&#62; I thought it was inappropriate, not for questioning Zinn, but for doing so in a way much more biased than Zinn himself.<p>Eh, the review was nothing special, but the fact that Zinn left out that the side he labeled as oppressed started the Pequot War with a murder seemed like an important detail. Or the fact that war was primarily Indian tribes vs. other Indian tribes, and the Anglo component was less than 20% of the winning side. But, you can't let the facts get in the way of a good story.<p>I imagine Zinn himself would agree he was more of an activist than a historian, and he fits history to his activism. The uberpatriot people aren't any better and might well be worse, but the message is more important than the messenger. Pointing out that a man claiming to be a historian is leaving out entirely crucial historical details is important.