Discussion Question 1: During the portion of the video on blending anarchism, socialism, and Communism, Zinn describestaking the best of each and applying them to a democratically elected government. How does blending these concepts support market place of objectivity?
Discussion Question 2: in the case, Zinn wants historians to adhere to certain standards guided by their personal values as well as honesty. He wants them to be flexible. What does Zinn propose to be a reason behind abuse and use of history?
In the “Use and Abuse of History” Zinn makes a case for everyone being biased. Here Zinn is making the case for all people to be skeptical of historians. Zinn argues that because his interest in history is not simply because the subject is interesting, or it leads to a solid and respectable career. Zinn notices that many people struggled to survive through war and to fight for a particular course or belief. The ambition he has on studying history can be regarded as an extravagant one. This is mainly because he starts at a point of noticing a problem with humanity and ends at the point of ideally perfect society. In the process, he seeks to use history in a way that will help him understand humans with the aim of developing a solution to their issues. The meaning of his interest is beyond looking at historical facts as a way to reinforce the beliefs he already had. At the same time, these historical data and facts that would change his understanding of human nature and society could not be ignored. As Zinn went on to look for answers, he had to be open to whatever answer that he received but at the same time subject every answer to historical facts and data. Essentially, the study of history becomes fulfilling and worthwhile especially when it can achieve such an ideal. This is what Zinn argues as the best way to use history.
Historians must hold certain ideals and values in order to use history in the most fulfilling and satisfying way. As a young person, Zinn developed a belief system that he later could integrate it into the history. However, in as much as he had these strong values, he still had the ability to be flexible to whatever changes that may arise. These values are subjected to the facts found in history. This means that if the facts change, then the facets of the values also change.
The abuse of history comes when historians develop strong values but fail to be flexible when the historical facts are changed. When a historian believes in certain values and goals, they are bound to distort history. However, this abuse of history is bound to change by a simple nature of flexibility. The mere understanding of the difference between openness in relation to historical data and solidity in ultimate values can create change as expected. Another form of abuse identified by Zinn occurs when historians deceive themselves by pretending to objectivity. A free and open market place characterized by subjectivity allows one to be more objective. This is because it presentslotofitems and facts and leaves the individual to have the discretion of choosing that fact is most important depending on his or her own values. However, everything needs to be put in the marketplace so that they can be scrutinized. Any documentation of history is never impartial. They all focus on parts of the events that happen in history. This, therefore, leads to a situation where any data presented as part of a historical event is relevant and should be made available for scrutiny.
When we talk of honesty in history, it means that some important data is omitted. This may not necessarily be outright lying because part of the information is given. However, when important data is omitted, it creates a problem of distorting history. It changes the beliefs of the readers and creates an inaccurate impression of what happened. To illustrate the argument of Zinn, he gives the case of Ludlow massacre. This event was clearly a significant event in history that needed to be documented. However, due to the failure of historians have strong values they were compromised to document only the good part of what happened but omit the deadly part that was full of drama. The historians of this period decided to pretend to objectivity and deceive both themselves and their readers. These are two critical aspects of historians that they have to uphold in order to at a better position to use history and not abuse it.
Zinn does not make the case read multiple authors and derive our own conclusions. He does, however, offer his support for people to be skeptical of historians in general, since they are writing in a subjective manner, no matter what. What Zinn should have done is provide the further example of using multiple sources on a topic to provide as an objective view point as possible. Instead of mentioning why it was morally terrible for sending in the National Guard to massacre those mine workers, supporting documentation should have been offered on why people of that period felt it was OK to take those actions then. We cannot be subjective on our world views today, on people who lived in a different time than us.
Discussion Question 3: Zinn makes the case that there isno way to make an objective viewpoint of the Ludlow Massacre. Does this example support his conclusion that historians need to to be objective in their documentation of historical events?
References
Riden, G. M. (1990). Legacy of freedom. New York: Laidlow Brothers.
Zinn, H. (1990). The Use and Abuse of History. In H. Zinn, Declaration of independence (pp. 49-66). Chicago: Illinio University Press.
