1. What is history?
History is the viewing of past events through current lenses in order to ascertain meaning from them.
2. What is ideology?
An ideology is a set of ideals and principles that defines the moral and philosophical mindset of an individual or group.
3. Can history be neutral? Why or why not?
History certainly can be neutral, but to effectively utilize history as a tool in our mental arsenal we must assign biases to it. This isn't to say that we should use the 'History is written by the victors' mindset. Rather, we must assign cultural and personal biases to facts in order to avoid trivializing them. An entirely neutral history is little more than a record of dates and events with little value beyond passing a test. The past is our greatest learning tool, especially because the present is over much too fast to learn from, and we don't yet know what the future holds. However, in order to learn from it, we must assign context to it using biases.
4. Zinn discusses what he considers the typical way Americans study or understand history. How has your experience (either in school, or simply in your life) been similar?
I'll be completely honest: I completely forgot what Zinn discusses in Chapter 4. I read it, but for the life of me I can't remember what it said about education. So I guess I don't have anything to say for this one.
5. When you consider Zinn's discussion of the typical American study or understanding of history, how has your experience (in school or in life) been different?
This one either.
6. What did you read that stood out to you positively? Why?
I was very glad to see a history textbook that took such an unorthodox approach to history; a textbook that showed, in most cases, a completely opposing viewpoint to that which is usually presented in history class. Genocide where we see heroics, treachery where we see trustworthiness, warmongering where we see valiance. And the best part is, it's all available for free online. Anybody can access it, without having to pay or join a school, plain and simple on an HTML page. True insight available for the masses.
7. What did you read that you disliked? Why?
I was particularly annoyed by a certain instance of hypocrisy present in Zinn's article about the American Indians. Zinn spends several pages of his works explaining the journalistic sin of de-emphasizing important parts of history. He elucidates how emphasizing certain facts over others can taint the piece with a severe bias over one facet of it. The fact is still presented in order to quell suspicions otherwise, but it is presented as so insignificant in comparison to other facts as to be trivial. Clearly, this is an action Zinn despises, so it struck me as odd that he himself presented this sort of bias.
The bulk of the article is committed to presenting the atrocities that European settlers committed against the Native Americans. However, the only true acts of peaceful negotiation with the natives that were not mere tricks to further enslave or decimate are skimmed over with a single sentence. "For a while, the English tried softer tactics." No mention of what these tactics were or how long they were enacted, and the very next line in the article is "But ultimately, it was back to annihilation." Now, I have no problem with biases in historical retellings. In fact, I believe that it's completely impossible to abandon bias in any work. And Zinn never claims to be unbiased, and in fact outright says he will not attempt to suppress his biases. But this blatant use of one of his most reviled journalistic biases strikes me as hypocritical and lazy.
8. How were some of your biases or preconceived notions confirmed by what you read?
I had known for quite a while that Christopher Columbus was a less-than-heroic figure in our history. Christopher Columbus being a terrible person is one of those things that gets passed around in middle school because it's enough of a defiance of preconceived authority to be edgy while being relatively harmless to one's psyche, as it's relatively easy to ignore atrocities committed hundreds of years before your birth. The farther away a horrific event is, the easier it is for one to distance one's self from it, hence the large number of Lincoln Assassination jokes in relation to 9/11 jokes.
9. How were some of your biases or preconceived notions challenged by what you read?
"How the US Lost Out on iPhone Work" shattered my preconceptions on why so many companies outsource their labor nowadays. I had always assumed it was simply a wage issue. America has minimum wage laws; many other countries have no such law. Hence, it would be cheaper to produce iPhones overseas. And while that is a part of it, it's certainly not the whole story. After all, the lack of minimum wage laws only saves Apple fifty-seven dollars per iPhone. The much bigger reasons are the flexibility of the workers, the eagerness of factories to please, and the size and concentration of different factories all in one area.
10. What unique perspective, element of creativity, or new questions do you bring to our study of history?
I wish to bring to the table a question to be explored in depth pertaining to the thoughts of people both today and yesterday. Namely, where should an ideology come from? Should it be built up from scratch? Should other parties be allowed to influence it? Should it be flexible or solid? How have ideologies influenced the course of human history? Oh wait, that was five questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment