A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

Rating:
Summary: Not for the "Hate America First" crowd...
Review: Finally there's a book that has the audacity to point out that the United States of America is the greatest country to exist in the history of mankind! That low rumble you hear in the background is the sound of liberal knees knocking in fear that young Americans are learning to look behind the curtain of the liberal media and see the truth about who we are, how we came to be and what we have done for the betterment of the entire world.

Well done!


Rating:
Summary: Pretty dang good, but a little too pro-right.
Review: I think this is an excellent view of American history. I actually have had one of the authors as a professor in my college career - and he makes no bones about the problems in American history. And neither does this book.

Although this takes a conservative interpretation of American history, all interpretations have some type of angle to them. It doesn't matter if it is a left, right, or middle bias, we all come to the academic table with some angle to interpret the world with. And for academia, its good for people to see all angles. Considering the fact that those professors who choose to push a certain interpretation tend to push a "left-wing" perspective, having this "right-wing" perspective allows us readers to get both sides. And if someone is afraid to hear both sides, then they don't really deserve to call themselves intellectuals.

The great thing about this book is it actually tells people to be proud of their country, while explaining the context of its faults. And it gives people many reasons to be proud of their country. True...there are some points where it is a feels a little too pro-America - but that is balanced out by where it points out some pretty stupid things that some Americans have done.

The book itself is a fun read. Enjoyable, fast paced and upbeat, it is loaded with tons of references and different examples. Plus, the authors throw in some silly jokes for a bit of good humor. Many textbooks cover the same themes over and over again, but this one added in a lot of facts that are left out of normal college textbooks. For example, I had never heard the theory that the government caused and even prolonged the great depression.

All in all, a great read. The only reason I gave it 4 stars instead of a 5 is Schweikart's justification of a few too many things. True - he calls those things wrong and evil. And they must be labeled as so, but sometimes I just felt myself wondering. Its still a great read, one I would recommend to anyone who wanted to get a good history of the US. Its far better and much much less biased than Howard Zinn's: "A People's History of the United States".

Rating:
Summary: Fair and Balanced
Review: If anyone believes that the so-called readers who are giving this book 1 or 2 stars have even read the book, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Their only agenda is to trash any book that even dares to have the word "patriot" in it. I am not sure what threatens these people but I have seen them do the same thing to just about any book on Amazon that even leans to the right.

This is an excellent and well-written book that reveals our country's history with a more realistic perspective. I think the book is mis-titled and should have a name that represents a fair and balanced view of American history because that would be more accurate. Zinn's view of history is to only look at the blemishes, never the beauty. His book as no balance whatsoever. This book recognizes that America has not been perfect but also gives credit to the wonderful things we have done as a people both within the country as well as internationally.

There are those in live in the United States who actually wish for the destruction of our nation. A professor at the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill, is one who has called the people who died on 9-11 "Nazis" and hopes there will be many more 9-11s. Those are the kind of people who have read Howard Zinn's history of America and feel there is nothing we have ever done that has been right. Their solution is to tear the country down and start again. I am sure some of the negative responses you get on Amazon are from such people. These are not the people with "Support Our Troops" on the back of their cars.

Schweikart's book will at least help explain why America has been a "city on the hill" where millions of oppressed people from around the world have come to share in our freedoms and prosperity. Yes, there have been mistakes but the positive side of American history far outweighs the negative.

For those who have lost faith in our country, I hear Canada is not that cold in the winter. For those who believe in America and see the best days ahead, buy this book and realize that we also have had some pretty good days in our past as well.

Rating:
Summary: Patriotic, fair, and balanced
Review: Maybe you don't think a 'patriot's history of the United States' can possibly be fair and balanced. I understand completely; I was thirteen once myself.

But Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen have written a U.S. history for grownups (and those who are ready to become grownups).

As this book states clearly on its cover and in its introduction, these two historians 'utterly reject' the slogan 'My country right or wrong' and don't believe that the history of America is free of flaws or blemishes. But they also think that in recent years too much U.S. history has been written on the premise 'My country, always wrong'.

(Nor -- as they also expressly state -- is Howard Zinn's silly unbook the primary target of their work. _A People's History of the United States_ is named only as a work that at least states its bias in its title, unlike 'almost any mainstream U.S. history textbook'.)

Their own history is based on the premise -- borne out by the history itself -- that there is something unusual and special about the United States. Our country has long been regarded as a 'city on a hill' and a beacon of liberty; our wealth is a product not of our alleged materialism or our so-called natural resources (which is a misnomer; a great deal of human ingenuity, and therefore liberty, is required in order to turn those 'natural' substances into 'resources') but of our 'initiative, inventiveness, hope, optimism, and . . . faith'.

This premise is precisely what allows the authors to present historical American flaws _as_ flaws -- that is, as departures from (and failures with respect to) American ideals. No 'moral equivalence' here: things that are standard nearly everywhere else in human history are exceptions in America.

No doubt much of their content will rankle certain readers for other reasons. Their economic discussions, founded as they are on a pretty solid understanding of capitalism, are bound to irritate fans of e.g. labor unionism and the New Deal; their laying the responsibility for our involvement in Vietnam at the feet of JFK won't sit well with people who still think it was somehow Nixon's fault; their even-handed summary of the U.S.'s response to 9/11 will annoy pacifists by quite properly regarding the War on Terror as a success (and moreover crediting the American armed forces for their precise attacks on military targets and almost total lack of collateral damage).

But the only readers who will accuse Schweikart and Allen of 'bias' for those reasons are the readers who just don't grasp how a free economy works, or believe a military response is ever justifiable for any reason. In short: thirteen-year-olds.

There will, of course, be points that even adult readers can disagree with. (I, for example, disagree with their contention that the Civil War was '_only_ about slavery' [their emphasis] although I do agree with them, against some libertarians, that the war was _primarily_ about slavery rather than states' rights.)

But that's just how things work here in Grownup Land. For adults, reasoned disagreements are just disagreements, not signs of authorial 'bias'.

This is a history of America for Americans -- one that presents the founding, growth, and development of the United States as a good thing and, by and large, a success. And it's about time.

Rating:
Summary: Thanks, Rachel
Review: Note: this is not a review per se, but ... you'll see.

When I read "Rachel DiFillipis"'s review, what struck me at once was its sweeping generalities and vague complaints, with nary a single specific example. She complains that many things have been left out by the authors, but doesn't mention a single one. She also claims that the book would not pass peer review, but doesn't give specifics. My conclusion was that she didn't know of any. (On the other hand, critics of the book like psychsound and Maxson do give specific complaints.)

This left me with the (hopefully mistaken) impression that she had just read the first page of the book, or perhaps the introduction, discovered it conflicted with her views, then went home and wrote her review.

Her review reminded me of self-styled "critics" of intelligent design who have not even read Behe's excellent "Darwin's Black Box". It must be challenging and discomforting enough to incite such a reaction in its first few paragraphs, if it is as heavily footnoted as I thought. This is what has convinced me to buy this book.

I see "MrG" appears to follow Rachel's methodology. "I haven't read it, but I'm sure it's garbage. And no one should read it either." This might apply to some books, like Michael Moore's (who actually admitted that some of his "facts" were fake, but it was OK since it was just "humor"), but as I said, this book appears to be well documented.

Rachel, MrG, my apologies if I am wrong. Let me know and I'll change this. Otherwise, why take a chance and miss out on what might be the whole truth? If the other side of the story threatens my views, I would want to know if it's true. Wouldn't you?

And to the rest of you who like it - it'd better be good.

Rating:
Summary: Since when is history supposed to be patriotic?
Review: The beautiful irony of this book is that it is supposed to correct the "biases" of Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States." Apparently, Schweikart does this by wearing his biases on his chest like a medal of honor. Good history is not supposed to be "patriotic."
I am amused by the review saying that this is a book for adults. (Apparently kindergarteners are reading Zinn now). In these terms, adult is supposed to mean Republican and unwilling to accept that American history is not a "glory story."
People seeking an alternative to Zinn should read Paul Johnson's "History of the American People." Johnson realizes that America has hit bumps along a road of progress.
I am however, very amused by Schweikart's supposition that the founders intended the First Amendment to apply only to "free practice of religion." I'm certian that anyone who could write a history book (even a bad one like this) would know this is completely wrong. The First Amendment includes a "free exercise clause" and an "establishment" barring Congress from in any way establishing a religion. Schweikart must know this. He chooses to ingore the second written half of the First Amendment in order to placate and pander to his conservative readers. I doubt, however, that he knows the legislative history of the First Amendment, namely how a majority of states would not radify the amendment without the "establisment clause" and insisted on its inclusion. Schweikart's claim that there is no "seperation of church and state" is accurate but only in symantics; these words never appear in the Constitution. The seperation clause is however written in the Constitution and clearly bans government establishment of religion.
If you're looking for a book that won't ask you to think at all, will in no way challange your perception of the world or disagree in any way with a 1950s high school history text book, then by all means check out "A Patriot's History." Otherwise, be an adult and think.

Rating:
Summary: Too accepting of official "truths"
Review: The job of the historian is to second guess government "truths" and to find out the real story. But this book accepts the conservative line through and through and openly mocks those who have the gall to ask questions. So, on the book jacket, the authors ridicule Howard Zinn's history book, "A People's History of the United States" as "marxist" perhaps because Zinn billed his book as a "people's history" and therefore, in the mind of the conservative, Zinn is a class warrier. But at least Zinn asks questions and goes beyond government press handouts in reviewing American history.

This book seems to accept as true all of the myths from the conservative handbook. So, in reviewing President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork, the authors do not bother to point out that, while Bork may have been a brilliant legal mind, he scared the hell out of the country with outdated and reactionary views on civil rights. The American public quite rightly asked what kind of Justice it wanted on a divided Supreme Court where a 5-4 decision can easily go the other way depending on the constitutional values of the swing voter. Bork only validated these concerns a few years later when he wrote that the majority should have the power to overturn unpopular Supreme Court rulings. Since constitutional rights should never be put up for majority vote, this proposal raised serious questions about Bork's value as a Supreme Court justice.

Elsewhere, the authors credit Reagan's half-truths about foreign policy, blindly repeating the myth that the U.S. attacked the small island of Granada in 1983 for reasons of "national security." This is a laughable proposition and has been easily rebuked by honest historians. Likewise, the authors accept without serious analysis, the Reagan myth that the U.S. funded and trained the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980's because we wanted to battle a "communist government." But the Sandinistas were elected in 1984 as most international observers noted at the time. What right did the U.S. have to overthrow an elected government? And how did Nicaragua pose a threat to U.S. interests. The old line that the Soviet Union wanted to created "local" threat to the U.S. should be seriously analyzed and challenged, not accepted as the truth. Indeed, our government set up a propaganda office in the 1980's to fool the public and media about the Reagan plan in Central America. It seems the authors here fell for the propaganda.

A serious historian takes a hard look at history and tries to examine underlying motives for why our leaders act. These authors would rather "celebrate" American "greatness" rather than ask questions. Read Zinn's book, instead.

Rating:
Summary: What is patriotism?
Review: This book caught my eye because of its bold title, and I knew before I even picked it up that it had been written at least implicitly as a counter to Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." I found it well-written and useful, a good book to have read once and then have on hand, but I would also echo the complaints of the other reviewers who gave it 2 stars or fewer. They have already said the specifics, so I'll say a few general things instead, and I hope this review will be helpful to those of all political stripes.

The authors say that America's history has been a shining example. I don't understand how this statement can possibly be substantiated--do those of you who have read this book or other history books really believe that America's history, in general, has been a shining example? Parts of it have been, just as parts of it have not. The Constitution and the separation of powers in the government were; some of the ways in which these documents were later used were not. Slavery was not; the overcoming of slavery was. Please realize that I am not trying to make the opposite case: America's history, in general, is not anything. In its specifics, it is many things, which is why history is such a rich and diverse field.

I thought Zinn's "People's History" was magnificent. It's really a sourcebook of oppression--and I believe Zinn is not trying to work his will on any of us or turn us into little Marxists. I think what's important, and hopefully what will appeal to more conservative readers, is that we find something redeeming to say at the end of books like Zinn's. After we learn of America's sometimes horrific past, we are in a position to help create a better future. If you read Zinn's history and give up on America then you've missed his point--but if you read "A Patriot's History" and feel that there is nothing to mourn for, that America's history was, except for a few speed-bumps, a shining example, then you'll never understand why things are the way they are today.

Rating:
Summary: Xenophobic Garbage...
Review: This book was...how to put it? Representative of every reason why the rest of the world hates America. The previous reviewer said this book is for grown-ups...Fox News viewers,in their fantasy world, perhaps, but grown-ups? Grown-ups accept responsibility for reality. Grown ups avoid a fantasy world. Grown ups examine their mistakes so as not to repeat them. It not only denies some of the saddest episodes in American History <the Indian killer Jackson as a great hero...please...that "man of the people" cared about one thing and one thing only,lining his own pockets>, but it leaves out important people and issues. Schweikart may think that one half of one paragraph and one mention each of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are sufficient to mark their contribution to American History, however, 51% of the population begs to differ--if it weren't for them, women STILL would not be voting. This book could be called "American History for Simpletons."
The previous reviewer's description of Zinn's book as an "unbook" revealed a lot to me about the mindset of the readers of this book. Therefore, I will use their language in order to get the message across to them about how despicable this book really is. A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart is double plus ungood.
This book is good for one thing...FLUSH!

Rating:
Summary: okay book
Review: This book, defined by popular culture and the author himself as the polar opposite of (or perhaps response to) Zinn's "A People's History," is not badly written and does a good job of what it sets out to do -- celebrate American history.

That is admirable, although using the word "patriot" implies Zinn's work is somehow "unpatriotic." On its face, then, it would appear Zinn's is actually the more patriotic book -- when I think of patriots, I think of critical thinkers willing to fight, not cheerleaders who stand on the sidelines. (Although to Zinn's credit he is critical of both democrats and republicans; I don't recall Schweikart writing anything positive about contemporary democrats or negative about contemporary republicans).

Fortunately, the author spells all of this out in the beginning. And generally he does not deny the existence of America's faults, although making excuses for those faults (like slavery) on the basis that at least we're not as bad as others (the Arab world's horrible track record on human rights) is problematic.

This book is worth reading, but seeing it as gospel will only provide you with a set of blinders. The most patriot thing you can do is read it -- and Zinn's -- with an open mind and realize that judging the United States is more than about being publicly proud of our ideals and accomplishments, but also recognizing and learning from our lapses in judgment.