In an earlier post, I quoted one of academia's favorite historians - Howard Zinn. I know a lot of academics laud Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, but I'm less complimentary. As a matter of fact, it's little more than Marxist propaganda. Throughout its pages, Zinn condemns the United States, its founders, and capitalism as the root of all evil. Yet he compliments Maoist China, defends Castro's Cuba, and the Sandinistas without so much as a blush.
What's extraordinary about Zinn's *book is that it does not contain one single source citation. I suppose when you make things up out of thin air, it's difficult to cite a source, other than your own biased agenda.
How often do we hear those in academia criticize "shoddy, poorly researched" history works that favor a more traditional, conservative view of America? Where is the criticism of Zinn's unprofessional approach? There is none. Rather, he's praised by other cultural Marxists. As a matter of fact, his book is used in many colleges and universities in America, and some high schools as well.
But, of course, we know that most academics have no bias or agenda. If that's so, then why would you use a resource that's assertions cannot be verified by readers and students?
(*I'm referring to the 2003 edition in this post. There is a newer edition and I don't know if Zinn was able to come up with some sources and references for his "masterpiece.")
Update: Be sure and read this update and watch for follow ups. The follow ups will be therapy for those of you in denial. Do not fear the truth, come to the light. ;)