NYTimes Charles Blow Opinion

[David Lockmiller]

Blow's column recommended Zinn's book, not me. Zinn's book is notorious as bad history. Given the book's reputation, it's pretty ironic/stupid that Blow would cite it (even if its Columbus quotes are accurate in this case) in a column ostensibly about bad history standards.

Can you please explain, if you are able to do so, how a book "notorious as bad history" is able to sell two million copies? Did not other reputable historians criticize the book on this basis?

Blow was trying to write his own "bad history" and one cites alleged authority confirming your work as proof that what you are saying is correct.