4 ms·

Zinn's point was that no matter how truthful or factually correct something is, it would still be biased. Consider an event that created some gain for a countr

Zinn's point was that no matter how truthful or factually correct something is, it would still be biased. Consider an event that created some gain for a country at the expense of a specific group of people. A history book that claims "This event helped the country through so and so" would be biased because it chose to include some piece of history while excluding the other. Similarly, a textbook including the latter part but not the former would also be biased. Now you may argue that including both consequences of the event would make the textbook unbiased but it actually suffers from the same problem. The very inclusion of any one piece of history is biased because you're making an explicit decision to include some event but not everything else. I agree with you that we can and should strive to be more objective, while accepting that true objectivity is not possible. However, it's important to understand that at the time of Zinn's writings, history was heavily biased towards one end of the spectrum. The intention of his own biased history was not to balance the scale, but to introduce the overlooked and erased aspects of history into the conversation. Zinn was basically saying "Look, we can't fit every little aspect of history into what we teach our kids. So if we're going to pick and choose the narratives and lessons that go in their books, we need to choose the ones that will help us avoid the mistakes of the past and shape a more just society. If history is going to influence the world, it should be for the better".

malandrew 6y ago
> Zinn's point was that no matter how truthful or factually correct something is, it would still be biased. Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased. You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors. You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering. There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence.
- bvrstvr 6y ago
  > Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased. I agree, and I explicitly took this position in my initial reply. > You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors. This is what Zinn was trying to achieve by introducing the parts of history that don't make it into the textbooks. > You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering. I'm not a Zinn or a history expert by any means so this is a bit above my pay grade. All I can say is that from some of Zinn's essays I've read, one of his main points was that you need to be critical of the history you're exposed to and try to understand what the text is trying to accomplish. In Zinn's texts he makes what he's trying to accomplish very clear. > There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence. You're absolutely right. This was the major idea Zinn introduced to history in academia. It honestly seems to me like you agree with the central thesis of Zinn's writings. A lot of the criticism I've been reading in this post mirrors the same criticism Zinn had of academic history when he first began writing.

malandrew 6y ago

> Zinn's point was that no matter how truthful or factually correct something is, it would still be biased. Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased. You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors. You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering. There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence.

bvrstvr 6y ago
> Of course, but that shouldn't be an argument to completely dismiss attempts to be less biased. I agree, and I explicitly took this position in my initial reply. > You achieve lesser bias by constantly doubting and questioning your priors. This is what Zinn was trying to achieve by introducing the parts of history that don't make it into the textbooks. > You establish authority and trust by actively communicating to your reader or interlocutor legitimate doubts people should have of even the position you're offering. I'm not a Zinn or a history expert by any means so this is a bit above my pay grade. All I can say is that from some of Zinn's essays I've read, one of his main points was that you need to be critical of the history you're exposed to and try to understand what the text is trying to accomplish. In Zinn's texts he makes what he's trying to accomplish very clear. > There is no greater smell that you should be concerned about someone's biases than when they present nothing but certainty and when they craft arguments that deliberately elide contradictory or exculpatory evidence. You're absolutely right. This was the major idea Zinn introduced to history in academia. It honestly seems to me like you agree with the central thesis of Zinn's writings. A lot of the criticism I've been reading in this post mirrors the same criticism Zinn had of academic history when he first began writing.