Customer Reviews

A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present

5 star:		(100)
4 star:		(35)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

I'm going to partially disagree with the reader from Australia and agree (in part) with the reader from Key West, and probably offend both in the process. Oh well. Nothing personal, of course. What this book adds to the discussion of social history is a needed examination of long neglected issues of class in America, and how those pressing factors are often submerged in hyper-patriotism or blind faith in capitalism. That's very important, and that still doesn't get into the history textbooks. And the fact that Zinn is talking from the Left is, I think, not as important as the fact that his leftist perspective illuminates shadowed areas of history -- Cherokee culture in the 1830s, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 (the best section in the book), or peace movements during World War II. That's important. The problem is that everything else he said could be found in the history textbooks I studied in elementary school, high school and college in the 1980s and 90s. Reading the book last month, I was more surprised by how much of Zinn's work is put into American History textbooks (in an admittedly abbreviated form) than is left out. Class struggles are, by and large, omitted, but everything else -- Indian genocide, the horrors of the Middle Passage, cold-hearted union crackdowns -- I studied in sixth grade. Zinn is not the corrective to traditional textbooks now; he writes them. There wasn't anything particularly radical in this book for me -- nothing I hadn't read before, anyway. Its cutting edge feels dulled by the passing of decades. And it should be noted that Zinn's biggest flaw is that he reduces complex personalities into archetypes of what he thinks they should be -- so we hear awful things about Andrew Carnegie, but nothing about his philanthropy; we read a wonderful reflection on W.E.B. DuBois, but nothing about his anti-semitism (as seen in "The Souls of Black Folk"). But you could dig up these flaws in any book as ambitious as Zinn's. I like the suggestion that this be read in counterpoint to Johnson; I've been meaning to do that. Zinn's class corrective is very important; and if he overstates the case at times, he at least makes a noise few others have bothered to sound.

A great many people who have reviewed this book seem to be surprised and appalled that Zinn has focused on the dark side of the American story. This should have been painfully obvious from the title- The 'PEOPLES' History of the United States. I'm more surprised that so many people have reserved so much invective for an author who dares to write a history from the perspective of the marginalized majority of this country- a large group who haven't always been on the recieving end of the American dream.

Yes, this book is biased, but so is every flag waving history book I was forced to read when growing up. Kudos to Zinn for providing a counter balance to tear jerking stories of honest, kindhearted pilgrims searching for religious freedom.

This book will be hard for some to swallow- especially those who have been raised on the jingoistic pap that many of our educational institutions call history. But this book is important and a must read for the serious student of American history. The old cliche' that 'history is written by the victors' is true and this book is the voice of those who were under the boot. Read it!

What some of the readers below don't seem to get is that this book is not INTENDED to be a balanced look at American history. There IS no balanced look at history. Every historian brings his own biases and preconceptions to the table. Zinn makes this point early on in the book; and, to his immense credit, doesn't EVER claim to be fair or impartial or balanced. This is a history from the point of view of the rest of us: the native population, the slaves, the railroad workers, the child laborers, women, factory workers, soldiers, and everyone else whose voice has not been represented or even heard through previous histories.

Most histories are written from the point of view of the dominant affluent culture. It would naturally be difficult for the dominant culture to express the idea that their success is built on other people's misery; nobody likes looking bad in their own eyes. However, facts are facts: Millions of natives WERE systematically driven off their lan! d and killed, millions of africans WERE kept in the most degrading forms of slavery, thousands of workers WERE beaten and killed for daring to act for a better life, etc. These WERE the conditions of life for the other side. Closing our eyes does not help.

Even people who hate Howard Zinn admit that he's a good scholar. But many people hate him, for sure--and you have to remember that when you're reading some of these reviews. On the other hand, most of the reviewers seem to be communists themselves, and so their gushing reviews should surprise no one.

I recommend the book with some reservations. Agree or disagree, perspectives like Zinn's keep us from becoming ignorant victims of ideological propaganda.

I recommend it because it is a great, well-informed, honest and self-conscious dissenting opinion. Anyone who wants to consider themselves educated needs to consider dissenting opinions frequently. But I have reservations. Most importantly, Zinn's purpose is not to introduce someone to American history. He assumes his readers already know the basics. Of course, many people do not. It's not a history of the US; it's a series of contentious corrections to the history traditionally taught in American classrooms. (Why did the Colonies defeat the British? What caused the depression? Why did Nixon visit China? Unless you know this much, this book isn't yet for you.)

Some reviewers complained about Zinn's tone. Zinn is an average writer; better than many academics but worse than any good writer.

Other reviewers seemed to assume that either communists or far-right conservatives aren't "students of history." But of course some are. Zinn and Newt Gingrich are both well-informed scholars.

(If it matters to you, I am neither communist nor right-wing; I'm just not a political thinker. I'm American, and I think Americans--all of us--can be proud and thankful; but we should recognize that our government and politicians have never been perfect. Ideologies often serve to control people, so dissenting opinions are vital for freedom's perseverance. But democracy and moderated capitalism have often succeeded in blessing their people, while communism has evidently failed everywhere, with more gruesome histories even than capitalism.)

History is a sort of science. There are right and wrong ways of doing it. Zinn does a wonderful job of pointing out how traditional history books are incorrect in numerous portrayals of the past. However, he commits the same sin as the traditional textbook. Instead of finding the happy medium, he swings to the left and leaves readers in the dust.

Zinn does a fine job of pointing out hypcoracies in American history but does not discuss why they occur. These reasons are usually political, but Zinn decides not to explore them further. He just makes the reader think if something is a hypcracy it is therefore wrong, end of discussion. This theory is as tunnel visioned as the conservative accounts of history Zinn is fighting. I am not arguing for hypocracy, I am arguing for a fair treatment of past events.

What a fantastic book! An insightful look at the history our elementary school teachers forgot that can change your perspective on our nation. The book is, admittedly, a bit stilted by Zinn's personal politics, and my opinion of it is stilted by my own similar politics. However, I think the point is to read it and form your opinions from Zinn's presentation of the past. So even if you disagree, it challenges you to do so, thus making it a great improvement over your typical history book.

I found particularly compelling the discussion of the labor movement, especially the early years. It is a moving and exciting story that goes virtually untold in conventional texts. What a waste -- to miss this tale about the people who gave us *all* so much!

Also enjoyed Zinn's discussion of war in the terms of his own pacifism. I would recommend, for further study of his views on war, any number of his other books where he talks about his personal experiences in "the Good War" (WWII) and his protests during Vietnam.

In summary -- an excellent and thought-provoking work, even if you disagree. It gets you motivated to action!

I am a history student, so please don't think im an uneducated right-winger complaining about Zinn's ideology; in fact, I appreciate it and think it is a very important one that deserves more study (and a LOT less of the politically correct approach it gets in history textbooks.) However, only people with a) little knowledge of history or b) a distinctly slanted knowledge of history could think this book a great scholarly work, or even an effective expose. Zinn's point of view is a needed one; patriotic, Bancroftian historians have too much of a hold on the general public, and the sad facts Zinn has to share are important. However, to write a book from the point of view that America is an evil empire and "neighborly socialism" is the ideal form of government for which to strive is patently ridiculous. Zinn started with a very specific leftist agenda (no necessarilly a bad thing) then contorted every fact and instance he came across to fit with it (definitely a bad thing.) With misrepresented facts and misinterpreted quotes, highly selective inclusion of events, and baldfaced judgements, this is perhaps the LEAST scholarly work of history to gain popular support. If you want to examine the work of a revisionist historian, read Charles Beard, read Gabriel Kolko, even read Henry Nash Smith or Ward Churchill if you feel you have to cry about America's injustices. But please, don't lend this dishonest writer any more credibility by buying his book - Ziolkowski's "CIA's Greatest Hits" is a probably a more well-written book, and that is really saying something.

Zinn, in writing this work, gave himself a formidable challenge, to be sure! To write a survey of American history will undoubtedly have holes, omissions, and other instances which may be construed as politically biased or "correct", revisionist, or in the eyes of some, flat out wrong. I say, "GOOD!" it shows that the reader's been paying attention if they question a historian's ascertains. The People's History was written to shed some light on the actual people that lived on this continent, from the indigenous peoples who first occupied the continent, to the Europeans, and later immigrants, who came to dominate it. What I found particularly interesting (although I do not necessarily agree with the basis for the argument) is Zinn's theory of how the "top 1%" was able to control class discontent by creating a middle class as a buffer, and by deflecting that class animosity towards an outside threat, i.e., the British, then Mexico, then Spain, then Germany twice, etc. As opposed to writing the traditional "Great History," Zinn describes the "meanwhile, back in reality..." Some may dismiss this approach as revisionist, Marxist, "liberal drivel," or worse; however books such as this work are critical to our understanding of history. It affords us the opportunity to debate, to evaluate, and hopefully in the end come to a consensus on what actually happened. Let's be honest: it is absolutely impossible for any history to get it right.

Which brings me to the point:

After reading over the customer reviews on Zinn's work, The People's History of the United States, and on Davis' Don't Know Much About History. It strikes me that a couple comments must be made to the fine readers and inquisitive types out there who would like to learn more about the events of the past. First, each and every person who writes history - politician, journalist, student, or trained professional - "has an axe to grind," to borrow from a former professor of mine. Their politics will undoubtedly bleed into their work. Zinn, Schlesinger, W.E.B. DuBois, Kissenger, even Stephen Ambrose (GASP!) all betray their politics in their books. Kissenger took time out from his outstanding book Diplomacy, blatantly attempting to justify the tactics he and Nixon used in Vietnam(and Cambodia) to "extricate our troops with honor"! Secondly, the facts that are used in histories may actually be facts! The problem comes when the facts are taken out of context. An example: If you read Theodore Roosevelt's Autobiography by today's standards, some would believe he was raving mad racist who wanted nothing more than to impose Anglo-Saxon imperialism on the world. Then you realize that the book was written on the eve of WWI, a war he wanted the US to jump into right away; perhaps he was politically motivated to mobilize public opinion for the war, and against his well-known nemesis, Woodrow Wilson? I wasn't there, and my example surely isn't complete, but I hope I illustrated how understanding the historical context can help clarify the historical facts.

Apologies for sounding like a blow-hard academic, but it is much more interesting to understand history when one receives alternative points of view. Zinn provides another point of view, you may not like what he has to say (in fact I wanted to tell him to take a flying leap myself sometimes), but how will you know unless you try?

Well written, extremely informative, and shocking.

Over the course of the history of the United States:

- The Indian population would be reduced from 10 million to 1 million.

- By 1800, 10 to 15 million blacks had been transported to the Americas as slaves.

- From capture to sale, 2 of every 5 blacks died.

- Of the founding fathers, 40 of 55 were bondholders.

- In the Civil War, white soldiers received $13 a month, black soldiers received $10

- In 1880, Chinese immigrants working on the railroads numbered 75,000, 1/10th of the population of California.

- In 1920s, 25,000 were killed on the job, 100,000 were disabled.

Overall, a great resource. It is biased, but serves as a counterweight to the generalist reading of history taught in most schools.

Howard Zinn writes history much like Superman saves Lois Lane ... with a steel jawed determination to dispense violent "justice" upon the world's many "evil doers". And, just as the exploits of the Man of Steel fuel the power fantasies of pubescent boys Zinn's work plays well to an audience of perpetual (and professional) victims. Infrequently, Zinn makes a half interesting observation. But for the most part his writing has about as much relationship to history as Superman's powers do to the laws of physics. In the end the portrait of America Zinn paints is as real a place as the planet Krypton.

Zinn has managed (rather brilliantly one must say) to palm off his work as some sort of courageous attack on the "official" (read "evil) history of America. One has only to read some of the other reviews posted herein to see how many people have swallowed that particular hook, line and sinker. Indeed, Zinn plays extremely well to an audience that somehow buys into the absurd notions that what appeared (or appears) in their highschool history books constitutes the sum of all scholarship, that highschool history teachers are an army of unthinking clones, (OK maybe they're on to something there), and that highschool students are incapable of critical thought. Similarly, the idea that the "bulk" or "majority" of historical works produced are somehow the product of a "dominant/victor" culture (part of the increasingly infamous "vast right wing conspiracy") is just willfully ignorant. It is also almost obscenely patronizing when you stop and think about it from the perspective of the very "victims" Zinn seeks to write a history for.

People who actually believe that sort of thing have to read a little more history. However, this book won't help. Zinn writes for people who don't study history, don't know history, and have no desire to start studying or knowing history. This is tired socialist propaganda and convenient distortion ... nothing more. Zinn's interpretation of the motivations of the founders with respect to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is (to be charitable) silly. But his history of the Cold War is quite frankly down right stupid ... particularly so in light of materials in hand since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Zinn's willfully ignorant defense of the Rosenbergs suffers from the same problem. His treatise on Vietnam begins with a false contention (that the full might of the US military was reigned down upon the North Vietnamese) and ends with an overall impression of American involvement in that conflict that is about as accurate as the reflections in a carnival fun-house mirror.

Zinn seems to argue that we cannot end evils like genocide, exploitation, and abuse until we "face" them ... drag them into the light of day. To that point we are in complete agreement. But, the very heart of Zinn's "history" is distorted and distorting. To use the two most obvious examples; he condemns Columbus for genocide and America for slavery. However, on the genocidial religious practices of Native Americans and on the African elements of the international black slave trade Zinn is virtually silent. That silence is a crime of sorts. It is a crime because it distorts the truth rather than advances it and justice cannot be had by any coin other than the truth. If Zinn wants justice he needs to face the truth and to face it he has to be willing to look for it. By his own admission he has attempted nothing of the sort in this book.