Howard Zinn: The Changer of American History
(Introduction)
There is a speech stating that history is always
written by the winners. I believed, this is a myth that until his death January
20th, Howard Zinn tried to break.
Of course, to break the truth is not easy; someone must have a lot of
data and research clearly in order when
he/she want to publish their founds so that’s can be for cover someone if there
are people did not disagreed with our statements. In this era there are many
history that hidden by a people to get the benefit from these cases. So, why
this case can be happen? What were our positions as the young generation to
break the truth?
(Summary)
Howard Zinn was one of the radical
writers in this world. From his books that the tittle is A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn did not afraid
if many American peoples do not like the book that Zinn wrote. Instead, there
is new information about who was the Christopher Columbus exactly and all of
those were content in the book that Zinn wrote. From his greatness, Zinn also
have weaknesses. Howard Zinn likes the boxer from the different corners,
because of he only break the truth that Christopher Columbus was not the first
founder of America’s continent. If Columbus was not the first founder, so that,
of course he already knew who was the first founder of America’s continent
exactly. But, Howard Zinn less gave information about that.
Main Body (Critique)
It is all about the bailout or
disagreement of American history from an American writer. The name is Howard
Zinn, he was the briefed writers in this world. He fought United States of America,
with his position as American but he refused the old history of America and
thing about the founder of America continent was not Christopher Columbus.
Howard Zinn did a lot of researches and other to proof that who was the first founder
of America continent. With all of his activities Howard Zinn named by American
as the rogue of America. Therefore, Howard Zinn still believe with his
researches who has proofed that Christopher Columbus was changed the history in
order he got everything that Christopher Columbus want.
Zinn, the radical American historian,
died of a heart attack are attacked while swimming. He leaved a wife and a big
name from a legendary book that he wrote; A People's History of the United
States. The book that when it was first published in 1980 only sold four
thousand copies has sold out nearly two million copies and was reprinted five
times. It puts the writer, then a professor of history at Boston University, in
the critical tradition of elite liberal - progressive America.
What is interesting, of course Zinn book
is his courage to reveal the dark side of the new continent's history and
commitment to the definition of the subaltern in Spivak: they are marginalized
in the politics of narrating history. Shooting targets do not bear responsibility:
Christopher Columbus and the historians who write naive version of the arrival
of the colonists. These include Harvard historian Samuel Elliot Morison.
Something is wrong when historians
consider their profession together with the cartographer, Zinn said. Mapmakers
intentionally simplify reality, showing the part that need, and discard unimportant
visible. It is made in the map of Indonesia, the islands we do not have to be
flat and there is a picture of the American continent there. But writing
history is something really different.
While distortion or bias technical
cartographers, historians bias then no other is ideological bias. In the words
of Zinn, any particular emphasis in the writing of history would support an
interest. It can be political, economic, racial or national. But unfortunately
in the historical narrative, this bias is not as bright as in the writing of
the map. Historian writes as if any reader has a single common interest. The
particular writers seemed to forget that the production of knowledge is a tool
of combat in the antagonism between social classes, races, nations or peoples.
This is harsh criticism of Samuel Elliot
Morrison Zinn at the Harvard historian who wrote the seminal book Christopher
Columbus, Mariner. True, not the least Morison lying about atrocities Columbus.
He even called the sailors have committed genocide on Indian Arawaks. However,
Zinn wrote, the facts listed on one page later he is buried in hundreds of
other pages that exalts the greatness of the sailors. The decision to better
tell a heroism and neglect the fact of genocide suppression occurs in Arawak’s
Indians is not a technical requirement mapmaker style, but purely ideological
choice. An ideological choice to justify what has happened, concluded Zinn.
If Morison is a politician and not a
scholar, this ideological choice would not be so serious. But precisely because
of this fact is told by an intellectual, so the implication is so deadly. We
are taught as a moral imperative that sacrifice, even so inhumane, it is
necessary for progress. Morison said calmly as if that really was a massacre on
ethnic Arawaks, but little fact was not comparable to the service and heroism
of Columbus for us. Sense is then reproduced in the classroom teaching of history,
and the student handbook.
Departing from the disapproval then Zinn
wrote different versions of history; history from the point of view of those
lost, aka the loser. Be it tells the story of the discovery of America from the
perspective of the Indians Arawaks, of the Civil War as experienced by the
Irish in New York, about the first World War seen from the Socialist party, and
of the conquest of the Philippines by black soldiers on Luzon.
From
the great things of Howard Zinn, actually he has many weaknesses from his
wrote. There are interesting when we actually can throw a similar critique on
Zinn. That he was taking an ideological choice in the writing of history, the
fact that it emphasizes the fact that he likes and skips the others. So what's
the difference he Morison? Zinn is actually nothing more than a boxer from a
different ring. If Morison wrote of glasses winner, Zinn was the mouthpiece of
the losers.
Zinn is honest in exposing his position.
Zinn definitely not as naive they were talking about objectivity in the
narrative. He siding, and warns the reader from the outset of his position. The
first chapter of the book was very confessional and on page 11 of 729 pages the
People's History he writes:
If history is to
be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it
should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden
episodes of the past when , even if in brief flashes, people Showed their ability
to resist, to join together, occasionally to win . I am supposing, or perhaps
only hoping, that our future may be found in the past’s fugitive moments of
compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare. That, being as blunt
as I can, is my approach to the history of the United States. The reader may as
well know that before going on.
It makes Zinn does not pretend pylon in the story;
he realized that the bias and the reader needs to know. Then what is his
defense of his position? This is the second thing to note from a Howard Zinn:
he refused consequences emphatic definition Andersonian nation! Nation is not
and does not even ever be a community, said Zinn.
But instead he is without shortcomings. I have one
less thing I love about writing styles Zinn: absence of some references and
footnotes. There are so many hard facts that he should give a note where he got
it, but the info is absent. Zinn 's just say at the end of his book that he
told all based on the experience of teaching and of the books which he lists at
the end of the page . Perhaps this is what makes it not been seriously
considered in academic circles.
However, if we look back at the tradition of writing
a reference, it is actually a relatively new thing. I happened to read a book
written about the crusade of Henry Treece, and he also does not use any
reference. The book marked the 1960s. Zinn might get into the old school class.
Whatever it is, Zinn remains a Howard Zinn. Inspirational
writers and activist who has firmly bypass road Less Travelled by. To that end,
I respectfully stand applause and hat while his eyes closed. Idham, Kholid.
(Conclusion)
So, the simple conclusion is Howard Zinn
is the radical writers because of he attacked history of United States that
always judge Christopher Columbus was the founder of America’s continent with
all of his statement in the book that he writes. But, Howard Zinn also has
weakness. For example, he just refused that Christopher Columbus not the
founder actually. And unfortunately Zinn did not write the history about
Moslems as the first founder of America continent. Therefore, I am standing
applause to Howard Zinn because he brief to fight the lie and published the
fact to others.
(References)
- http://menuju-cahaya-ilahi.blogspot.com/2010/09/amerika-negeri-muslim-yang-dimurtadkan.html
- http://nurkhatami.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/umat-islam-sudah-lebih-dulu-menemukan-amerika-sebelum-columbus/
- JakartaBeat
0 Comments