I personally would agree with Howard Zinn. He is able to point out aspects in American democracy that the nation falls short in. For example he says "The First Amendment formally guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition to all - but certain realities of wealth, power, and status stand in the way of the equal distribution of these rights." He is able to simplify his points so that even and ordinary citizen as well as a politician could understand. Although he does set very high standards for democracy he acknowledges that we are far from achieving those standards in America.
I agree that Howard Zinn points out the negative aspects of American democracy. I also think that he does a good job in explaining how he thinks that American democracy could improve. Zinn claims that "democracy is devoid of meaning if it does not include equal access to the available resources of the society." He believes that without equal distribution of resources throughout our society, our democracy is less than the ideal of what it could be. He gives examples of the ideal that American democracy should strive for which makes his argument easy to understand for everyone.
I agree that Howard Zinn does not have high standards for our democracy however I think he strives for the basic level of respect for all and wants a democracy that actually serves ALL people.
I am agreeing with Magdalena says about the US is far away from achieving the democratic society because they are inequality between the citizens and social classes.For instance “ Furthermore ,••• there are certain issues which never even reach the public because they are decided behind the scenes ••” which can analyze as the government are regulated people’s knowledge about certain aspects of information.
I agree with Howard Zinn as opposed to Sidney Hook who as Juan Moncion commented used ad hominem in order to slander and discredit Zinn, thus resulting in the weakening of his argument. Zinn provides the reader with multiple examples and perspectives on how we can accurately judge American democracy, from excerpts from Robert A. Dahl’s, A Preface to Democratic Theory, to various quotes from the New York times. He uses Dahl as a way to back up his claim on the unequal distribution of wealth that affects “the poor and disenfranchised” who “are barred by their relatively greater inactivity, by their related limited access to resources.” He attributes this lack of equal wealth to the United States’ focus on big business and money rather than the citizens needs which in turn leads to the corruption of democracy.
I agree that Howard Zinn presented a more plausible argument as he clearly stated his criteria for democracy whereas Sidney Hook blatantly attacked Howard Zinn rather than providing concrete counter arguments. For instance, Hook argues that Zinn confuses "Democracy as a politicla process with democracy as a political product or state of welfare.." Rather than explaining exactly why Zinn's idea of a democracy is unattainable, Hook makes such remarks. I don't entirely agree with Zinn's nature of a democracy but I'd like to believe that a more equal or opportunistic society is possible. -Hilcia Acevedo
Howard Zinn does a good job on explaining why Hook is very ignorant as to why the legal system doesn't always work. Hook is very supportive of voting and using the legal system, however, like Zinn states, this has become a sort of “modern fetish” and doesn't always work. Zinn also does a good job at analyzing the conditions slaves were in and even after, the conditions during the civil rights movement. These were times in which there had to be protest and civil disobedience— the legal system was useless then. - Sebastian Giraldo
My personal opinion is that I agree with Howard Zinn. I agree with Howard Zinn because he stating facts about the right and wrongs of the Government which backs up his perspective of a democracy. Unlike Sidney Hook where he is making a point towards he believes a democracy is, but it seems more like he is attacking Howard Zinn.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Zinn mostly because the principals he discussed in his article like freedom of speech, equal protection, equality before the law, and access to education are nearly impossible among all the social classes in society, for example the poor, disabled, sick, kids, and elder, they require more power. I disagree that even with these are all great 'rules' democracy is no way guarantees equality among everyone. On the other hand, like Juan and Aldo said that Hook's argument is somewhat ineffective because he uses ad hominem but at times he precisely points out Zinn's inaccuracy into defining democracy. Zinn stated that democracy can be measured by comparing it to an “ideal” but he never mentions what the ideal is to compare how strong is democracy. Hook believes that compared to the past we are a lot closer to defining a democracy but Zinn says that we have a lot of work to do to reach a democracy.
I can generally agree with a partition of Howard Zinn’s argument —although some facets may seem extreme, likewise his idea of total egalitarianism, which is a notable point of contention focused on by Hook. Zinn provides a bevy of great criteria for which a democracy should be based upon —sociopolitical implications like individual rights under the law, freedom of expression and protest, as well as the protection of one’s personal rights. Howard relies on the real world example of the United States as a staple of what’s wrong with democratic governments, but to be fair, democracy was contrived long before the ideas of Zinn or anyone else in recent time, but it took time to actually set in stone what some may now consider the ideal standard for democracy. Zinn encompasses all of the good values associated with democracy but his idea of a perfect government is one that will continue to change, and thus will never be correct. Hook brings up some good points and even grounds Zinn’s argument at multiple points regarding his idea of equality and democracy going hand in hand —true equality will never exist so long as man is still sentient. Conditionally there will always be a barrier that holds back the little guy in society —a barrier formed by those on a high ground —Zinn is the little guy and Hook is the barrier holding him back, but also keeping his ideas in a palpable form.
I agree more with Howard Zinn's argument. He gives an in depth analysis of the ten requirements that construct a fair democratic institution, one where everyone is involved. He argues that the "elite" should not be our representatives because the government tends to represent the interests of the wealthy. Moreover, the impoverished are often denied of basic resources like food and clothing in addition to a good education. How can America truly be a democracy if a vast majority of voices are repressed? Zinn makes it clear that the wealthy are most likely to have access to the basic rights of "free speech", education, and other basic necessities. Instead of looking at the political interpretation of a Democracy, Zinn delves into other systems that play a significant role in the development of a democratic institution like the health care, education, and economic system.
While I do agree with Howard Zinn’s stance on how far the United States is from a true and real democracy, we also have to consider the fact that a few of his reasons listed in the 10 criteria that mostly includes equality in “ decisions in the political and ecnomic structure, access to information, protection, expression, education,” and so on, are unfair and unjust. When voicing his concerns pertaining to how the “elite” and “legislators, congressmen, governors,” have control over the decision making of the country, the most important fact that he mentioned was that we’re also being governed by “elected officials.” We live in a ‘majority rule’ society; voting comes hand in hand with democracy, so can’t we say that second class citizens do have a say on the decision making process? They vote too right? The only problem here is that we live in a society where everyone wants to be an elite, so they vote for other elites who have a history of not concerning themselves with minorities. Our only threat here is that minorities come in a lower percentage in the US, so thier votes don’t exactly do much change. I agree with both Zinn and Hook, but only to a certain extent.
I definitely agree with this, and the several claims Zinn made regarding the elite and how they tend to be the ones whose voices are generally heard, and whose desires are usually pushed to the top of the government agenda. A lack of representation is one of the biggest issues plaguing our so called "democracy". If only a tiny, tiny portion of the country do identify as wealthy elites, the government is ignoring and ostracizing an ectremely large portion of the nation.
I agree with Howard Zinn's argument that the United States is slightly far off from a solid democracy, as the nation lacks certain criteria that would otherwise make a country democratic such as equal protection, equality before the law, access to education, and so on. However, Zinn measures democracy with an ideal utopian standard that ultimately is attainable because discrepancies amongst different social classes will not cease to exist, especially in today's free market economy. While some criteria is achievable such as access to education, equality amongst all classes is unrealistic for a society that thrives on the misfortunes of others. Either way, we should strive to achieve a certain level of human welfare that applies to all classes. Essentially, although Zinn's idea of a democracy isn't entirely realistic, we should aim to foster a more democratic society.
I agree with Zinn's argument on Democracy. He sees that not everyone is treated equally and thinks that America needs to improve greatly before we can be proud of our democracy. What makes a good democracy is a very controversial and important discussion. In order to achieve a great democracy people need to acknowledge that minorities in this country do not have the same opportunities and are not represented well enough. Most people, mostly in politics, demonstrate a lack of empathy towards people who are not at an elite status. Zinn's arguments are sadly unrealistic considering who is in office right now. It will be awhile before we achieve equality for all. But his ideas still prove people want a better and more effective democracy. -kassandra milo
I can't help but agree with Howard Zinn's argument on democracy. He clearly outlines what is currently wrong with our nation's form of democracy by pointing out the inequalities that exist within our country, the way information is distributed, and external factors that influence our government's agenda. Similar to Zinn, I believe that resolving these issues would definitely help create a better democracy. However, similar to the argument Hooks made, I believe that a good amount of Zinn's beliefs are very idealistic and unattainable. Taking into consideration the time period, the current administration, and the foundation on which our country was built on, Zinn's idea of democracy is unfortunately unrealistic. I wasn't too fond of Hook's argument. He comes off as complacent and unempathetic when he admits that in this country some people are going to experience inequalities, and that it is simply the idea of moral equality that makes a democracy. He also tends to attack Zinn's character throughout his piece, completely undermining his credibility as a mature author.
i agree with Sidney hook on his interpretation of democracy instead of Howard Zinn's. Sidney simply states that democracy is simply a process in which citizens decide who gets to represent them." one in which the general direction of policy rest directly or INDIRECTLY upon the freely given consent of a majority"(18). As it pertains to definitions of democracy, this hits the spot, ancient Greeks and most people today would have chosen this definition over Zinn's. I believe Zinn's arguement was too convoluted and over saturated with minutia and delusions of a Utopian egalitarianism. No one ever said democracy guarantees equality for all in all facets of society. the question of whether that should be striven for is another question all together. there should be equality of opportunity in all societies but never an equality of outcome...a hard worker shouldn't earn the same as a lazy worker, what defines economic and social mobility in free societies is the ability to make right and wrong decisions which affects your income,reputation and memory, Howard argues that isn't fair but doesn't give any alternatives. Many of Howard's grievances make no sense, for example "anyone can stand on a street corner and talk to ten or a hundred people...but a person or a corporation with 100,000 can buy time on TV and reach 10 million people. A rich person simply has much more freedom of speech than a poor person"(11 Zinn). this baffled me... you cant measure freedom of speech, you either have it or you dont. democracy isn't about getting your message across to the same amount of people as everyone else can, its about being able to even speak that message you so desperately want others to hear."As a consumer, that is, as the person whom the economy is presumably intended to serve, he has virtually nothing to say about what is produced to him"(7 Zinn). Markets,companies,corporations dont listen to a single consumer that's foolish, they listen to consumer trends, consumer confidence, consumer DEMAND. he implies that consumers have no choice in economic decision making... that is correct, although the choices they make do correlate with how the market moves;the real question is why would they want to? the job of a consumer is to scour the/a market for a product/service and then choose whichever choice is more optimal to them, they arent there to become speculators or stock brokers." Representation by its very nature is undemocratic"(18 Zinn). Zinn's problem is that whatever the people want from their chosen representatives aren't always addressed or even given thought to once the representative(s) reaches a place of power. and that's fair but that's also a part of democracy, your wishes will not always be granted but what matters is whether you have the ability to remove that candidate that has denied your wishes with your vote. What is most frustrating about Howard Zinn is how he cites all these problems but dont even think of offering any solutions. I preferred hook because he was straight to the point and most importantly Rational. With Love from Marlon Valerio
although zinn did make a good point of how all the problems like giving more power to people who are considerd elite . and basically pointing out the inequality in the united states . He still comes from a very angry point of view . He states how resolving all these issues that goes on in our democracy will help and improve it lead us to a better future . However , he comes off with some unrealstic ideas of how to get there . He might come across as someone who wants the best for everyone but he dosent know how to complete that goal . That being said , i do agree with parts of what zinn is trying to do but i think individuals across the united states need to come together and unite and become a better version of not only themselves but also their democracy as well .
I agree with Howard Zinn that our democracy is, isn’t really a democracy that it sought to be. But as he states how a democracy should be set, he ideas seems to extremely unrealistic and really impossible to set out his form of democracy, especially something that would fit for all citizens of America. Hook on the other hand has a valid reasoning for disagreeing with Zinn but his way of disagreement specifically pointed out all the flaws and not some good parts of Zinn’s argument. I think that ways for Zinn to make his argument about our democracy seem more like a democracy would be trying to find more idealistic solution to help make an effort to change the way our democracy is set up to only focus on the government instead of the people. I think his idea of changing the amount of people in poverty is idealistic and a possible way to move forward with our government. I think that as of now this issues that Zinn states are simply difficult to change but a good proposal to point out our flaws as a country. - Aida Pene
I personally would agree with Howard Zinn. He is able to point out aspects in American democracy that the nation falls short in. For example he says "The First Amendment formally guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition to all - but certain realities of wealth, power, and status stand in the way of the equal distribution of these rights." He is able to simplify his points so that even and ordinary citizen as well as a politician could understand. Although he does set very high standards for democracy he acknowledges that we are far from achieving those standards in America.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Howard Zinn points out the negative aspects of American democracy. I also think that he does a good job in explaining how he thinks that American democracy could improve. Zinn claims that "democracy is devoid of meaning if it does not include equal access to the available resources of the society." He believes that without equal distribution of resources throughout our society, our democracy is less than the ideal of what it could be. He gives examples of the ideal that American democracy should strive for which makes his argument easy to understand for everyone.
Delete^^^ This is Sofia Feitoza.
DeleteI agree that Howard Zinn does not have high standards for our democracy however I think he strives for the basic level of respect for all and wants a democracy that actually serves ALL people.
Delete^ Kassandra Milo
DeleteI am agreeing with Magdalena says about the US is far away from achieving the democratic society because they are inequality between the citizens and social classes.For instance “ Furthermore ,••• there are certain issues which never even reach the public because they are decided behind the scenes ••” which can analyze as the government are regulated people’s knowledge about certain aspects of information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Howard Zinn as opposed to Sidney Hook who as Juan Moncion commented used ad hominem in order to slander and discredit Zinn, thus resulting in the weakening of his argument. Zinn provides the reader with multiple examples and perspectives on how we can accurately judge American democracy, from excerpts from Robert A. Dahl’s, A Preface to Democratic Theory, to various quotes from the New York times. He uses Dahl as a way to back up his claim on the unequal distribution of wealth that affects “the poor and disenfranchised” who “are barred by their relatively greater inactivity, by their related limited access to resources.” He attributes this lack of equal wealth to the United States’ focus on big business and money rather than the citizens needs which in turn leads to the corruption of democracy.
ReplyDeleteThis is Aldo Robledo
DeleteI agree that Howard Zinn presented a more plausible argument as he clearly stated his criteria for democracy whereas Sidney Hook blatantly attacked Howard Zinn rather than providing concrete counter arguments. For instance, Hook argues that Zinn confuses "Democracy as a politicla process with democracy as a political product or state of welfare.." Rather than explaining exactly why Zinn's idea of a democracy is unattainable, Hook makes such remarks. I don't entirely agree with Zinn's nature of a democracy but I'd like to believe that a more equal or opportunistic society is possible. -Hilcia Acevedo
DeleteHoward Zinn does a good job on explaining why Hook is very ignorant as to why the legal system doesn't always work. Hook is very supportive of voting and using the legal system, however, like Zinn states, this has become a sort of “modern fetish” and doesn't always work. Zinn also does a good job at analyzing the conditions slaves were in and even after, the conditions during the civil rights movement. These were times in which there had to be protest and civil disobedience— the legal system was useless then.
ReplyDelete- Sebastian Giraldo
My personal opinion is that I agree with Howard Zinn. I agree with Howard Zinn because he stating facts about the right and wrongs of the Government which backs up his perspective of a democracy. Unlike Sidney Hook where he is making a point towards he believes a democracy is, but it seems more like he is attacking Howard Zinn.
ReplyDeleteThis is Emmanuel Pimentel
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with Mr. Zinn mostly because the principals he discussed in his article like freedom of speech, equal protection, equality before the law, and access to education are nearly impossible among all the social classes in society, for example the poor, disabled, sick, kids, and elder, they require more power. I disagree that even with these are all great 'rules' democracy is no way guarantees equality among everyone. On the other hand, like Juan and Aldo said that Hook's argument is somewhat ineffective because he uses ad hominem but at times he precisely points out Zinn's inaccuracy into defining democracy. Zinn stated that democracy can be measured by comparing it to an “ideal” but he never mentions what the ideal is to compare how strong is democracy. Hook believes that compared to the past we are a lot closer to defining a democracy but Zinn says that we have a lot of work to do to reach a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI can generally agree with a partition of Howard Zinn’s argument —although some facets may seem extreme, likewise his idea of total egalitarianism, which is a notable point of contention focused on by Hook. Zinn provides a bevy of great criteria for which a democracy should be based upon —sociopolitical implications like individual rights under the law, freedom of expression and protest, as well as the protection of one’s personal rights. Howard relies on the real world example of the United States as a staple of what’s wrong with democratic governments, but to be fair, democracy was contrived long before the ideas of Zinn or anyone else in recent time, but it took time to actually set in stone what some may now consider the ideal standard for democracy. Zinn encompasses all of the good values associated with democracy but his idea of a perfect government is one that will continue to change, and thus will never be correct. Hook brings up some good points and even grounds Zinn’s argument at multiple points regarding his idea of equality and democracy going hand in hand —true equality will never exist so long as man is still sentient. Conditionally there will always be a barrier that holds back the little guy in society —a barrier formed by those on a high ground —Zinn is the little guy and Hook is the barrier holding him back, but also keeping his ideas in a palpable form.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Howard Zinn's argument. He gives an in depth analysis of the ten requirements that construct a fair democratic institution, one where everyone is involved. He argues that the "elite" should not be our representatives because the government tends to represent the interests of the wealthy. Moreover, the impoverished are often denied of basic resources like food and clothing in addition to a good education. How can America truly be a democracy if a vast majority of voices are repressed? Zinn makes it clear that the wealthy are most likely to have access to the basic rights of "free speech", education, and other basic necessities. Instead of looking at the political interpretation of a Democracy, Zinn delves into other systems that play a significant role in the development of a democratic institution like the health care, education, and economic system.
ReplyDelete^ Hanan Abraha
DeleteMadoussou Kromah–
DeleteWhile I do agree with Howard Zinn’s stance on how far the United States is from a true and real democracy, we also have to consider the fact that a few of his reasons listed in the 10 criteria that mostly includes equality in “ decisions in the political and ecnomic structure, access to information, protection, expression, education,” and so on, are unfair and unjust. When voicing his concerns pertaining to how the “elite” and “legislators, congressmen, governors,” have control over the decision making of the country, the most important fact that he mentioned was that we’re also being governed by “elected officials.” We live in a ‘majority rule’ society; voting comes hand in hand with democracy, so can’t we say that second class citizens do have a say on the decision making process? They vote too right? The only problem here is that we live in a society where everyone wants to be an elite, so they vote for other elites who have a history of not concerning themselves with minorities. Our only threat here is that minorities come in a lower percentage in the US, so thier votes don’t exactly do much change. I agree with both Zinn and Hook, but only to a certain extent.
I definitely agree with this, and the several claims Zinn made regarding the elite and how they tend to be the ones whose voices are generally heard, and whose desires are usually pushed to the top of the government agenda. A lack of representation is one of the biggest issues plaguing our so called "democracy". If only a tiny, tiny portion of the country do identify as wealthy elites, the government is ignoring and ostracizing an ectremely large portion of the nation.
DeleteI agree with Howard Zinn's argument that the United States is slightly far off from a solid democracy, as the nation lacks certain criteria that would otherwise make a country democratic such as equal protection, equality before the law, access to education, and so on. However, Zinn measures democracy with an ideal utopian standard that ultimately is attainable because discrepancies amongst different social classes will not cease to exist, especially in today's free market economy. While some criteria is achievable such as access to education, equality amongst all classes is unrealistic for a society that thrives on the misfortunes of others. Either way, we should strive to achieve a certain level of human welfare that applies to all classes. Essentially, although Zinn's idea of a democracy isn't entirely realistic, we should aim to foster a more democratic society.
ReplyDeleteHilcia Acevedo^
DeleteI agree with Zinn's argument on Democracy. He sees that not everyone is treated equally and thinks that America needs to improve greatly before we can be proud of our democracy. What makes a good democracy is a very controversial and important discussion. In order to achieve a great democracy people need to acknowledge that minorities in this country do not have the same opportunities and are not represented well enough. Most people, mostly in politics, demonstrate a lack of empathy towards people who are not at an elite status. Zinn's arguments are sadly unrealistic considering who is in office right now. It will be awhile before we achieve equality for all. But his ideas still prove people want a better and more effective democracy. -kassandra milo
ReplyDeleteI can't help but agree with Howard Zinn's argument on democracy. He clearly outlines what is currently wrong with our nation's form of democracy by pointing out the inequalities that exist within our country, the way information is distributed, and external factors that influence our government's agenda. Similar to Zinn, I believe that resolving these issues would definitely help create a better democracy. However, similar to the argument Hooks made, I believe that a good amount of Zinn's beliefs are very idealistic and unattainable. Taking into consideration the time period, the current administration, and the foundation on which our country was built on, Zinn's idea of democracy is unfortunately unrealistic. I wasn't too fond of Hook's argument. He comes off as complacent and unempathetic when he admits that in this country some people are going to experience inequalities, and that it is simply the idea of moral equality that makes a democracy. He also tends to attack Zinn's character throughout his piece, completely undermining his credibility as a mature author.
ReplyDelete^^ Jeysa
Deletei agree with Sidney hook on his interpretation of democracy instead of Howard Zinn's. Sidney simply states that democracy is simply a process in which citizens decide who gets to represent them." one in which the general direction of policy rest directly or INDIRECTLY upon the freely given consent of a majority"(18). As it pertains to definitions of democracy, this hits the spot, ancient Greeks and most people today would have chosen this definition over Zinn's. I believe Zinn's arguement was too convoluted and over saturated with minutia and delusions of a Utopian egalitarianism. No one ever said democracy guarantees equality for all in all facets of society. the question of whether that should be striven for is another question all together. there should be equality of opportunity in all societies but never an equality of outcome...a hard worker shouldn't earn the same as a lazy worker, what defines economic and social mobility in free societies is the ability to make right and wrong decisions which affects your income,reputation and memory, Howard argues that isn't fair but doesn't give any alternatives. Many of Howard's grievances make no sense, for example "anyone can stand on a street corner and talk to ten or a hundred people...but a person or a corporation with 100,000 can buy time on TV and reach 10 million people. A rich person simply has much more freedom of speech than a poor person"(11 Zinn). this baffled me... you cant measure freedom of speech, you either have it or you dont. democracy isn't about getting your message across to the same amount of people as everyone else can, its about being able to even speak that message you so desperately want others to hear."As a consumer, that is, as the person whom the economy is presumably intended to serve, he has virtually nothing to say about what is produced to him"(7 Zinn). Markets,companies,corporations dont listen to a single consumer that's foolish, they listen to consumer trends, consumer confidence, consumer DEMAND. he implies that consumers have no choice in economic decision making... that is correct, although the choices they make do correlate with how the market moves;the real question is why would they want to? the job of a consumer is to scour the/a market for a product/service and then choose whichever choice is more optimal to them, they arent there to become speculators or stock brokers." Representation by its very nature is undemocratic"(18 Zinn). Zinn's problem is that whatever the people want from their chosen representatives aren't always addressed or even given thought to once the representative(s) reaches a place of power. and that's fair but that's also a part of democracy, your wishes will not always be granted but what matters is whether you have the ability to remove that candidate that has denied your wishes with your vote. What is most frustrating about Howard Zinn is how he cites all these problems but dont even think of offering any solutions. I preferred hook because he was straight to the point and most importantly Rational.
ReplyDeleteWith Love from Marlon Valerio
although zinn did make a good point of how all the problems like giving more power to people who are considerd elite . and basically pointing out the inequality in the united states . He still comes from a very angry point of view . He states how resolving all these issues that goes on in our democracy will help and improve it lead us to a better future . However , he comes off with some unrealstic ideas of how to get there . He might come across as someone who wants the best for everyone but he dosent know how to complete that goal . That being said , i do agree with parts of what zinn is trying to do but i think individuals across the united states need to come together and unite and become a better version of not only themselves but also their democracy as well .
ReplyDelete^^ Kimberlee Rivas
DeleteI agree with Howard Zinn that our democracy is, isn’t really a democracy that it sought to be. But as he states how a democracy should be set, he ideas seems to extremely unrealistic and really impossible to set out his form of democracy, especially something that would fit for all citizens of America. Hook on the other hand has a valid reasoning for disagreeing with Zinn but his way of disagreement specifically pointed out all the flaws and not some good parts of Zinn’s argument. I think that ways for Zinn to make his argument about our democracy seem more like a democracy would be trying to find more idealistic solution to help make an effort to change the way our democracy is set up to only focus on the government instead of the people. I think his idea of changing the amount of people in poverty is idealistic and a possible way to move forward with our government. I think that as of now this issues that Zinn states are simply difficult to change but a good proposal to point out our flaws as a country. - Aida Pene
ReplyDelete