Referring to only Chapter 12 in A People's History of the United States, How do you feel about Zinn's presentation of the United States as a racist...

You ask a lot of questions here, so I'll answer them all briefly, then explain, to help you understand in more detail. I feel sickened and defensive when I read Zinn's presentation of the United States, in this chapter and in others. Yes, the United States was an empire, and yes, it is still is in many ways.

Now, to explain those points in more detail, I'm going to start by going outside that chapter briefly. Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as "an empire for liberty." He meant that as a positive thing, and used the phrase without irony. That was one of his goals for the U.S., and so it isn't wrong or damning for Zinn to say the country was or is an empire.

It is the nature of that empire that should give readers pause and make their stomachs upset. The United States was racist for a long time, consciously and intentionally racist. If you look at the country's internal laws governing race, you'll see that it was even legally racist. When Roosevelt mentioned that lynching Italian immigrants was a good thing, as Zinn notes in this chapter, that's at least partially racist. (There are other factors involved, like religion and theories of civilization.) Was the country a bully in addition to being racist? Again, yes. Look at the annexation of Hawaii, which Zinn mentions in this chapter. It was an imperial action, part of what made the United States an empire. It was motivated by trade interests and geopolitical maneuvering, and, in part, by race. Hawaii is far smaller than the United States. This is bullying in a very evident fashion. All of this also applies to American actions in Cuba that Zinn describes. What I find striking about the racism of this period is how it integrated with other factors. For example, take a look Zinn's brief mention of John Burgess in this chapter. He quotes a political scientist on the necessity for certain races and nations to civilize the world. (Burgess wasn't alone in this: Zinn uses him as an example.) In other words, some models of political science and history were telling the United States that acting in an imperial fashion, and basing imperial actions in part on race, was a good thing.

There's much more you could say on this topic, but that should get you started. Think about how you feel, and if Zinn is accurate.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog