Was he right about WW2?

How do you seriously maintain any credibility as a teacher when you know your students think you're a communist hack based on info they read on pol?

Do they like it?

Why haven't you been told to knock it off?

First off, I only use Zinn for my honor students. Second, I use Zinn for my historiography lessons to demonstrate how history itself is written, and how Historians argue from different perspectives. So, I'm not JUST teaching Zinn, but he is perfect for learning historiography (which is perfect for me hitting my standards).

And third, I don't tell my students what to think, I teach them how to think, they have the freedom to pick and choose what narrative, or historical perspective they find the most appealing (just like any real historian or grad student studying history). The last assignment I give them is a historiography essay, where they have to argue for their chosen historian's views, by the time I'm done with my weeks long lessons, only about 30% of my students choose Zinn.

A lot of them do.

Because I'm one of the best teachers in my school. The students, faculty, parents, and admin like me because I actually teach history and always have great test scores at the end of the year.

What other historiographical examples do you use? Somehow I doubt you're reading Carlyle and von ranke

wait, are you flipping your finger? How beta are you?

I do use them. I use excerpts from 19th century historians to demonstrate how they differ from 20th and 21st century historians. This paints a clear picture of how different ideologies, wars, and changing economics shape a historians narrative. But the assignment I'm speaking of has mainly to do with contemporary historians. I would allow a student to choose a 19th century historian if they so desired though, I'm very flexible when it comes to assignments.

Do you want to know the list of contemporary historians my students can choose from for their historiography assignment/projects?

>
And third, I don't tell my students what to think, I teach them how to think, they have the freedom to pick and choose what narrative, or historical perspective they find the most appealing (just like any real historian or grad student studying history). The last assignment I give them is a historiography essay, where they have to argue for their chosen historian's views, by the time I'm done with my weeks long lessons, only about 30% of my students choose Zinn.

Well that's fair

Yes

>Well that's fair
I've never had a parent, student, or administrator complain.

What state?

i bet you this guy is the typical "I'm not telling you should be a socialist, but you should be a socialist" senior year high school civics teacher

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

We'll find out once he posts his list of communist historians

You may not recognize all the names but these are them, and remember, I'm giving these names out of context from my lesson plans. These names obviously make more sense in their proper context.

>Thomas Becker
>Patrick Manning
>Lynda Shaffer
>Jerry H. Bentley
>Zinn
>Robert Marks
>Ross E. Dunn (for the Western Heritage Model)
>Adam Mckeown
>Fredrick Jackson Turner
>Alan Taylor (who deconstructs Turner)
>Sven Beckert

Ultimately we are talking borderlands history, western heritage history, marxist history, or economic history.

My students are free to choose whichever narrative/view they prefer, so long as they ARGUE using the historical thinking skills I taught them throughout the year.

No doubt I don't need to go into what historical thinking skills are, I'm sure everyone on Veeky Forums already knows them by heart :-)

Would not take your American West class

Thanks for delivering though, respect

Hey man, you guys can shit on me all you want, but I actually tend to believe I get my students a little more prepared for their college history courses better than your average dumb football history teacher who is just regurgitating the high school text book in front of him.

...

I'm sure you do. I don't doubt your commitment to the rigiuors study of your field for a second.

I will say though that in my experience students need more broad familiarity with historiography, especially the classics of which they tend to be shockingly ignorant.

You are a good person

It's not just American West, it's models of historical narratives. It's HISTORIOGRAPHY. I tend to think I cover a good range of historian perspectives in my lesson plans.

Of course, I'm not a teacher who sits idle every year and hashes out the same lessons, if I feel the need to update my historiography lesson plans, I will surely do that. But it's no secrete that capitalist/economic history is what is currently dominating in academia at the moment. Which is why I try to expose my students to Shaffer and Beckert.

>I'm sure everyone on Veeky Forums already knows them by heart :-)

>I will say though that in my experience students need more broad familiarity with historiography, especially the classics of which they tend to be shockingly ignorant.
a good point, anything you recommend, I'm always reading every night; always looking for fresh historical perspectives.

I'm one of those teachers who, every time they finish a history book, they try to find a way to implement it into their lesson plans. I like to think I've gotten pretty good at it over the years.

Jesus Christ at best you have a few world historians and some American West stuff and you call that comprehensice historiography? Where is your Hegel?

Prove me wrong, etc etc. Find me a quote of Chimpsky or Zinn unequivocally condemning any of the thugs they idolised. At best you'll find "it would have worked but the evildumb crapitalists bullied them too much / the trauma of european colonialism corrupted the Revolution or some variant of this.Never a simple admission that they were wrong, that they thought Pol Pot or Qadaffi or Chavez was a socialist but he turned out to just be a psychopath, always excuses and weasel words.

I'm glad someone caught my sense of humor.

I except Hegel, he can be used for the student to argue their points further, but he isn't one of the chosen historians for the end project. Remember, I give a large range so students can use multiple historians to argue their perspective. In other words, I'm dropping them plenty of bread crumbs (evidence), it's up to them to use it.

excerpt*

I'd start with mackinder

Max Weber after that

E. h. Carr
Eric hobsbawm

I never thought about using MacKinder, He is actually perfect for any of my students arguing for the Western Heritage Model.

A great suggestion, many respects.

Lord Acton

Where is your Niall Ferguson?

I actually use Max Weber for my other class.
I also teach an Introduction to Religions course at my High School. My students really enjoy the excerpts I use from Weber.

But I can see where he could be used to argue cultural/economic history for my historiography assignment/project to my honors students. I'll have to consider him.

Barbara tuchmann

>Prove me wrong, etc etc. Find me a quote of Chimpsky or Zinn unequivocally condemning any of the thugs they idolised
Chomsky never idolized pol pot, if that is what you are implying. Such a statement should be backed up by you.
Here's a quote anyway:
>I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury.

>At best you'll find "it would have worked but the evildumb crapitalists bullied them too much / the trauma of european colonialism corrupted the Revolution or some variant of this
Nice imaginary quotes. You are a /pol/tard regurgitating some retarded infopic with false info, aren't you?

Quigley

I do use him, but only a small excerpt from the conclusion of his book Civilization: The West and the Rest, where he elegantly summarizes his thesis. Keep in mind, I have to limit the historians, I'm on a time restraint. However, I can eventually shake things up over time.

Where is your Foucault?

They can't handle Foucault. And I'm not about to waste time trying to get them to understand it. Best they learn it in college.

I understand your time constraints and the need to nbe as comprehensive as possible. I'm from the old school where we read entire works cover to cover like real men.

Maybe that's just not possible with the children these days

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

...

...

We are cut from the same cloth. I was raised knowing reading was a chosen (healthy) lifestyle, but sadly, a lot of my students are not raised this way. They can however, handle excerpts intelligently with my help, that often results in excitement for the reading.

I did have a student come back to my class a couple years later and said he read all of Robert Marks' book, and it helped him get an A in his college World History course.

Unfortunately, most days are an uphill battle, but I do my best to remain charismatic and energized throughout the day for them. Teaching at the high school level is really a performance.

...

is that you hanson

Hahaha what a fool you are. Try reading that whole conversation, not just the line you quoted. He goes on to equivocate the "genocide" of East Timor, which he directly attributes to the US for some reason, then spends the rest of the section talking about East Timor and equivocating the numbers. He then drops this thought-turd:
>There's also pretty good evidence from U.S. government sources and scholarly sources that the intense bombardment was a significant force-maybe a critical force-in building up peasant support for the Khmer Rouge, who before that were a pretty marginal element.

He goes on to "explain" that it was in fact the US bombings of radical communists on behalf of the client state of Cambodia that lead to the radical communism in Cambodia.

He waffles on this vein, talking at length about teh terrible death and suffering the American bombing caused, ad then, having sufficiently poisoned the well, he just strays right into outright denialism:
>Within a few weeks after the Khmer Rouge takeover, The New York Times was already accusing them of genocide. At that point maybe a couple of hundred or maybe a few thousand people had been killed. And from then on it was a drum beat, a chorus of genocide.
>The big best-seller on Cambodia, on Pol Pot, is called Murder in a Gentle Land. Up until April 17, 1975, it was a gentle land of peaceful smiling people and after that some horrible holocaust took place.
>Very quickly, a figure of two million killed was hit upon. In fact, what was claimed was the Khmer Rouge boast of having murdered two million people. The facts were very dramatic. In the case of atrocities committed by the official enemy, extraordinary show of outrage, exaggeration, no evidence required, faked photographs were fine, anything goes.

If you were taken in by this sophistry then you are part of the problem.

...

This book would go perfect with my excerpts from Odd Westad. I will pick it up.

I do not doubt this. The environment is so loaded with boredom, hormones and socialization, and distractions, it must be difficult keeping their attention.

California

>it must be difficult keeping their attention.
Well lets just say I almost quit teaching after my second year. (because of the students and admin)

Luckily, there were Veteran teachers who encouraged me to stay with the profession; always complimenting me and giving me moral boosts when I really needed them. If it weren't for them, I would have switched careers.

Administration can go fuck themselves. Although, I hear other schools don't have bad administrators, so it might just be our school. I won't generalize.

First, let me point out that you have given no evidence of chomsky "idolizing" pol pot and that i have provided the quote you asked.

>He goes on to "explain" that it was in fact the US bombings of radical communists on behalf of the client state of Cambodia that lead to the radical communism in Cambodia.
This is in line with chomsky's moral system:
>It is perhaps the most elementary of moral truisms, that we are responsible for the anticipated consequences of our own action, or inaction. It may be fine to study the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there is no moral value to condemning them; we can’t do anything about them. There is not much I can do – in fact, virtually nothing – about the very serious problems internal to Pakistan. I’d like to learn about them, and to understand them as best as I can. And I don’t refrain from saying what I think.
He will always criticize the american error in a tragedy, even if they aren't the main perpetrators. If you are butthurt about that i see why you feel the need to lie. If you disagree specifically with that he's saying in this case you should refute him.

>and then, having sufficiently poisoned the well, he just strays right into outright denialism:
The assessment of an event should be done with the best available evidence. The genocide in cambodia taking place and western media quickly reporting the genocide without enough evidence for political reasons aren't mutually exclusive. Given my previous quote, it is pretty obvious that he isn't a "denialist" at all.

Going to sleep, will reply at some point tomorrow if you want.

What are some other good one volume summaries of modern historiography?

No it's not.

He was a communist faggot. A patriot's history isn't any better. The patrician book is a Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki.

My APUSH teacher made us read Zinn and Schweikart

That's nice dear.

We had to read Zinn and Ambrose

Chomsky has also written extremely positive reviews of a book that denies the rwandan genocide and claims srebrenica did not happen. He is a knee-jerk anti-american ideologue, and should stay well away from history because of his inability to separate his political views from historical reality.