Customer Reviews

The Twentieth Century: A People's History

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

No historian of the United States is more provocative than Howard Zinn, whose leftist philosophy permeates his writings and never fails to challenge his readers. "The Twentieth Century: A People's History" is every bit as ambitious as his other works; it is drawn from the latter part of his "A People's History of the United States" with additional chapters to bring the chronicle to the end of the century. Like the majority of other works by Zinn, this one is a must read for anyone seeking to ensure the broadest possible perspective on the American past. What is presented here will be disturbing to many and perhaps angering to some, but as always he presents his analysis with a style and verve that is rigorous and often compelling. If you are not up to being challenged read something else that presents a more consensus perspective on the past, such as Stephen Ambrose or David McCullough. But if you are willing to consider that there might be more to the story of the twentieth century than you learned in school and from consensus historians, then ponder the ideas in this book.

Zinn believes, and states throughout this work, that the dominant narrative of American history focusing "on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us: in the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers; in the slavery crisis, Lincoln; in the Depression, Roosevelt; in the Vietnam-Watergate crisis, Carter. And that between occasional crises everything is all right...The idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics. We have learned to look to stars, leaders, experts in every field, thus surrendering our own strength, demeaning our own ability, obliterating our own selves" (pp. 413-14).

Zinn abhors this aspect of our culture, and seeks to tell the story of those who bucked it throughout the twentieth century. He argues that the power elite in America have created a system of control in which most people do not even realize they are being controlled. "With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority" (p. 414), he writes. Zinn notes that one percent of the nation owns one third of the wealth, and that the elite dole out just enough to placate the rest, all the while pitting them against each other. He adds, "These groups have resented each other and warred against each other with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers, in a very wealthy country" (p. 414). This book is really about those who battled that system, and he celebrates Eugene Debs, Daniel and Philip Berrigan, Angela Davis, Martin Luther King, Bill Haywood, and thousands of others who challenged the status quo.

No question, Zinn views the history of the twentieth century--as well as earlier--in the U.S. as a struggle between the haves and the have nots. The haves, he comments, have been enormously successful in securing their hegemony against far greater numbers in no small part because of "all-embracing symbols, physical and verbal: the flag, patriotism, democracy, national interest, national defense, national security" (p. 415). Appeals to these themes, he believes, have been effectively used to blunt the criticism of the system that otherwise might bring it tumbling down. Thus, George W. Bush has appealed to flag-waving patriotism to unite a divided country and maintain control rather than deal with the underlying reasons for terrorism, "deep grievances against the United States" (p. 474).

"The Twentieth Century: A People's History" is a powerful book with ideas revolutionary in character. If you don't want to consider them then don't read it. Zinn certainly makes no apologies for his position. His is a distinctly minority voice in a discussion of the century just past, but an important and eloquent one. One that we all might learn something from.

I often use this book in one of my university history classes, "US History Since 1877." It's biased. All history writing it biased. (George W. Bush's problems with "revisonist history" aside.) I tell the students about Howard Zinn and his biases. And I tell them to try and be as upfront and aware of biases as they are of Zinn's, and as Zinn is of his own. People are bombarded with so much yahoo, rah-rah, raise-the-flag, my-coumntry-right-or-wrong (the next part of that toast is usually---and very conveniently---ignored; check it out some time) that Zinn is as refreshing as a tequila mojito on a hot summer day. He may rant, but unlike many on the other sides he can be checked out for veracity and found to be correct. You have to be when you're taking shots from folks who prefer using cant, rhetoric and arrant nonsense to propel their own agendas. Highly recommended. But, if you use this book in a class, watch out; the Thought Police are watching.

The reader from Rhode Island entirely misses the point of Zinn's books. Zinn has attempted something that doesn't exist in traditional history books (especially those provided in American primary and secondary schools); he examines our history by looking at what ordinary people thought, experienced, and did instead of writing it as if there is only a single point of view as is represented in many American history books.

Zinn is an admitted liberal (and because of his obvious bias I give 4 instead of 5 stars to this book). The reader from Rhode Island is incensed that Zinn's book is biased because s/he obviously doesn't share Zinn's biases. Doesn't Rhode Island realize that all human beings have biases (some of which Rhode Island probably agrees with)? Therefore, to one extent or another, all history books are biased. At least Zinn admits to his biases!

Becuase Zinn has much greater sympathy for Native Americans than for European immigrants; for poor than for wealthy citizens; and for the powerless than for those with power doesn't mean that he hasn't conducted research (from original sources of the day) to provide information regarding events in our history. If his research results in discovering facts that show past actions of some Americans is less than laudatory, this doesn't negate the truth or accuracy of the research.

Many American history books (as well as those from other countries) are written to promote a general love of country while trying to inculcate, in young students, the idea that their country is right and never wrong. While this may make young citizens loyal to the USA, it does not encourage them to think critically, to admit that some choices made by Americans are not admirable, and most importantly, does not represent the point of view of many American citizens.

Reading Zinn for the first time was like a breath of fresh air for me. When I was in college and later, I became very interested in and started to read, more extensively, books on American history and politics. I learned that what I thought I knew was, for the most part, a highly censored and untruthful version of our history. Though this made me angry, I still believed that our country was great because the ideals and principals we espoused were something that we constantly were striving towards. Zinn brought the richness, the variety, and the multi-culturism of America to me in a way that was vivid and exciting!

It amazes me that many people recoil from unpleasant information about our past as if Americans are so weak, they will crumble if they hear anything negative about our country. In our country, American citizens are the most multicultural in the world; our citizens hold different viewpoints and beliefs on religion, customs, politics, and mores. And most Americans are incredibly tolerant of the right of other Americans to practice different beliefs than their own. This is the basis of our strength at a nation. Therefore, the truth (pleasant or otherwise) regarding our past (and present actions), can only make us better informed, more questioning of what is right or wrong, and more likely to insist that we achieve a better and more equitable Democracy for all.

There are enough history books that extoll the virtues of American history and are, at the worst, blatant lies about America's past actions, and at best, omit any information that might make America look less than perfect. It is a pleasure to know that other history books exist that provide a more accurate version of what actually happened in our past.

So I say to any reader, who genuinely wants to find out about American history, and to see it from a more vital and humane viewpoint, buy and read Zinn books. You will not be disappointed!

After reading A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, also by Howard Zinn, I wanted to learn more about our more recent presidents and their legacies. This volume offered some of the info from the original book, in order to keep continuity, but also continued to the Clinton presidency. Due to our current political problems in election 2000, I was able to reference my areas of interest. More specifically, the role of the electoral college, and how the vote is affected by voter turnout. I found, for instance, that due to low voter turnout, Geo. Bush, Sr. got into office with only 27% of the country's vote, claiming the election as "the will of the people". The same applies to Ronald Reagan. During massive budget cuts in social services, there were significant demonstrations all across the country during the Reagan administration. I hadn't been aware of this information since the media just didn't cover a lot it. The current political climate becomes clear when reviewing events from Zinn's historical perspective. Howver, this is a book written for the common man, not for the mythology of conservatism. If you like Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews, you won't like this book, although it isn't partisan, but rather clear and comprehensive.

The Rhode Island reader was incensed that Zinn would admit his bias. Frankly, I find it refreshing that Zinn admits that his history focuses on the people as opposed to leaders. This history is an attempt to help readers form a more complete view of American history in their minds. This is why Zinn does not push it as definitive, he recognizes that it isn't. However, it does one amazing job of reminding Americans to get off their high horse. Also, Zinn is an amazing writer, especially for non-fiction. It enthralled me.

Howard Zinn, in a 20th Century spin of his most famous work has really outdone himself. After reading this, which was my introduction to the Zinnist theory, I instantly became outraged with the way I had been taught history to this point. He asks you to take all things considered and make your own judgements. He has the guts to talk about government scandals and the struggle of social groups against them. Your judgements cannot be wrong as long as you consider all things. This institution challenging way of history must be the way histotry is taught to the youth of AMerica. Zinn does not paint a rosy picture like most history books will, giving you a false and unfounded sense of patiotism. The best part of this book is the inclusion of recent history, which is absent from most recent texts.

With this book, I was expecting Zinn to go into more detail about America in the 20th century, but it is essentially the 20th century chapters of People's History of the United States taken out and labeled as a new and different book. If you have an older version of Pepole History of the United States by Howard Zinn, the Twentieth Century might be good because of the chapters relating to the elder Bush and Clinton administrations. The rest of the chapters are in people's history. However, recent version the people history of the united states do contain the extra chapters so if it would be better to just get a later version of People's History of the United States instead if you don't have a copy yet.

When it comes to smashing social shibboleths into smithereens, no one is more expert than noted historian Howard Zinn, who has made a career of retelling the story of American history in ways that debunk the comfortable old saws that focus almost exclusively on leaders and large organizations, leaving the central story of the actual history of the American people largely misrepresented, unfocused and untold. Here he remedies the overall treatment of more populist aspects of the American experience for ordinary people in the twentieth century, correcting the oversight by more conventional historians that exclude any serious discussion of organized labor or groups seeking rights and extensions of social privileges to the common working man.

The book is written (as are all Zinn's efforts to date) in a wonderfully approachable prose that is both easy to read and yet eminently entertaining. One walks away from the reading experience with a profound new respect for the consistent efforts of the common American man and woman to secure a better, brighter, and more abundant future for themselves and their children against what often seems to be the insuperable odds represented in entrenched resistance of organized business and government forces. One element that is obvious in all of Zinn's representations is that, as H. L Mencken once put it, America may have the best government that money can buy, but unfortunately, the people do not own it; the corporations do.

I would consider this book as an essential ingredient in any history student's broad education in the sense that it helps one to gain some critical perspective of just how often and how consistently most of the active forces within our social orbit serve to intentionally deceive the common man by accentuating certain aspects of phenomena and excluding or misrepresenting certain other information in order to better manipulate and control public opinion. Whether, for example, it be the federal government forwarding the public argument that the reasons we attacked Iraq was to secure freedom for Iraqis rather than admitting it was due to interests of global corporate forces to control the indigenous Iraqi oil production and distribution, or misrepresenting the corporate or governmental reasons for wanting to change the way in which shortfalls in social security funding will be addressed, Zinn returns the reader to a more critical view of the subject matter in view; thus one begins to see more systematically how the entrenched interests of the power elite continually are engaged in an unfair and unprincipled and ruthlessly relentless one-way class warfare, that it purposefully manipulates and propagandizes the general public through manipulation of the content and context of information via its ownership of the several avenues of the mass media in order, thereby serving its own social, economic, and political interests while deliberately keeping the common man unwittingly compliant in maintaining his own servitude. Enjoy!

I have got nothing but respect for Professor Zinn's work. The absence of footnotes was at first puzzling, specially for someone making such an incisive and calm yet ruthless attack on the traditional approach to history. However, for the informed reader of American history, the lack of footnotes is not a problem, specially since the one point that comes across continuously while reading this book is: "I know this has happened, so that is not the point! Why did I not look at it THIS WAY or read more about it before?"!

Its all there. But not as you are used to reading it. As Zinn himself states at the beginning of the book, this book brings you a step closer to the desperate protester who used self-immolation as an extreme protest -- in extreme desperation.

Nothing is new! The way the institutions of this country work, the Dept. of Justice, the courts, the Congress... not much has changed through the 20th century. Sadly though, a lot more remains unchanged: the fate of poor immigrants, under-paid and over-exploited workers, the disparity between the richest and the poorest, the vulgar gulf between the haves and the have-nots, the hollow, much repeated and stale rhetoric that is often blared at the people!! Those people whose story this book tries to tell.

I am going to read the expanded version of Howard Zinn's "People's history" (the one from 1492 -- this one is only about the 20th century). Partly because, the sad removal and near-extinction of the Native Indians, in its saddening and brutal details, not only makes for "interesting" history reading, but also, among a more aware people, it would lead to a lot of soul-searching and self-examination, specially as the 'leaders' of the 'People' keep embarking on new wars, and 'crusades', against other 'people' of the world. However this book is more suited for the young and "impatient" American readers, who can only read and absorb so much!! No need to read about long-forgotten Native Indians... The 20th century is full of Vietnam, Hiroshima, Iraq, and other disgraces to get you interested in history.

Unfortunately, there can never be enough of books like these. The stupor that seems to have fallen upon the whole nation, which has turned into insensitive emotionless gears of a money-making machine, needs books like these as an antidote!!!

Even if all the above does not make sense to you, as an average reader, you will surely appreciate that Professor Zinn does what every historian SHOULD do: Let History Speak for Itself!! It is gloomy, dark, ironic, sad and bitter enough, that one only needs to present it with the calm, cold, impersonal and yet effective bitterness, with which Howard Zinn's pen presents it to you!!!

A MUST-READ for EVERY American. For every person attending a college, don't think that you know about history, till you can appreciate and share the bitterness, sadness and introspection that this book would and SHOULD lead you to.

Hats off to Zinn for a great and gripping read. Can't wait to get my hands on more books by him.

Zinn's approach is truly refreshing and provocative. He looks at History from the point of view of people who are mostly ignored by other historians. He presents the stories and viewpoints of workers, minorities, and other sections of society that have not been heard through other historical narratives. Thus, he provides rare insights, provokes thoughts regarding continuing to accept the normal 'glorious' dissemination of conquests and is refreshingly different.
Despite all the above, his approach, sometimes, becomes difficult to read. This is probably due to the fact that I am much more used to reading normal history and have lost my capability to hear just the peoples' voices. As the broader context is not very clear, I sometimes felt that the trees were robbing me of the forest. His premise is proved in a short while, the repetition of further evidence is difficult to sustain interest in.