# data[].attributes.body
I really love the way Zinn explains that history can not be unbiased. I had heard this same statement before but it had not fully absorbed into my conscious. All forms of history - living or not - are biased in what it includes or excludes; written history is only one commentary at one point in time, a picture centers on something and can not include everything, video falls victim to the same realities. Zinn is right in saying that if we understand that all history is biased, "we can be properly skeptical"

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zinn, only the victor writes history, we are only hearing one side of the story. I think there should always be a level of skepticism when we are learning about history. No matter what we do were never going to know the full story. History should be an area of debate not concrete fact, since it is just collective information from first and second hand sources.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with Zinn's point about how we really only see the victor's side of view and impartial history. No matter how hard we try, history will always be impartial. We will always be missing details, because we can not be in the past or collect everyone's who was there points of view on what happened. Only seeing the victor's side of this also fuels impartial history because we lose many details along the way because we are, once again, only seeing the victors point of vie

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agr

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zinn on the points he made about unavoidable and forever present bias in the retelling of history and the always present knowledge that no history is ever impartial. It would be absurd to ever assume that the historians and researchers wouldn't have any bias about the importance and unimportance of different parts of history and their relativity to the story that they are trying to portray. I believe that he got it just right about how the telling of history can never be fully accurate due to never being able to capture all of what was happening in any situation, it's just based on whatever the witness observed, this making the idea of a complete history ridiculous. I don't have any true disagreements with Zinn, and if I were to try to pretend to have any issues in his logic it would be inaccurate and an outright lie, which is why I'm not going to pretend that I have any issues in Zinn's judgement. -Austin Brummett

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zinn and his writings about inevitable bias in history no matter who is the historian writing down. It seems like it is impossible for there to not be at least some sort of bias no matter who writes down the history as it is impossible for the people who write it to not have their own opinions about things. It is impossible for anything written by humans to tell the whole picture while also being true and having no bias whatsoever. It is just human nature to have opinions about things and I agree with ZInn that if historians can acknowledge these values and biases that they have, it can make them a more reliable source. On the other side of the coin, I also agree that if historians pretend to be objective, but are really just as or more biased than the historians that acknowledge their bias, it can end up deceiving both themselves and the readers. As long as the bias is not too extreme, reading history from the different perspectives can even be more beneficial than reading one "unbiased" perspective, as it would do a better job of looking at the whole picture and the thoughts of each side. While the "unbiased" look into something may have things omitted or given too much significance, no matter how many of them you look at, the two biased works together will have every single event when put together. The best way to get the whole story is to get it from both sides and not from "unbiased" people who are not completely sure what is important and what is not.

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree with Zinn's statements. Meeting people both online and in person has led me to believe most if not all people are so attached to some of their opinions they believe them to be objective. Biased history is everywhere, after all the opinion of the peasants is rarely included in history books. I think Zinn understates how much of history is purposeful lies. Some of it extreme, Nero was not a monster who burned down Rome, but a ruler that was loved overwhelmingly by the people and was smeared by political opponents. Some of it is less so: western media greatly exaggerate the numbers of deaths and Mao Zedong's involvement in the Great Famine in China. That being said, I agree that the biggest problem is based on biases that cause some sources to be over represented. I disagree with Zinn's statement that readers of history should read what's important to their values. The only way to know the truth of what happened in history is to know everyone's involvement in it. All accounts are equally useful, because without one if them, the truth is not being told.

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree with Zinn's statements. Meeting people both online and in person has led me to believe most if not all people are so attached to some of their opinions they believe them to be objective. Biased history is everywhere, after all the opinion of the peasants is rarely included in history books. I think Zinn understates how much of history is purposeful lies. Some of it extreme, Nero was not a monster who burned down Rome, but a ruler that was loved overwhelmingly by the people and was smeared by political opponents. Some of it is less so: western media greatly exaggerate the numbers of deaths and Mao Zedong's involvement in the Great Famine in China. That being said, I agree that the biggest problem is based on biases that cause some sources to be over represented. I disagree with Zinn's statement that readers of history should read what's important to their values. The only way to know the truth of what happened in history is to know everyone's involvement in it. All accounts are equally useful, because without one if them, the truth is not being told.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Zinn’s advice on bias is extremely important for anyone who writes acedemic essays, books, newspapers, articles online, and so forth. What is written down in history is only a small glimpse into what really happened, as history usually is made to shed a positive light on whoever is writing it. If one reads the documents written by Romans who traveled to Ireland or other Celtic nations one may find descriptions of barbaric pagans practicing elaborate forms of human sacrifice and other over-the-top stories of what the people there were like. After further examination, it’s been found that the majority of these reports were likely false or greatly over exaggerated because of the prejudice and bias Romans had against the Celts. As Zinn explains, Bias isn’t always so obvious as cases like these. Being completely imparitial while writing is challenging, the writer can end up talking more about one aspect of a story than another. While he/she is still presenting facts, they’re emphasizing certain points that may line up with whatever their opinion of the story is.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with Zinn and his writings about how we need to be careful when studying the documentations of history. I love how he says “everyone is biased, weather they know it or not...” When I read this it makes me think about how people are raised in certain ways and have different perspectives. We see things from one side and someone else can see it from another. We need to be careful to spot biased information and focus more on facts. I disagree with part of his statement though because I do feel that there can be non-biased sources, just usually there is some bias from the side of the source. I agree with what Zinn says and his writing has opened my eyes even more to the dangers of biases.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with almost all of what Zinn says in the excerpt, especially his writings on bias and how everyone has conscious or subconscious motives in their actions which come nowhere near objectivity. This way of thinking strongly matches what I have observed in my own experience and is an important truth.
What I disagree with Zinn about is summarized in this line: "We can then decide for ourselves, based on our own values, which accounts are most important and most useful." While I agree that some accounts can be more eye-opening to some than others based off of the reader's personal experiences, I think it is important to keep the facts from all sides in mind when assessing the past (or anything, for that matter). Rather than picking narratives only because they align with one's current values, I believe that continually considering both sides of the story allows one a greater depth of understanding and a more nuanced view of the world rather than only valuing records which already agree with their outlook.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with Zinn's point on how "Everyone is biased, whether they know it or not".  We might not know it but all of us have our own opinion based on our core values in life.  Typically those values are what we grow up with and what we are familiar with. When we are exposed to something we might not feel completely comfortable with or even sacrilegious to us our brain acts as if it is being threatened by an in real life danger.  Subconsciously we avoid that threat by making ourselves biased in ways we don't even notice. That is why it is important to do as much research as we can before we gather our own consensus, and when new research is discovered or developed, then we must incorporate that information into the mix as unopinionated as we possibly can and gather a new consensus before proceeding with our final conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
While I do believe that Zinn is correct when he states, "everyone is biased, whether they know it or not, in possessing fundamental goals, purposes, and ends." Even if it not conscious, we develop biases throughout our lives, just based on what we are taught and how we see others act around us. Many of these may not be intentional or necessarily negative, they are just the values that we have grown up around and been introduced to, as well as what we feel is right. These biases may not be negative, for example, preferring nature over the city merely because we were raised around nature,  they do still affect the way we view the world. I do not, however, agree with his statement that this allows us to be skeptical of all historians because even though it is true that historians with biases may emphasize on some things more than others, but I still believe that because historians look for the whole truth, they would not ignore things based simply on their biases. I also agree with Zinn that there is no such thing as impartial history. History is always divided, just as he says. What is considered the most important part varies from person to person, based on their values and beliefs. Therefore, there will always be multiple ways of looking at an event.

# data[].attributes.body
I like Zinn's point about how there is no such thing as impartial history. "All written history is partial in two senses. It is partial in that it is only a tiny part of what really happened . That is a limitation that can never be overcome. And it is partial in that it inevitably takes sides, by what it includes or omits, what it emphasizes or de-emphasizes." I couldn't agree more, and this also ties in to how everyone is biased no matter what. There's always going to be influence on facts from different sides, and most times there's really no way to get around that. This is why historical accuracy is important, because when a people are raised to certain beliefs, its most likely they will follow those beliefs for the rest of their lives. This is how events like the Holocaust begin. I think Zinn was very well spoken in his writing and got me to think more about where I'm getting information from and if its actually accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with Zinn's opinions and statements. "everyone is biased, whether you know it or not" this is completely true. Even if you don't take a stance on something you are still biased to some degree. no recorded history is non-biased. In this day in age, there is a lot more history not told from the winner's side of things, which gives a good comparison to what is written by the victors throughout time. Historians must decide what is important, and that thought process is instantly going to be biased towards their opinion. "The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is omission or de-emphasis of important data." being biased is not all bad. We see something as bad or good by what is emphasized in the opinion. Depending on each individual personal opinion, their version of any story will always be at least a little bit different than someone else's. This doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong though.

# data[].attributes.body
Discussing biases in media is very important, in both historical contexts and current event. I agree with the sentiment that we'll never truly be free from bias, every document has a writer, someone who decided what was important and how to record it. That being said, one can do their best to avoid bias. Using multiple, diverse sources of information can be a great way to do so. But as they say, history is written by the victors, and there will be instances in which getting diverse sources is hard, if not impossible. The omission of information, censorship, is inherently a form of bias. There are far more than just two sides to any story, especially in terms of history, where one small action lead to widespread consequences. To account for every perspective is not only time-consuming but impossible. When studying history, it is important to avoid bias while recognizing how ubiquitous it really is. Although we can never eliminate bias, we can sure try to avoid it, in order to have a more accurate picture of the past.

# data[].attributes.body
The way Howard Zinn expresses his thoughts about history being biased helps me understand that in every part of history, the "writers" believe that it is only important to show the side that benefits their reputation, like the Columbus's Journey, they didn't show the way they assassinated the native american, or how poorly they were treated just because they weren't them, because they were different. Being biased in history doesn't allow people to recognize the truth, it only allows people to see (like it said in the article) "....only a tiny part of what really happened." Everyone is biased, even I am, but that doesn't mean that we should hide the whole picture. Historians need to write history unbiased, it can be good to express your thoughts and emotions but when it comes to history people don't want to hear your side of the story, they want to hear/see the way it was truly done, they want to understand the past and how we can improve for the future!! Historians being biased isn't just in the past, it is currently happening today, journalist and reporters only write about what they believe the media will want, but they don't show the truth. I agree with Zinn and his opinion about everyone being biased and hiding the other half of the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely agree with Zinn's statements. I liked when he said, "Everyone is biased, whether they know it or not..." This is very true. No matter how objective one tries to be, they always have an opinion on it, even if their subconscious hides it from them. I also agree with his point that the biggest issue in history is the omission of important information. If a source completely lies about an event, there are usually others to contradict this. Not always, but a lot of the time those lies are caught. More frequently, certain details are left out or forgotten, whether that be on purpose or not. Everyone is biased, after all!
When writing history, it is difficult to be unbiased. I think a good way of helping is to write about what you believe in and then play 🤬's advocate (if there are two sides) and write for the other side, giving both perspectives and allowing the reader to dissect the evidence and make their conclusion. If there is only one true side to the story (no conspiracy theorist type viewpoints; hard, factual perspectives only), then just writing about this is good. Zinn states this in the excerpt and I agree with him.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Howard Zinn's points. Bias is a core problem of history, one that we have been faced with our whole lives. I have heard all about the saying "history is from the winner's perspective" and agree with that, but I found it interesting that Zinn brought up everyone's personal biases. I agree that we all have values that cause us to see some things as more important. For example, when I was doing the eulogy assignment I found that I would pay more attention to things that caught my interest. Those things, such as seeing certain personality traits that aligned with my own or being more concerned with someone's role in something I feel strongly about, may cause me to hold on to those things and forget others. It's not purposeful, which makes it even more dangerous. I think that we naturally do that-- go in depth about the topics we care about-- and, although that is wonderful, we have to recognize this and be aware of it. It's fine to do that for an assignment, or to bring a specific perspective to the table, but not when recording history for a textbook, and not by accident.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate how Zinn explains that there are items "missing from the marketplace," meaning history doesn't tell everything that could be told to keep things mostly unbiased. When we have history, it is almost always taught/told from the eyes of, for examples, the victor of a battle, the people in power, and people who have the opportunity to explain it. No matter what happens, as Zinn says, there is always something missing, be it random knowledge or useful information that needs to be known to understand what happened. We need to fully understand and work through the consistently inconsistent gaps in history, otherwise we will never be truly able to learn it.

# data[].attributes.body
I like Howard Zinn's point concerning the fact that if someone thinks they are not biased, then they are in fact bias. If we can eliminate dishonest or misinformed sources than we as a society can progress. Another point brought up by Mr. Zinn that I agreed with was that the biggest problem in history is not lying per se but the left out and lack of emphasis on important data. Even the textbook whether we'd like to admit it or not has left out some information merely because it's impossible to change what past historians took complete track of. It is a good idea to be skeptical of all journalists and writers to see if their biases affect their writing. If their writing is full of misinformation and unsupported claims, then it is important to not be brainwashed nor spread the ill-informed data.

# data[].attributes.body
Zinn's argument regarding the unavoidable bias of historians is one I strongly agree with. Authenticity and awareness is necessary to write history and in being aware of one's preexisting beliefs, the historical narrative becomes more valuable for the public. As Zinn states, "Perhaps the closest we can get to objectivity is a free and honest marketplace of all subjectivities, in which we can examine both orthodox accounts of the past and unorthodox ones..." The understanding of an event becomes well rounded only through multiple accounts with different perspectives and emphases, meaning that one report is not immediately useless due to bias. It is as important to preserve history's truth as it is to recognize different opinions and their influence on an event.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zinn´s opinion on history and how everyone is naturally biased. One point he wrote that I thought was interesting was, ¨But that is avoidable if the historian understands the difference between solidity in ultimate values and openness in regard to a historical fact.¨ I agree with this because humans are naturally biased and to be a historian you should be able to see the facts and both sides of conflicts brought up in history. Having your own bias is perfectly fine, but when it comes to history, one should be flexible and able to disregard their bias, and able to acknowledge a historical fact (even if that could be painful to the side/belief that is viewing it). All in all, I agree with Zinn´s point that history usually bias´s one side, and historians should be able to view and give regards to both.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with Zinn’s opinion “Everyone is biased, whether they know it or not, in possessing fundamental goals, purposes, and ends”. It is true that to be a historian, one has to be very open about the way they work and should strive to avoid their personal bias showing through. I also agree with Zinn’s belief to bring light to all of the other subjects and data of the past that is seemingly small, but could be a great change in the way we see our history as a whole. What could be being ignored now could better impact the world, just when historians are open to other opinions. Historians hold so much responsibility to tell how everything came to be and when they hold their opinions higher than anything else, it is breaking what could be our past. But overall, it is also quite a beautiful thing for so many different people passionate about our history and all bringing new information to the table to debate about.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree and absolutely love Zinn's point where he states, "Perhaps the closest we can get to objectivity is a free and honest marketplace of subjectivities..." I feel like this stands so true because in an ideal world everyone would know the infallible truth and all sides of history would be open to everybody, etc. But Zinn says that the closest we can get is everyone's subjective or biased take and use them to form our own. It is excellent we get that freedom to make that choice for ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zinn on his stance on impartiality. His explanation that, "Anyone reading history should understand from the start that there is no such thing as impartial history." drives home the idea that all history has been seen through a filter. The old saying of "History is written by victors" (Winston Churchill) could not be more true. Try as all people might we can't help but have an opinion on everything, even facts.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Zinn says, especially that "everyone is biased, whether they know it or not". I find it very interesting how he implies that no individual writing of history can get 'the truth', but that instead it has to be approached from many different perspectives, both orthodox and unorthodox. I also think that often, in looking at history, we act as if we ourselves are out of history, as if we weren't steeped in the values of our time (which, for all we know, may be seen as ridiculous in a century). I agree with him, then, that a "free and honest marketplace of subjectivities", is the most useful approach to understanding history.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with Zinn's point of, "The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is omission or de-emphasis of important data." When we look at history or today's journalists and their integrity, we can see bias within almost every source we read. This does not mean that they are necessarily liars, but news or history can come across in different ways based on what is emphasized or slightly omitted as Zinn stated. That's what makes every history textbook or newspaper article different and unique, all depending on the source or person.