietnamese regime was a political animal. It’s hard not to be political when your entire movement is dominated by Soviet advisors.

The killing of fascists/communists is always morally correct. The way the war itself was pursued was completely shitheaded, but you can blame LBJ for that.

As for South Vietnam, the supporters were indeed supporting a corrupt one-party state. As distasteful as that was, the alternative was far worse, as history has demonstrated.

By “many of the suffragettes” you mean Margaret Sanger and the proper club for beating this horse is abortion, not suffrage.

Actually they were all part of the so-called Progressive Movement, and they always supported each other’s causes. Much like today’s leftist movements. Solidarity and all that stupid shit. You can ditto what all you want, but many of Zinn’s peeps despised individualism and wanted to abolish property rights. That was and still is standard far-left doctrine. It is intellectually dishonest not to mention those inconvenient facts.

Lastly, here’s a good book regarding KGB infiltration of various people’s movements that Zinn is so fond of: http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Shield-Mitrokhin-Archive-History/dp/0465003125/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260832226&sr=8-5

31

The exact exchange:

Rider79: “When libtards like him”
Me: “Zinn isn’t a liberal.”
Rider79: “What would you consider him to be?”
Me: “I think he’s most likely a libertarian socialist” (or “LaFollette Progressive”)

So, yeah, it was an exchange regarding his political beliefs. Not an opportunity for you to try to whip out your “historiographic schools” Internet-penis.

I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If you’d just never heard the term “libertarian socialist” it would be one thing. But blankly denying the existence and that I’m making it up is quite… interesting.

Oh so that’s what you’re arguing now? That the US is a democracy? Don’t be retarded.

Do Americans vote for the Governors, Representatives, Senators and President?

It is a small-d democracy. It is not a big-D Democracy. The dispute is trivial and semantic.

No one - not another poster, not Howard Zinn, not even yours truly, has called the US a “big-D Democracy” (which isn’t actually a phrase in use - you call it a “direct democracy”).

However, multiple posters - the ones to whom I’ve replied - have denied the “small-d democracy” that is our form of government.

32

I don’t believe Zinn has ever put a term on himself, but I think he’s most likely a libertarian socialist

That makse as much sense as a CommuNazi:rolleyes:

33

Neither social security nor medicare are “socialist” in nature. They are a part of the welfare state - but a welfare state can be capitalist or socialist in nature (or corporatist, or fascist, or any other ideology).

FDR, the liberal hero, is a flat-out socialist who hated free enterprise.

If you truly believe this, it’s somewhat tragic. FDR, the liberal hero, stopped the CPUSA in its tracks (look at voting patterns from the turn of the century 'til WWII) and by blunting the edges of the capitalist system managed to forestall any kind of socialist or communist movement in the US (make any basic comparison to Western European states, where there are openly socialist parties with powerful roles).

Today, your standard left-liberal politician will support anything that moves economic resources from the private to public sector. Even the Wall Street “capitalists” are subject to the federal government.

No socialism indeed.

Correct, “no socialism.”

The North Vietnamese regime was a political animal. It’s hard not to be political when your entire movement is dominated by Soviet advisors.

And the South Vietnamese regime was dominated by American advisors. We used the country as proxy.

None of that changes the facts, however - the Vietnamese War was part of a long anti-colonial struggle against the French, and a much longer nationalist struggle for an independent Vietnam.

Ho signed on with the Soviets because they were the only other option in the face of US support for the French (and later SV). He certainly couldn’t go to China for help (oh, right, that’s part of the nationalist thing you were denying.)

Actually they were all part of the so-called Progressive Movement, and they always supported each other’s causes. Much like today’s leftist movements. Solidarity and all that stupid shit.

Quite simply, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The history of the American left is one of internecine fighting, which is one reason they’ve never been particularly effective.

She is lumped in with other early 20th century “progressives” - including Teddy Roosevelt. But the idea that everyone from that era who was a reformer shared an ideology is absurd.

You can ditto what all you want, but many of Zinn’s peeps despised individualism and wanted to abolish property rights. That was and still is standard far-left doctrine. It is intellectually dishonest not to mention those inconvenient facts.

Zinn is not fond of property rights as you appear to define them (though he, nor any other socialist I’m aware of ‘wants to abolish them’) - he’s a freakin’ socialist, of course he’s not. He wouldn’t be offended at being attacked for weakness on them - capitalist property rights aren’t a part of his ideology.

But you can’t transfer that to any of your other claims.

34

I guess you can dish it out but you sure can’t take it. That said if you want to be technical “socialism” isn’t a political belief either, it’s an economic one.

If you’d just never heard the term “libertarian socialist” it would be one thing. But blankly denying the existence and that I’m making it up is quite… interesting.

“Libertarian Socialist” is a meaningless label that you basically pulled out of thin air. You cannot simultaneously be a libertarian (or an anarchist for that matter) and believe in government control of the economy.

Do Americans vote for the Governors, Representatives, Senators and President?

If I have to explain this to you, you’re beyond talking to.

No one - not another poster, not Howard Zinn, not even yours truly, has called the US a “big-D Democracy” (which isn’t actually a phrase in use - you call it a “direct democracy”).

“big-whatever” is a common device to differentiate a definitional noun from a descriptive. Democracy is a form of government of direct vote, democratic is an adjective meaning that all citizens have the same essential voice in governance. I’d have thought you would have understood the difference.

However, multiple posters - the ones to whom I’ve replied - have denied the “small-d democracy” that is our form of government.

You’ve played a semantic game in order to set up a straw-man all the while knowing exactly the distinction made. I don’t know anyone who’s said in this thread that we don’t have “small-d” democracy. Again calling the US a “Democracy” is wrong. It is a “Republic”. Even still A Republic is NOT by definition democratic, small-r “republican” government is. Republics can be democractic, but not by definition.

35

I can’t take it? Take what? You stepped in without paying attention and were wrong.

“Democratic socialist” and “libertarian socialist” (among others) are political labels.

“Libertarian Socialist” is a meaningless label that you basically pulled out of thin air. You cannot simultaneously be a libertarian (or an anarchist for that matter) and believe in government control of the economy.

Well… no, it’s a term that’s been in use for about 130 years.

I’m not really sure why you’re being vigorously ignorant, when you could at a minimum do a quick Google search.

“big-whatever” is a common device to differentiate a definitional noun from a descriptive. Democracy is a form of government of direct vote, democratic is an adjective meaning that all citizens have the same essential voice in governance. I’d have thought you would have understood the difference.

I do - and once more, have never suggested that the US was meant to be a direct democracy. Nor did Howard Zinn.

You’ve played a semantic game in order to set up a straw-man all the while knowing exactly the distinction made. I don’t know anyone who’s said in this thread that we don’t have “small-d” democracy. Again calling the US a “Democracy” is wrong.

“News flash, fucktard, it was never supposed to be a democracy, nor is that what it should have been.”

“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” - which is where I corrected him on what ‘democracy’ means

“Our govt. was intended to be a Constitutional Republic, not a democratic republic. […] A Constitutional Republic that uses a representitive system of law. Not a democratic system.”

No one - aside from you - has used "big-D Democracy in any way, amazingly enough.

However, as I’ve informed you several times, several posters have denied the “little-d democracy” nature of this Glorious Republic.

It is a “Republic”. Even still A Republic is NOT by definition democratic, small-r “republican” government is. Republics can be democractic, but not by definition.

Based on the capitalization of Democracy and Republic, I’m thinking you may be less than you claim to be.

Democracy and Republic are never proper nouns unless referring to specific states.

36

Oh well that showed me. :rolleyes: Whomever taught you that big-whatever is not a “proper noun unless referring to specific states” is flat wrong. I presume however that once again you’re just making stuff up and that’s just it, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and so this has become moronic.

You play fast-and-loose with definitions in an attempt to be a pedantic jerk in order to defend another pedantic jerk.

When called on your bullshit you do your little song-and-dance until no one, not even you, has a clue anymore what you’re talking about.

18th Century Conservatism? 20th Century Conservatism? 19th Century Socialism? 19th Century Liberalism? These terms change so often and so much that unless you strictly define WHICH you’re talking about you’re simply making shit up. “Libertarian Socialism” has been for 130 years? By whom? In what context? What does it mean? In a modern (say last 50 years) context “libertarian socialism” is a contradiction in terms and is therefore a meaningless abstraction that you’re pulling out of nowhere that has any relevance.

37

This has degenerated to an argument between a few folks, and I suspect it has veered far from the OP’s intent of raising awareness of a liberal slant in a program presented by the History Channel.