I think you are confusing your opinion of Zinn (who was an admitted socialist) with the quality of his work.
Quote:
|
Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer
|
and you talk about Zinn's bias?
His writings are not perfect (show me a historian who is). Yes he does have a different interpretation than some other historians. But his research and citations have been reviewed.
If your University class only used parts of his work, I would question the academic integrity of your instructor. Few historical references can be taken piece meal. This is especially true with Zinn as he did have a habit of jumping around thematically in his history.
Was your instructor using Zinn to criticize him?
If you treat historical interpretations in the light of "hating the US" you will be limited in your understanding of history. History has many interpretations. If you limit yourself to one culture's interpretations you will only know one culture's interpretations.
If you don't like reading Zinn, that's great. But to say that his research is without merit or use, is inaccurate.
I, for one, have an open mind to historical interpretations that I don't completely agree with.