World War 1

Sunday, Jun 07, 2009


Reading her book, to me, is like reading a legal brief of an opposing lawyer in a case. And reading history, to some extent, is that way for me. You get two laywers that take opposite sides of a case. They're both writing about a murder. The event is the same. But one is arguing for conviction and one is arguing for acquittal. And what they do, and they way they argue that, is they leave out certain things. They emphasize things differently. And so you get a different interpretation of the same event and come to opposite conclusions. And much of history is that way.

More on questioning wars (Howard Zinn):