Comments on Stearns, Zinn, and Becker.

I enjoyed these readings, largely because many of them featured some very strong opinions about history and it was easy to find a point for discussion and debate. As I already mentioned in class, I loved Stearns, simply because I felt that he was very straightforward and I found myself agreeing with almost everything he had to say. He did not really touch upon any controversial ideas or say anything revolutionary, but its a good article to read at the introduction of any history class to remind people why history is important, especially for those who might think otherwise. Becker I  definitely had a little more trouble with. I found myself agreeing with him in the first section of his article (I), but as the selection progressed, I found more and more to disagree with. I had trouble with statements like, "History does not have to be exact, it just has to be useful". To me its a little sad to think of history as constructed, especially if its someone else's construction that I have to accept even when I do not like it. In regards to Zinn, it looks like I had read the wrong Zinn article ( I read the one on reserves). Nevertheless, I get the impression of what Zinn is about. He seems to be very concerned with social justice, activism, and the notion that history has to change lives. Although I can see where he is coming from, I do not necessarily feel the same way and I do not think he is going to be one of my favorites this semester.