4 ms·

I recall vehemently disagreeing with Chomsky on many things when I was much younger, but then I somehow stumbled upon Howard Zinn’s “People’s history of the Uni

• tptacek 2y ago
  Zinn's reputation among historians: not all that great.
  • ein0p 2y ago
    Reputation of historians according to Zinn: not all that great either. Read him as a counterpoint, and food for critical thought, not as the sole source of truth. He doesn’t hide that he has an agenda.
    • caycep 2y ago
      I did actually see him talk at a rally in Boston Common, around '04 or so. While his written stuff may well be better, what struck me was the gist was basically self promotion about how he know "secret" things from "secret" sources, but never really bothered to elaborate, only that the "US Govt is lying to you". Well yes but...I would say if one had such information, it is not well served by presenting oneself as a conspiratorial crank....
      • ein0p 2y ago
        Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers. Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined
        • vasco 2y ago
          I mean if you want another perspective you can simple Wikipedia "American Empire". It'll be simple enough for another view of current state of affairs without going into politically motivated alternative history, either from communists or from milton friedman fans. It annoys me to no end that both right wingers and left wingers like so much to tell history how it's convenient to them and always hard to get something unbiased. Even numbers of deaths can't be trusted before you check who you are reading.
          • ein0p 2y ago
            But Wikipedia is also full of lies and omissions, though. You're going to have to work to synthesize some plausible version of the past from the politically motivated sources either way.
        • Eisenstein 2y ago
          I don't think the solution to having been taught one biased view is to turn around and embrace the oppositely biased view. Countering one form of extreme with another does not make truth, it makes people who hate each other who refuse to find common ground or compromise.
        • caycep 2y ago
          Yes, but why should I even bother with Zinn especially when his talk was basically to take him at his word/narrative, over other, better sourced accounts of how the US Govt is lying to me? (* some of which comes from other parts of the US Govt meant to keep tabs on certain other parts of the US Govt) (*granted, also this assumes the US Govt is one monolithic entity when it is anything but)
    • tptacek 2y ago
      OK, but to be clear: his reputation among leftist historians, of which there are many: not all that great!
  • yareal 2y ago
    "People who I am critical of don't like me" is not particularly surprising, to be honest.
• hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  I was more-or-less a free-market, atheist libertarian until about age 16 because I didn't know any better and it seemed so righteous and freedom flag-waving. Then, I learned a few things decades since then (but kept the atheism), especially about the dark origins of libertarianism. The truth is that America is a neocolonial power that flirts authoritarianism where one can live an easy life if they're moderately rich, but on the backs of a massive, struggling underclass that has it much worse than most countries in Europe. "Socialism" is a taboo word in America that it needs much more of, but the problem is that most people have too much faith in strongmen, corruption of campaign financing, and giving corporations more money, more power, and favorable regulations including regulatory capture.
  • ein0p 2y ago
    I’m starting to waver on atheism also. I’m not likely to start believing in god this far in my life, of course, but I now see why a lot of people feel the need to believe, and I no longer judge them for it. I do however judge religious organizations for shamelessly exploiting that need.
    • karmakurtisaani 2y ago
      Perhaps I could sell you the idea of ignosticism: one cannot prove anything about any supernatural beings, so the whole question of existence of gods is meaningless, and can be therefore happily be ignored. Thus, all religious questions are resolved. Even atheism is a strong stance and asserts a belief that you cannot test!
• verticalscaler 2y ago
  If you reread what you wrote carefully an amazing irony falls out. You might consider your consent has simply been manufactured in another direction. Lots of Chomsky acolytes never quite reach that epiphany. They simply follow in his footsteps of being oh so traumatized by the sudden realization that governments lie and propaganda is a thing that you could get them to opt in to an even deeper set of absurdities and half truths quite easily. To the great delight of the enemies of the US. This is how you get college students to chant "Death to America".
  • corimaith 2y ago
    Second option bias comes to mind here, funnily enough the alt-right utilizes the same tactics.
    • verticalscaler 2y ago
      Indeed. Alt-right/left/whatever. Very potent tactics as you can tell even from reading this thread. You would think people who come to these bitter realizations would know better but many inevitably land on "the ends justifies the means" or the less sophisticated "only our scum enemies lie!" and round and round we go.
  • ein0p 2y ago
    Actually that’s only true if you uncritically accept everything either side says and reject the other side. That’s low IQ, don’t do that.
    • verticalscaler 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • ein0p 2y ago
        The reason you can’t tell is one comment up in the thread.