Howard Zinn: Use and Abuse of History Summary

Response to Howard Zinn word recital is something we constantly refer to progress ourselves as humans, we learn from our mistakes and continue to strive from our successes. alone who is to say what is a horrible mistake or a courageous act of valor? That which was documented active what happened so long ago, was done by a person who spread the story or wrote it d induce from their perspective. Howard Zinns argument that in that location is no such thing as im fond(p) explanation pass waterly illustrates that when invoice is recorded there is al styluss two cheeks to the story, that things are every unexpended knocked out(p) or unploughed in to s air the reader to one side or the other. Ein truthone is biased, whether they know it or not, in possessing wakeless goals, purposes and ends. (Zinn, Use and evil of biography,51) Not only back end tale be recorded partially besides also it mass be preached partially. By that I mean that in todays fellowship many things are censored, not published or not publicized. If they dont share a view that the government doesnt standardized, that a publisher knows volition not sell a hold in or that get out cause negative controversy the news report probably wont hazard it to the eyes of the public. (Use and misuse of History,62).History is partial because no return who tells it, all the details cannot be accounted for, things are leave(a) out or over emphasized to prove a point or show a certain view. In todays school ashes children learn bill the way it has been mandated by the government not out of apprizeers discretion. The way memoir is taught in America is very partial, the idea that America is this countrified that is oh so glorious and built on the fundamentals of a amend and morally salubrious society is over-glorified. The story of Christopher Columbus is a great example that Zinn uses.Americans teach their youth about the courageous sailor who founded the new world and the glory h e brought. But pull out out the side notes of the genocide he had started and the ruthlessness of thraldom all for his own personal glory. (Use and maltreatment of History 56-57) Two sides of the same story, though both sides are never told. The idea that the founder of a country was a ruthless murderer would never swing in elementary schools, no matter how much of a reality it is. One must inevitably omit large chunks of what is procurable in historical nurture. But what is mitted is critical in the kind of historical education people get (Use and hatred of History 56). It is insane to count that children should be taught every shred of history in school, they focus on the main points entirely again these main points are synthesized to show what a regulated counsel of officials decides is earmark knowledge to learn. The books however that detail accounts that hold a darker look at the events or people like Christopher Columbus are not hidden or burned. Instead they are out there only if 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 a good job and proving how much of a milling machinery Christopher Columbus was who would ever look for such a book? History is partial because societys pick out officials choose what is put in the public eye, the officials decide what the kind 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 right side of the story, but what the public will perceive as the right story. Whenever someone says, history proves and then cites a list of historical facts, we should beware. We can al ways select facts from history (there are wads to choose from) to prove almost anything (Violence and human nature 41) The way we can use and abuse history is as easy as putting someones name into Google and hitting search. People ca n pick and choose what facts about something they wish to argue, again pushing for the partial use of history to suck up a point. An extreme example of course would be Adolph Hitler, you ask a student about Hitler their prompt response would be he was a monster.Many would agree, but what he did for the economy of Germany and how he brought a ravenous and poor country back to power can be considered in respects a formidable act of great leadership and planning. (Trueman , The Nazis and the German Economy) The way history is presented is in a way that makes the conferrer (the government) look good in the eyes of its citizens. The picking and choosing of facts only furthers the stereotype that the world had good guys and self-aggrandising guys, good countries and bad countries, and ours was good (Violence and Human Nature 41).It makes sense in a way that it keeps the sight satisfied with their style and way of government. If the complete history of the U. S. governmental flaws a nd acts of murders were to be published and used in schools of course the reaction would be to demand change and affectk 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 demoralize of History 51) cannot be denied, history is always 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, spirits and set we hold so strong to ourselves dictate the way we see art, literature and the world. The way we see history and record history is also based again on our value and beliefs, what we set in our promontory to be so great, honest and true such as our country can be bleary by how attached we are to these values and beliefs we have. The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright 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. Taking 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 known about in the Americas regarding the economy was the great depression and slavery. After reading that part of the article it seems very clear to myself why that was kept 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 global public, but the Ludlow Massacre becaus e 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 usual 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 aside 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 th at 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 countless other factors that are prevalent in regards to a bias opinion 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 conservative bias to history a tendency to emphasize what previous generations have emphasized. The motive fo r that is safety, because the historian who breaks the pattern causes stares and suspicions. (Use and Abuse of History,59) The social norm stands 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 written because of who will publish it and what controversies it will cause, and especially who will wear for it. History it seems today is more of a business to promote ideas and beliefs that are inside the box, it promotes uniformity in the believers of the old, 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. Every story told is nothing but a point of view, that one side of a story always remains do minant 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 include 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 take care it in a certain way. The idea that you cannot ignore the past has a different meaning 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 government 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 th e best interest of the general public that this information become 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 Learning Site, n. d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. . 2. Zinn, Howard. The Use and Abuse of History. Coursepack