Yeah, well I think the underlying complaint is that Zinn sold too many books. I can understand that a "scholar" would be frustrated at the fame/$$/independence that this book earned Zinn. But the scholar should also understand that in educating and motivating people different kinds of books are required. Marx understood this, which is why he wrote the manifesto on the one hand, and Capital on the other.
Joanna
Chris Doss wrote:
"Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable and makes no serious attempt to address the biggest question a leftist can ask about U.S. history: why have most Americans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist republic in which they live?"
-- What's so daunting about that question? Don't most people accept the legitimacy of whatever social system they are socialized in, provided it is stable? Most Soviets considered the Soviet system to be legitimate. I presume that goes as well for past residents of monarchies and any other political system one might name.
