Howard Zinn: Use and Abuse of History Summary

Response to Howard Zinn name Hi tier is several(prenominal)thing we constantly refer to progress ourselves as humans, we learn from our mistakes and extend to strive from our successes. But who is to say what is a horrible mistake or a courageous act of valor? That which was archiveed ab a expressive style what happened so long ago, was d cardinal by a person who spread the story or wrote it d cause from their perspective. Howard Zinns argument that there is no much(prenominal) thing as im billetial tarradiddle clearly illustrates that when fib is record there is al carriages two lieus to the story, that things atomic number 18 either left come out of the closet or unploughed in to s commission the reader to one office or the other. Ein truthone is biased, whether they know it or non, in possessing fundamental goals, purposes and ends. (Zinn, Use and tread of news report,51) Not only end business relationship be recorded partly but likewise it domiciliate be prea ched partial(p)ly. By that I specify that in todays society umpteen things ar censored, non published or not unrestrictedized. If they dont shargon a view that the government doesnt like, that a publisher knows leave alone not sell a book or that will cause controvert controversy the muniment probably wont put on it to the eye of the public. (Use and debase of History,62).History is partial because no matter who tells it, all the details cannot be accounted for, things be left out or over emphasized to climb a buck or show a certain view. In todays school system children learn taradiddle the expression it has been mandated by the government not out of teachers discretion. The focal point history is taught in America is very partial, the intellection that America is this boorish that is oh so glorious and built on the fundamentals of a perfective and morally toilsome society is over-glorified. The story of Christopher Columbus is a huge example that Zinn uses.A mericans teach their youth approximately the courageous crewman who founded the new world and the glorification he brought. But leave out the posture notes of the genocide he had started and the ruthlessness of slavery all for his own personal glory. (Use and Abuse of History 56-57) Two sides of the same story, though both(prenominal) sides are never told. The liking that the founder of a farming was a ruthless murderer would never swing in elementary schools, no matter how much of a reality it is. One must ineluctably omit large chunks of what is available in historical information. But what is mitted is detailed in the kind of historical education people get (Use and Abuse of History 56). It is insane to think that children should be taught every shred of history in school, they focus on the briny points but again these main points are synthesized to show what a regulated counsel of officials decides is appropriate fellowship to learn. The books however that detail accoun ts that do a murkyer smack at the events or people like Christopher Columbus are not hidden or burned-over. Instead they are out there but they are not brought to students in silver platters and shoved down their throats.Rather they are off to the side and are available to those who look but if the schools do such(prenominal) a honest job and proving how much of a hero Christopher Columbus was who would ever look for such a book? History is partial because societys elected officials choose what is put in the public eye, the officials decide what the cordial norm for history will be and they over emphasize glory and nationalism for the sake of our their nations pride not because it is the counterbalance side of the story, but what the public will perceive as the regenerate story. Whenever someone says, history spring ups and then cites a list of historical facts, we should beware. We can forever select facts from history (there are lots to choose from) to elevate almost an ything (Violence and human nature 41) The appearance we can use and debase history is as easy as putting someones name into Google and hitting search. People can pick and choose what facts most something they wish to argue, again pushing for the partial use of history to make a point. An extreme example of course would be Adolph Hitler, you ask a student about Hitler their immediate response would be he was a monster.Many would agree, but what he did for the economy of Germany and how he brought a starving and wretched body politic back to power can be considered in prize a tremendous act of great take awayership and planning. (Trueman , The Nazis and the German Economy) The way history is exhibited is in a way that makes the compri confabr (the government) look high-priced in the eyes of its citizens. The picking and choosing of facts only furthers the stereotype that the world had well-behaved guys and bad guys, good countries and bad countries, and ours was good (Viol ence and Human Nature 41).It makes sensation in a way that it keeps the masses satisfied with their style and way of government. If the complete history of the U. S. governmental flaws and acts of murders were to be published and use in schools of course the reaction would be to demand change and dependk a new way of doing things. But that in itself would be using history in a partial way and again proving history his used to prove points and emphasis ideas based on who is telling them.Zinns idea that being partial is inevitable (Use and Abuse of History 51) cannot be denied, history is eer told to prove a point and a point cannot be proven unless ideas are supported with the right facts chosen by those who document them. The ideas, beliefs and value we hold so strong to ourselves dictate the way we strike art, literature and the world. The way we see history and record history is also based again on our determine and beliefs, what we set in our mastermind to be so great, hone st and true such as our country can be clouded by how attached we are to these values and beliefs we have. The chief problem in historical honesty is not straightaway lying. It is omission or deemphasis of important data. The definition of important, of course depends on ones values. (Use and Abuse of History51) The values that we hold to ourselves have come from our upbringing, from what we are taught growing up. It is no wonder that Americans see their country as beautiful, free and the birth of the ideal American business dream. victorious into my own perspective, The Ludlow Massacre (Use and Abuse of Hitory, 51-53) I initially held the idea that the American government always promoted the growth of its economy in positive measures.From what was taught to me in history class the only struggle I had cognize about in the Americas regarding the economy was the great depression and slavery. afterwards reading that part of the article it seems very clear to myself why that was ke pt away from the public. The stock market crash, the great depression and slavery are all pieces of American history that are unavoidable that are known by the general public, but the Ludlow Massacre because of the scale and the remoteness of the incident, the American government was able to sweep it away out of view of the public eye.The depression and slavery were both triumphed by the government of America, where it was able to lead their country to economic prosperity and end slavery. But as for the massacre, they burned children and killed hundreds. If this were made general knowledge it may perhaps alter some beliefs of values held in the economic pride of the United States. I see that values lter how you view things because theyre essentially what you believe to be true, and the way history is portrayed it is clear to see that it is partial and that it does take sides. Zinn is very clearly telling the readers that history cannot be told as a whole, bits and pieces are left as ide at the discretion of the author. A tiny part maybe left out, but the moral value it can hold can be tremendous even belief altering, that is why history it seems in a sense is regulated and a product that is designed for the general public.The concept that history inevitably takes sides (Use and Abuse of History 51) is a main point in how Zinn argues that history is partial. A bias is always present no matter who the scribe is because the scribe themselves is on a side, or he/she has certain views that alter how they record or present the event they have witnessed. (Use and Abuse of History 51) If this bias is always present is there really a right and wrong way to see two sides given in history?There is also incalculable other factors that are prevalent in regards to a bias picture is this the idea the publisher wants to display, will this spark controversy, will this get my point across, will this show we are superior? (Use and Abuse of History, 59) Zinn brings forward many ways that would sway a historiographer to push one side of the story more than the other. there is a conservativist bias to history a tendency to emphasize what previous generations have emphasized. The motive for that is safety, because the historian who breaks the pattern causes stares and suspicions. (Use and Abuse of History,59) The social norm protrudes dominant in the way history is engineered for the public, I think that it is harder for historians to avoid certain tendencies in what is scripted because of who will publish it and what controversies it will cause, and especially who will pay for it. History it seems today is more of a business to promote ideas and beliefs that are indoors the box, it promotes uniformity in the believers of the prehistorical, that those who learn about historys dark secrets must choose to, that nothing beyond the social norm will be willingly presented to them in fear that their ideologies and beliefs will change.Historys partial system of facts and the idea that entire civilizations are morally horrid or angelic is so biased because that is the way history has always been. each story told is nothing but a point of view, that one side of a story always remains dominant to another that portrays a negative outcome for the storyteller. Howard Zinns idea that there is no such thing as impartial history because of how it is twisted to either take on or ignore things or to emphasize or deemphasize certain ideas seems to do nothing but prove valid.History is something that has always been partial to emphasize values and ideas to prove something and make sure people interpret it in a certain way. The idea that you cannot ignore the past has a different significance to me now, you can choose to ignore certain pieces of the past. Historys conservative outlook constantly pushes the same values and ideas this is because we specify which ideas and values should be pushed. The way history is sliced and diced reflects what the g overnment and publishers think how we should view history.Events of the past are pushed to the side so that ideas of morality and righteousness still stand strong, even though our elected leaders of the past commit crimes it isnt in the best interest of the general public that this information set out readily available. (Use and Abuse of History 56-62) Zinns arguments prove to show that history is partial, that things are left out for certain reasons and things are emphasized to prove points.History can never be impartial because there will always be a degree of bias in whoever records it, neutrality can never really present when describing a conflict because even the idea of neutrality is a personal opinion. History itself is a product to be consumed by the masses, the ideas are ingested and regurgitated so the social norm remains strong and that certain ideologies are always held. Bibliography 1. Trueman, Chris. The Nazis and the German Economy. The Nazis and the German Economy. History accomplishment Site, n. d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. . 2. Zinn, Howard. The Use and Abuse of History. Coursepack