How to Succeed in History without really Trying

Do you wish to follow in the footsteps of such notables as Howard Zinn, James Bradley or even Gore Vidal?  Do you want to push your left-wing views and be published?

Based on reading these three "historians" let me offer some advice:

1.  Don't care about dates or numbers.  I mean what are you, a Historian or a bean counter?  What difference does it make if 3,000,000 Filipinos are killed as opposed to 300,000 or that 15 Filipino POW's were killed by the US army instead of 1,500.  Or that 1.8 million not 18 million  visited the 1904 Philippine exhibit at the World's Fair? Leave the zeros to the mathematicians and dates to the Scholar-squirrels.

2. Use Labels to guide your readers -  At every opportunity attach "bad labels" to people/things you don't like and "good labels" to people/things you do.  It doesn't matter that these labels are historically irrelevant or reduce complex attitudes/beliefs to a bumper sticker.  It makes everything simpler for everyone.  Suggested bad labels: "racist", "Sexist" "bigot" "Imperialist" "Aryan" "White Christian" "Haloe" "Bourgeois"  - Suggested good Labels - "People of Color" "freedom-fighters"  "Democracy" "President (not dictator)" "revolt (not massacre)"

3.  Remember that Non-whites are always better.   If  you compare whites and non-whites  always state the non-whites are better. Note: this rule also applies to Christianity and other religions.

4. Set those Racists Straight.   Readers love to feel superior to dead folks of the past.  So, always couple any historical quote expressing the superiority of  Western civilization/Christianity with a sneering condemnation.  For example, if Teddy Roosevelt states the USA was more than advanced than the Philippines in 1900,  knock that racist down.  Don't worry, he can't fight back - he's dead.

5.  White Imperialism is always wrong even when it appears to make things better for the subject people.  Note: to show this may take some creative apples-to-oranges comparisons.

6.  Omit any historical facts that might question Rules 3 to 5.  If your non-Whites were even more racist, xenophobic, sexist, greedy, or violent than the comparable Whites do not under circumstances mention it.   Consult "Imperial Cruise" for examples.

7.  Exaggerate any American atrocity or misdeed. Omit any foreign atrocity or mis-deed.  Plus any American atrocity or misdeed should be stated as proven fact, despite evidence to the contrary.

8.  Use  recent secondary sources not original primary documents.  This saves time and ensures the book will have the correct political viewpoint.

9.  Don't source most of your facts.  This makes it easier to support to your opinions and is also a lot less work.  Besides only "scholar-squirrels" care.

10. Use one-sentence quotes from obscure letters, diaries,  and unpublished manuscripts.  This seems to contradict  "Rule 8" but really doesn't.  Almost all these quotes will be embedded in secondary sources. However, it will appear to the uneducated or hasty reader you did a lot of research.   You can also support your viewpoint by plucking quotes from obscure online sources confident that no will plow through hundreds of pages trying to find one sentence quotes.

11. Use historical Newspaper and Magazine Articles.   Like the today's media, you can always trust them to print the objective truth.  Plus, is any skeptical 'scholar-squirrel' really going to look up Page 16, of the August 14, 1899 Manila Advertiser?

National Review - Howard Zinn Not a Good Historian

Almost two week after the Mitch Daniels first came under fire for dissing Howard Zinn, the girly-men at NR belatedly come to his defense, in a strong (for them) attack on Zinn's " A People's History of the United States":

"The book is full of errors and deliberate distortions, as Handlin noted in The American Scholar, and these are not limited to minor issues. Zinn misrepresents everything from slavery in the Chesapeake colonies to American involvement in Cuba to the Tet offensive. He reports as fact the story of Polly Baker, a woman persecuted for having an illegitimate child, when the story is in truth a work of fiction, penned by Benjamin Franklin. Zinn himself described A People’s History as “a biased account,” that bias being in favor of socialism, a political tendency that Zinn favored and thought would be popular but for the fact that “the Soviet Union gave it a bad name.” Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro didn’t help much, either, though Zinn had kind words for their revolutions. Zinn denied being a member of the Communist party, though he was identified as such by several other members and served as an officer in a CPUSA front group. Presented with evidence (including a confession) that Soviet spies Zinn had defended were in fact guilty as charged, his response was: “To me, it didn’t matter whether they were guilty or not.” Later in life, he trafficked in 9/11 conspiracy theories."

Of course, NR quotes liberal Historians Handlin and Schlesinger  as confirmation that Zinn was no good, since NR usually looks to liberals to determine what is acceptable. Weirdly, the piece is signed by "The Editors"; probably since no one at NR had the guts to sign his name to it.

And I look forward to usual Goldberg/Lowery backtracking.

Howard Zinn - Communist Ideologue

"Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you should make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” - Howard Zinn

 “I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.” -Howard Zinn

Zinn was a communist, (read his FBI File) so his viewpoint is not surprising.  It is surprising that some historians take him seriously.