Should Historians Take Sides?

Decent Essays

Week One Writing Response A. Howard Zinn (Zinn, Introduction) suggests that historians must inevitably take sides. What does he mean by this? Do you agree or disagree with him? Why?

Throughout the introduction article Howard Zinn elucidates the inevitability of historians taking sides. Zinn exemplifies his argument by displaying his disagreement of the common history curriculum taught through the prospective of achievements, not the consequences that occurred to obtain it. Zinns states, “In other words, my focus is not on the achievements of the heroes of traditional history, but on all those people who were the victims of those achievements, who suffered silently or fought back magnificently” (Zinn, Introduction). Zinn’s ideology about history is an argument which I strongly agree upon. Many lessons I’ve learned as an academic scholar was through the prospective of achievement, not the pain and suffering caused on the people who were oppressed during the process. Many people who lived through the achievements of one’s conquest, was their times of difficulty. The inevitable sides appear through ones prospective of a historical event.

B. According to Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke ("What Does it Mean to Think Historically"), what are the five Cs that scholars can draw upon in the study of history? You should briefly define each of the five Cs in your own words.

Grasping the meaning of historical events is a difficult task. Thomas Andrews and Flannery

Get Access