You probably don't know US history

[Kpuppy0001]

"A People's History of the United States" ... by Howard Zinn​

A noted socialist propagandist.

I've read his book it's trash.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I could recommend a lot of books to learn US history, but this one will go a long way to learning post-WWII US history globally. It's been excellent so far, even in the introduction.

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

Blum’s stuff is interesting but one needs to know he is not a historian. Actual historians don’t editorialize. They simply report. They may add context, but leave the reader to determine valuations, They don’t push a “take” on it one way or the other. At least the best ones don’t.

Blum is political analyst/critic with a socialist POV/ slant to his findings. He has a take on things and makes it known, attempting to influence the reader’s determination on valuations. That’s fine, like I said though that’s editorializing not the reporting of history.

 

[Craig234]

Blum’s stuff is interesting but one needs to know he is not a historian. Actual historians don’t editorialize. They simply report. They may add context, but leave the reader to determine valuations, They don’t push a “take” on it one way or the other. At least the best ones don’t.

Blum is political analyst/critic with a socialist POV/ slant to his findings. He has a take on things and makes it known, attempting to influence the reader’s determination on valuations. That’s fine, like I said though that’s editorializing not the reporting of history.

I think that's a misleading commentary, though. It uses pejorative words like 'take' and 'slant'. The issue is, he accurately reports a history that a 'take' and 'slant' has left hidden. You are implying some flaw in his documentation without actually stating the flaw.

The comparison to 'pure history' is more harm than good. It's essentially irrelevant to the issue. It's truth that his documentation is one-sided; it is telling 'missing history' not a total, both-sides history. That does nothing to say it's not important, correct, useful by telling the missing 'side' of the history.