Let's discuss the history of toilet paper
>>535456
Even though the guy is a commie-pinko, if you want a full understanding of American history you ought to read his book, if only to see it from the other side's perspective.
>>535456
>it's the daily APHOTUS thread
>>535456
I just realized the title says "people's history of the UNITED STATES" and begins in 1492.
Why hasn't he bee drawn and quartered yet?
>>535760
>>535760
I agree with this. Real history buffs enjoy multiple perspectives, even if you don't agree with a narrative, it's still interesting to see "how" a historian interprets primary sources (and what sources they choose to look at, or dig up).
>>535760
But it's not the other side's perspective. He literally hasn't got a clue regarding the other side's perspective; and there are too many sides to begin with (Navarro Indians, African slaves, Chinese immigrant workers, Japs in WW2 etc etc). "History from below" isn't "the other side", it's just a boring old meta narrative. Zinn is an utter hack.
>>535782
So you don't enjoy social historians with a marxist theory applied. Okay, not a big deal. It's still interesting to observe the primary sources he uses (method) and how he interprets these sources (theory) through a marxist narrative.
You don't have to like, but you can't deny that what he is doing "is" history.
If you have a degree in history, you would already know history is nothing more than a running argument. If you disagree with the argument, then you apply your own methods and theory to disprove the argument. Otherwise, (be like the rest of us who aren't in the ivory tower) just sit back and enjoy.
>>535844
I was just referring to the point about "the other side's perspective", when it's really not. There's a proper way to do narrative research, and it doesn't look like anything Zinn does. Despite the memes, Zinn doesn't try to represent a different viewpoint, but rather a piece of the truth, with capital T, one that was forgotten, marginalized, etc. This is why the narrative defense doesn't stand.
>>535844
>still interesting to observe the primary sources he uses (method) and how he interprets these sources (theory) through a marxist narrative.
Have you actually read People's History? He uses very little primary sources (if he does he rarely cites them) and relies heavily on secondary sources by other, better historians. People's History should be considered a synthesis of left-wing historical narratives, there is very little original content in the book.
Squatting in a hole is better than sitting on a toilet.
>squatting
shit comes out smooth
shit doesnt get stuck on your ass cheeks
>toilet
shit getting smeared all over your ass walls
have to clean up alot
Third world countries did it right.
Toilets are inferior to shitting holes.
>>535766
> I already know all that I need to know!
>>535872
Hello india, still not know how to poo in loo?
>>535456
I clicked this hoping for an interesting thread about the history of sanitation and maybe a comparison of Roman sponge sticks or Chinese TP or something.
>>535872
I'm sure my butt would agree with you. My old blown-out knees would have some words though.
>>535768
>Howard Zinn
>primary sources
I've got some bad news for you...
