This blog is very biased.
I am supposed to discuss the Afterword of Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States". Zinn writes:
By the time I began teaching and writing, I had no illusions about "objectivity," if that meant avoiding a point of view. I knew that a historian (or a journalist, or anyone telling a story) was forced to choose, out of an infinite number of facts, what to present, what to omit. And that decision inevitably would reflect, whether consciously or not, the interests of the historian.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States (Modern Classics) (p. 820). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
I recently talked to a friend of mine who has a degree in history. He agreed that any account of events is going to have a point of view. Similarly, when my wife and I talk about events that we both witnessed and both participated in, we often differ on the contents of the events and the meaning or import of them.
I tell myself regularly that the purpose of this blog is to offer consideration and reflections of my experiences, including thoughts and feelings. One of the purposes of writing and one of the results of writing is organization. Experiences can happen less coherently but the process of expressing, writing organizes, creates critical viewing and modification. However, if I am really negative or full of yucky thoughts, scenes or impulses, I am not going to write about them in a blog that is published all over the world.
Viewers in different parts of the world:
Despite what you may think, this is an anti-fear, pro-fun, semi-philosophical blog. I work toward certain views, not all encompassing truth.
