tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post2859281384892757383..comments2024-03-28T02:46:03.227-04:00Comments on The Historical Society: Teaching History to Undergrads: An Interview with Sam WineburgRandallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-7127078763527196592012-11-04T23:01:23.681-05:002012-11-04T23:01:23.681-05:00If we can speak beyond perceptions for a moment: t...If we can speak beyond perceptions for a moment: there is simply NO evidence to indicate that a majority of college history classes assign Zinn. If anyone has evidence, I would LOVE to see it. Furthermore, the idea that teachers do not provide push back to Zinn is not quantifiable.<br /><br />While I detest Zinn, I plan to assign him. Zinn has a legitimate spot in any US History class because it is one perspective of many. He argues that History is not concrete or set in stone, but instead open to critical interpretation. Wineburg's exercise of students verifying sources is something that could work in the high school classroom. The teacher's responsibility is to then provide other perspectives so that students can practice critical thinking.<br />Steven Cromackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097583374251949135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-35162665970961419972012-11-03T13:03:35.649-04:002012-11-03T13:03:35.649-04:00I think the point HCR has made is more interesting...I think the point HCR has made is more interesting than the question of "to Zinn or not to Zinn." Do students learn to think critically, or do they learn that there are good guys and bad guys? Does it matter whether we say "master narrative" or "dominant paradigm" or "consensus," or are these all open to the same challenge? Seems to me, intention is important. But then we're judging historical work from a presentist perspective: what is it intended to do now? Somehow, though, this doesn't bother me too much... dan allossohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10733670017382794923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-65939525319390285952012-11-02T12:36:42.513-04:002012-11-02T12:36:42.513-04:00Pushback against Zinn may be easily available, but...Pushback against Zinn may be easily available, but my impression (just as valid as yours) is that most of the Zinn is assigned in a college course, the students get to read very little to no pushback.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-83745026152077821862012-11-02T08:58:13.866-04:002012-11-02T08:58:13.866-04:00Hard for us to argue this without some statistics ...Hard for us to argue this without some statistics on who actually uses it as a textbook these days. My own impression, though, is that it had its moment of glory and is now seen as a corrective to the old narrative that is, itself, problematic.<br /><br />I still think the larger question of indoctrination is far worse if you convince people that they are thinking for themselves as they follow a provided conclusion than if you give them a biased book that has plenty of pushback, easily available.hcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07334093881332383848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-2763535441080934392012-11-01T23:34:38.141-04:002012-11-01T23:34:38.141-04:00Cherry-picking primary sources ranks much lower on...Cherry-picking primary sources ranks much lower on the scale of major pedagogical problems in the field. Near the top is the single-minded notion that the majority of students come away with from the great majority of classes that use Zinn--that American history is nothing but a laundry list of all the evil things that white male capitalists have done.<br /><br />Simply put, if you want people to continue believing in the notion of education in the humanities as political indoctrination first, learning second, then keep assigning Zinn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-51170274595703625002012-11-01T17:37:39.276-04:002012-11-01T17:37:39.276-04:00I'm not a fan of Zinn's work, but it seems...I'm not a fan of Zinn's work, but it seems to me that Wineburg's approach to Zinn would be useful for undergraduates, whether you like his approach or not. Getting them to chase down the sources for an unsourced text and then to see if the narrative accurately reflects those sources is a great way to show them that just because it's written down doesn't mean it's right. <br /><br />While I get the frustration that Zinn's version is now the master narrative, I don't think that's true. It might have been twenty years ago, but now there is a new master in town (it seems to me) and s/he's dangerous. It's the whole concept of the Documents Based Question. The idea behind that was good-- that students would use primary sources-- but the upshot of it seems to be that students learn to receive a thesis-- the "prompt"-- and then to support that thesis using primary documents, rather than looking at primary documents and coming up with their own interpretation of them. If you think of the larger societal implications of teaching students to defend whatever they are told using the evidence they can find (on the web), it seems to me a much bigger problem than any temporarily "master" narrative.hcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07334093881332383848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-11046669911411178982012-10-31T00:01:30.015-04:002012-10-31T00:01:30.015-04:00Exactly what Anonymous said above. I'm tired ...Exactly what Anonymous said above. I'm tired of the "Yes it's bad history, but BOY WHAT A GREAT BOOK!" interpretations of Zinn.<br /><br />Throw it in the trash, if it's truly bad. And STOP ASSIGNING IT if it's supposedly such a problematic book among the professorate (I suspect that it's not as problematic for academic historians as pseudo-Zinn apologists seem to want us to believe).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-26376668488812897022012-10-30T20:50:17.479-04:002012-10-30T20:50:17.479-04:00I enjoy a good dismissal of Zinn, but if its statu...I enjoy a good dismissal of Zinn, but if its status is so low in the academy, why is it assigned as a regular textbook? <br /><br />Why are the comments so far so positive?<br /><br />Besides, it doesn't challenge a master narrative anymore. Zinn's vision is the master narrative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-19921273267837432252012-10-30T07:08:41.901-04:002012-10-30T07:08:41.901-04:00"Ye without Zinn, cast the first Oliver Stone..."Ye without Zinn, cast the first Oliver Stone."<br /><br />I think it is overall a good think that Zinn has made so many individuals, in the states and abroad, excited about history. (People's History is a big seller here in Norway.) But what gets me is his sharp binary--good guys vs bad guys history. In this case it's history as object lesson and it's easy enough to spot the villains. Randallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-42596870443038905062012-10-29T22:33:57.106-04:002012-10-29T22:33:57.106-04:00What a great interview. I love Wineburg's wri...What a great interview. I love Wineburg's writings, especially Historically Thinking, and was fascinated by his approach to Zinn.<br /><br />Dan, I thought your point about Zinn having a "special place" on your shelf because it challenges "the master narrative" was particular salient.<br /><br />I remember in Honors US where my high school history teacher had us read Chapter 1 on Columbus. In the words of Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting, "that book will knock your socks off." While I detest Zinn and populist history, I think he does a great job of making students realize that history is not black and white (no pun intended).Steven Cromacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-74739437120540301912012-10-29T10:45:05.972-04:002012-10-29T10:45:05.972-04:00Interesting interview! I happily read Wineburg du...Interesting interview! I happily read Wineburg during both my MA and PhD History Intro seminars, and I agree with much of what he says here. But I also think we need to ask ourselves why Zinn is so popular with the people who don't have a seat at our exalted table, those Wineburg dismisses as high school teachers, Hollywood personalities, and Amazon.com reviewers.<br /><br />As an ABD PhD student and a farmer, I may be much closer to the beginning of my historical journey, and I may be less averse to screwing up a potential career by telling the truth. So I will admit, Zinn's book does occupy a special place on my shelf. Not because I believe it uncritically. But because it was one of the first things I ever read that challenged the master narrative. The fact that it's light on references is a function of its market and its time (compare it with, say, Oscar Handlin's The Uprooted), but it DID mention a lot of subjects and events I had never heard of in the history I was taught in American public schools. As with all the old books I read, I made lists of these and went off and found out more about them myself. This led to an MA, and the PhD program I'm doing now.<br /><br />Maybe part of the attraction of A People's History is that it calls names and reduces history to binaries. That's a bad thing, if the alternative is a more constructive and nuanced view of the past. But it's a good thing, if the alternative is the type of American history so many of us were taught. By throwing cold water on that history, Zinn helped open the door for people like...Wineburg.dan allossohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10733670017382794923noreply@blogger.com