Questions Regarding Zinn and Morgan
Is a classless society possible? If not, can the divide between rich and poor be overcome?
Do you think that property still equals power?
Is it easier to believe Morgan than Zinn? Or, is Zinn more convincing? Either way, how and why?
Each is easier to believe in different ways. Morgan is the story we are used to hearing. Zinn - Riki wants to have an open mind to entertain something new.
They use the same examples but depict it differently so it is hard to choose one interpretation. Zinn uses more sources, Morgan can get away with just saying his version because we already know it. If Zinn didn't have evidence no one would take him seriously. Zinn doesn't care if you side with him - he just wants to say his opinion.
Will's example of using the same evidence: John Adams description of the Boston Massacre crowd (Irish teagues, jacktars, etc.) Zinn uses the quote to say that Adams is talking down to the crowd, Morgan uses it to prove bad stuff about the crowd.
Riley: Morgan says it happened, Zinn says it seems to have happened. Morgan is like a textbook.
Mikey: Zinn is very specific, Morgan is more general.
Will: Boston Massacre - snowballs and epithets, surprising it took so long to shoot. Morgan saying the soldiers were provoked, Zinn saying no one should have shot.
Why does Zinn omit things that Morgan discusses, and vice versa?
Who is more influential in shaping your opinion about the colonial America and the Revolutionary War?
Why did Zinn and Morgan interpret the truth so differently? How can you tell which one is actually telling the truth? Is the truth a combination of the two ideas? Why would you believe this? Why not? Which parts of the writing convince you of these truths?
Why do you think that the biased way we are taught about the American Revolution has developed?
Zinn's account - seems like lots of things lost in translation of history - maybe because the elite have been controlling everything. Why would they want people to know about their agenda? Zinn focuses on what the rest of us forget about. When I read Morgan I agreed because I had heard it all before, but Zinn provided such good evidence that I was easily convinced.
Human Nature to go with the "better" side - we are stereotyped as being the good guys, doing things "right" We want to be portrayed in a positive way
There is no documentation of the other side of the issue - the lower class viewpoint. No real recording of them.
Does that mean Zinn has no evidence?
It's hidden evidence - such as?