Zinn writes: “When we read the history books given to children in the US, it all starts with heoric adventure – there is no bloodhsed” (7).
Yes, and this is a disgrace. But you do not counteract a simplistic dishonest account with another simplistic dishonest account. Why is it so hard to discuss history without trying to make it serve your ideological purposes at every step of the way?
Why is it so hard to discuss history without trying to make it serve your ideological purposes at every step of the way?
I strongly fear that this is the only reason anyone studies history, ever. I wish it were otherwise.
LikeLike
The way I learned history was through an initial massively-oversimplified narrative which was then filled-in with more and more details as I got older. I can’t see how else it could be done, honestly.
But there’s no reason that the initial narrative must be a propagandistic one.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment