Howard Zinn

I've read complaints elsewhere about the term 'revisionist historian' used in several Zinn obituaries- why do some people flinch when they read that description of Zinn? It should be worn like a badge of honor. Would they rather see him described as an 'establishment historian'?

All history is subject to revision from the moment the dust settles ( or it should be ). Why would anyone even bother tackling history if they didn't intend to revise it/rewrite it in some small or large way? If you aren't a revisionist, you're a copier machine.

From an interview-

Scott Teresi: "What do you say to those who might argue that someone like Howard Zinn is simply throwing a wrench into solid American history with his particular brand of scholarship? That he’s really just trying to rewrite history to reflect a liberal agenda?"

Howard Zinn: " They’re absolutely right. [Laughter] I’m trying to rewrite history to reflect the point of view of those people who have been left out."