I did actually see him talk at a rally in Boston Common, around '04 or so. While his written stuff may well be better, what struck me was the gist was basically self promotion about how he know "secret" things from "secret" sources, but never really bothered to elaborate, only that the "US Govt is lying to you". Well yes but...I would say if one had such information, it is not well served by presenting oneself as a conspiratorial crank....
Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers.
Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined
Yes, but why should I even bother with Zinn especially when his talk was basically to take him at his word/narrative, over other, better sourced accounts of how the US Govt is lying to me?
(* some of which comes from other parts of the US Govt meant to keep tabs on certain other parts of the US Govt)
(*granted, also this assumes the US Govt is one monolithic entity when it is anything but)
I don't think the solution to having been taught one biased view is to turn around and embrace the oppositely biased view. Countering one form of extreme with another does not make truth, it makes people who hate each other who refuse to find common ground or compromise.
I mean if you want another perspective you can simple Wikipedia "American Empire". It'll be simple enough for another view of current state of affairs without going into politically motivated alternative history, either from communists or from milton friedman fans.
It annoys me to no end that both right wingers and left wingers like so much to tell history how it's convenient to them and always hard to get something unbiased. Even numbers of deaths can't be trusted before you check who you are reading.
But Wikipedia is also full of lies and omissions, though. You're going to have to work to synthesize some plausible version of the past from the politically motivated sources either way.
