MUST-READ: FBI records show Howard Zinn was a communist

From Accuracy in Media. (H/T ECM)


The prominent “progressive” historian Howard Zinn, whose books are force-fed to young people on many college campuses, was not only a member of the Moscow-controlled and Soviet-funded Communist Party USA (CPUSA) but lied about it, according to an FBI file released on Friday.

The file, consisting of three sections totaling 423 pages, was made available on the FBI’s website and released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from this writer.

Zinn taught in the political science department of Boston University for 24 years, from 1964 to 1988, and has been a major influence on the modern-day “progressive” movement that backed Barack Obama for president.

Although Zinn denied being a member of the CPUSA, the FBI file discloses that several reliable informants in the party identified Zinn as a member who attended party meetings as many as five times a week.

[…]The FBI file also includes information on Zinn’s pro-Castro activism and support for radical groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Progressive Labor Party (PLP), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and Black Panther Party. Much of the latter was in connection with Zinn’s support for a communist military victory in Vietnam. His dealings with the Communist regime in Hanoi included a visit to the communist capital.

Read the whole thing. This guy is the author of the most widely-used textbook on American history in the United States. And he’s a communist. This is what your children were learning in history classes.

Don’t believe me, listen to a debate

In case you would like to know how well Howard Zinn’s communist ideas hold up under rational scrutiny, you can spend some time listening to Dennis Prager debating him on the Dennis Prager radio show.

This clip has links to the rest of the 4-clip series.

The playlist is here.

And thanks to the amazing ECM for finding this amazing story.

5 thoughts on “MUST-READ: FBI records show Howard Zinn was a communist”

  1. To be fair, isn’t this book only used at the college level? That at least means that, though your kids are being indoctrinated (I still remember the howlers about slavery from my 10th grade ‘social studies’ class ‘back in the day’), they are at least not being indoctrinated at the grade school level by an ardent communist.

    (Note: I could be wrong about this, but I’m too tired/busy/lazy (yes, both…at the same time) to look it up.)


  2. Unfortunately, there are people who believe there’s no problem having a commie in a teaching position (probably far more common than we want to believe, particularly in universities). And truthfully, the main issue is any teacher attempting to indoctrinate students. (It could be said that it’s the case even when the teacher is teaching American history in an objective manner, but that’s a stretch.) But to have a commie write the textbooks and have those books list heavily to port, as I understand they do, is unconscionable. It leads to more leftist thinking. The trouble is in who is deciding which books to use.

    Regarding Zinn’s comments regarding war and morality, lefties are irrational on this issue. First of all, they refuse to consider war as evey being a the morally superior “choice”, and I use the word “choice” reluctantly. Millions were murdered after we pulled out of SE Asia in the 70’s, even if they weren’t all in Viet Nam. our presence there had benefits that were lost upon our departure. Communists don’t move in without killing. It just doesn’t happen that way.

    Zinn argues that more were killed with every involvement of US forces, and that this fact justifies his accusatinon of immorality. It ignores what went on before our involvement, and gives dishonestly shifts culpability for further death to us. This is what so many like Zinn and other anti-Bush people engaged in with regards to Iraq. My point is that we wouldn’t be there if not for the evil that already existed and thus any deaths as a result of our presence is also the responsibility of those who compelled our presence. This is also true of Israel. They would not be fighting without the provocation of the Jew hating Arabs that surround them.

    Zinn also points to deaths in war to support his allegations of immorality. I don’t think one can do this honestly. The deaths are tragic. They are unfortunate and no one feels good about the fact that civilians die in wars. But the fact that they do does not make the war, or our part in it, immoral.

    Intent is the only measure of a combatant’s morality. Why is a nation at war? Zinn points to American involvement in wars througout history as only immoral because people died. But that would assume there were immoral intentions behind every one of them. Now certainly intentions can be misplaced and results can be more tragic than they needed to be. But in such cases the only immorality is in intentionally forcing the issue when a change of plan is obviously needed. Not doing so is not immoral, just stupid.

    Zinn also implies another point common to lefties, and that’s that we war as a first choice. He points to the Soviet Union as an example and though there were always people who wanted to do the dance with them, the fact that we never did shows that we are indeed willing to try other options where other options seem viable. Even in WWII we didn’t just jump in. One has to search for a situation where we went to war “willy-nilly” as suggested by Zinn and others like him.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s