For homework this weekend, we were assigned chapter 5 of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, titled "A Kind of Revolution". I saw what we would have called "an asterisk" in chapter 1 appearing before my eyes. Instead of the normal American Revolution story, (the incredible odds, the cruel British, our noble battles and our people united), I found myself reading a story that reveals the internal fights, the cruel segregation, and overall faults of the Americans during the Revolution.
I suppose in the back of my mind I always knew that the "textbook" version of the American Revolution had to be pretty biased, but I just put it in the back of my mind and ignored it. I viewed this bit of history idealistically, believing that the Americans had only the most courageous intentions and never for a second faltered from their common goal. However, in cases like these, I'd argue that it's better to look at history pragmatically. It's never really safe to assume that one side was perfect, or that the history book was telling the unbiased truth. If you think more pragmatically, you'll be more likely to see when a source is biased, forcing you to look more cautiously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment