Difference between revisions of "Talk:Howard Zinn"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(thanks) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
::Zinn is stuck in 1950, methodologically, and does not appreciate the scholarship of the last 4 decades in the "new" intellectual, political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural or social history. His "newest" ideas is that workers--and also blacks, Indians, and women--are victims of capitalism, a stock notion of the 1930s regarding workers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT) | ::Zinn is stuck in 1950, methodologically, and does not appreciate the scholarship of the last 4 decades in the "new" intellectual, political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural or social history. His "newest" ideas is that workers--and also blacks, Indians, and women--are victims of capitalism, a stock notion of the 1930s regarding workers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Thanks for the clarification. I'm making a minor edit to your update to the page, but that's purely to make what I think is better phrasing. Incidentally, I've read People's History -- its provocative, as was its intention, but its ultimately foolishness. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT) | :::Thanks for the clarification. I'm making a minor edit to your update to the page, but that's purely to make what I think is better phrasing. Incidentally, I've read People's History -- its provocative, as was its intention, but its ultimately foolishness. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::: thanks for the stimulus. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:37, 23 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:37, March 23, 2009
What's the meaning of "does not incorporate the newer theories of history", in reference to Zinn's People's History of the United States? I'm not disputing that there are "newer theories of history"; I'm wondering which specific theories it doesn't incorporate. I'm confident Zinn would assert it does contain newer theories and would probably say that's the entire point of the book. ArthurA 09:05, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
- Zinn is stuck in 1950, methodologically, and does not appreciate the scholarship of the last 4 decades in the "new" intellectual, political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural or social history. His "newest" ideas is that workers--and also blacks, Indians, and women--are victims of capitalism, a stock notion of the 1930s regarding workers. RJJensen 09:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'm making a minor edit to your update to the page, but that's purely to make what I think is better phrasing. Incidentally, I've read People's History -- its provocative, as was its intention, but its ultimately foolishness. ArthurA 10:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
- thanks for the stimulus. :) RJJensen 10:37, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'm making a minor edit to your update to the page, but that's purely to make what I think is better phrasing. Incidentally, I've read People's History -- its provocative, as was its intention, but its ultimately foolishness. ArthurA 10:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
- Zinn is stuck in 1950, methodologically, and does not appreciate the scholarship of the last 4 decades in the "new" intellectual, political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural or social history. His "newest" ideas is that workers--and also blacks, Indians, and women--are victims of capitalism, a stock notion of the 1930s regarding workers. RJJensen 09:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT)