Rating: 
Summary: A note to all those critical.
Review: I have noticed a lot of critics saying that this book neglects to mention America's achievments, that it is biased, liberal, radical, revisionist, communist..ect. But the point that these people are missing is that this book is intended to be biased. It is intended to be read as a supplement to the standard textbook American history. For my High Schol U.S. history course, we read this book as well as a more traditional and general text. This allows us to view American history with a very open and critical mind. It allows us to question history as well as the historian reciting it. What Mr. Zinn is trying to do is give us an alternate perspective upon America. A perspective that many of us are blind to. This book is to read with an open mind. Not with a liberal or conservative one. Whether you agree with Howard Zinn or not (I know I have disagreeded with him many times during the course of this reading as well as been in total concensus with) this book provides insight into America's past that many people need to hear. One certainly shouldn't jump to the conclusion that this book is the true American history because it is a very specific and biased one. The book should be read with a traditional history in mind. But one should also not disregard the ideas that this text has to offer. Obviously it has flaws. It was writen by a singal person with his own perspective on America. But every history book I have ever read (as a high school student that is many) has its flaws and its bias. That doesn't invalidate what information it has to offer though. I believe this book should be a standard in classrooms to be read with a more standard U.S. text.
Rating: 
Summary: Is This American History?
Review: Those who read A People's History of the United States 1492-Present may think that Howard Zinn is the embodiment of a modern day Karl Marx. Despite Zinn's socialistic views, this comparison is, perhaps, a little extreme; however, it's fairly obvious that Mr. Zinn does not support America's capitalistic-based system. In all fairness to Mr. Zinn, I'm sure he, like many Americans, simply long for a more egalitarian socioeconomic structure that is absent the huge chasm between rich and poor that defines our country today.Given this backdrop, one should expect that A People's History of the United States 1492-Present is not a typical high school history lesson. One of Mr. Zinn's objectives in this book is to correct a long-standing wrong. The wrong, according to Zinn, is that traditional American history is biased and one-sided because it is presented from the perspective of the conqueror, statesman, capitalist, and aristocrat. To correct this wrong -- to achieve a balance of understanding -- Mr. Zinn presents his history lesson from the perspective of the conquered, the governed, the laborer, and the commoner - that is, "the People." Because Zinn believes that most accounts of history are so one-sided, favoring the privileged classes, A People's History of the United States 1492-Present is equally if not more biased, favoring the downtrodden rather than the well to do. Partisanship is the only way to balance the scales of history. Therefore, readers can expect extensive coverage of the darker days of America's past (e.g., slavery and Vietnam) including many detailed stories documenting the struggles of Indians, Negroes, laborers, women, and children. An unfortunate side effect of this approach is that Zinn is also extremely critical of the people, events, and ideas that fuel our patriotic pride. For example, Columbus is not presented as the explorer who discovered America, but as a perpetrator of genocide; the founding fathers are not portrayed as true patriots or revolutionaries, but self-centered aristocrats concerned only with preserving their wealth and status in society; Lincoln was motivated not by desegregation or Negro rights, but by political advancement; World War II was not a battle against fascist communist regimes, but a mechanism to preserve the power and wealth of the elite (did the U.S. government know off, and actually allow unfold, the bombing of Pearl Harbor as Zinn implies?). Zinn's wrath of the U.S. sytem will likely shake the foundation of of many citizens' nationalistic beliefs, leading them to ask, "is this country so great after all?" If fact, Zinn is so critical at times, that one may ask is there anything good about America? The consequence of this is that Zinn comes off as anti-American. If you're not familiar with Mr. Zinn or his perspective on things, I recommend you read pages 8-11 first, then Chapter 24, and then the Afterward. You may want to also visit his web page. Doing this will expose Zinn's beliefs and motivations, and allow readers to place Zinn's stories in the proper context. The key to enjoying and benefiting from this book is to understand the author's point of view from the beginning: People with land, money, and power are bad, while people without land, money, and power are good. This book is biased -- those who want a complete version of U.S. history will not get it here. Instead, readers must draw from both traditional and nontraditional (ala Mr. Zinn) accounts of America's past to formulate their own opinions and beliefs - that is, to achieve their own balance of understanding. From this standpoint, A People's History of the United States 1492-Present is a must read.
Rating:
Summary: A real eye-opener for those who were taught lies in school
Review: From Christopher Columbus's journal entries detailing a campaign of genocide against indigenous people to the pathetic "hearts and mind circus" of Vietnam, Dr. Zinn recounts American history like it should be told from the point of view of the people instead of the fat cats and hypocritical corporate-stooges and their lackeys.
Rating: 
Summary: Read this book despite what Right and left-Wingers Say...
Review: I wince at the thought that anyone would tell you not to read this book because it contains left-wing propoganda...when all Zinn attempts to do is give an alternative American history lesson, which in this day and time, is moving more toward accepted historical fact. For example, Zinn writes in one of his chapters, "Tyranny is Tyranny", the American constitution was written to include white slaves so as to create a deeper racial barrier against Africans, despite their similar economic and political conditions and standards of living. Remember, as Zinn reminds us, white indentured servants and others with no land were not able to vote during pre-constitutional days. The "rich and powerful" created the middle class medium to small white farmer, so as to create a buffer in case the Africans decide to revolt.
Because Zinn focuses on the historical relationship between rich and poor in America, many readers end up in arms about the book as a whole. Some reviewers have gone as far as criticizing Zinn's writing style - which I find fluid and almost simplistic. I believe, Americans need to closely examine what's behind revolutions, legal decisions, executive orders, and amendments to laws... to find out how it will benefit the rich and ultimately rape the rest of us. Read this book and you will never see things the same.
Rating:
Summary: A real eye-opener for those who were taught lies in school
Review: From Christopher Columbus's journal entries detailing a campaign of genocide against indigenous people to the pathetic "hearts and mind circus" of Vietnam, Dr. Zinn recounts American history like it should be told from the point of view of the people instead of the fat cats and hypocritical corporate-stooges and their lackeys.
Rating: 
Summary: A disgraceful attempt at history
Review: If you have exclusively recieved the politically correct, sanitized version of history taught to all young Americans in school, and want a slightly more contentious version remaining in the same P.C. framework, this is the book for you. If you are looking for a true, rigorous, desanitized, and shocking history of the early U.S. , read Murray Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty". For more recent history, I haven't found a decent generalized overview. Lets look at some of the problems of this terrible, dishonest book. His initial chapter about Native Americans is deliberately dishonest and selective. He outright says that the Natives as a whole were a pacific people, and supports this by statements from European settlers describing the way they lived. Of course, there is no mention of the contradictory accounts of European settlers that said the were violent and savage. There is no way zinn could have simply not noticed these accounts. He had to have seen them, as they are quite prominent. He also should have stated why he accepted some accounts and not others. His choice of the Activist Bartolomé de Las Casas as his main source on the Spanish conquest of the Indians is interesting. While most people today agree with his cause, Casas was not pretending to be an objective historian. Lets look at this statement of Zinn's: "The chief source -- and, on many matters the only source -- of information about what happened on the islands after Columbus came is Bartolomé de las Casas, who, as a young priest, participated in the conquest of Cuba. " Actually, the stated purpose of Casas' history was to dispute other accounts ("It has been written that these peoples of the Indies, lacking human governance and ordered nations, did not have the power of reason to govern themselves"). Also, Casas only became a priest AFTER he had renounced what he did to the Indians. In his chapter on Racism, describing the 17th century, he states "White servants had not yet been brought over in sufficient quantity. Besides, they did not come out of slavery, and did not have to do more than contract their labor for a few years to get their passage and a start in the New World." He does not mention, of course, that during the 16th century, in an attempt to export the Feudal system to the Americas, numerous white SLAVES were forced to come to the Americas. They were not happy about this, and engaged in heroic conflicts with their masters. The feudal masters maintained their land titles after feudalism met its end in the U.S. The "anti Rent Wars" , fought largely by whites, carried on into the 1840s. For this, see Rothbard's well documented and corroborated history mentioned above. In his chapter on the American revolution, Zinn repeats the common canard about colonists support for the revolution: "John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral." Actually, as Rothbard devastatingly proves, Adam's letter was written long after the war and clearly describes the colonists' attitudes towards the french revolution. The worst chapter is the one on Socialism. While Zinn is a terrible historian, he is an even worse economist. In a critique of the Division of Labor,He says: "the purpose of Taylorism was to make workers interchangeable, able to do the simple tasks that the new division of labor required -- like standard parts divested of individuality and humanity, bought and sold as commodities. " Actually, as any respectable economic treatise will tell you, the purpose of specialization is to increase production, not to make workers interchangeable (whether or not that was a consequence). For a devastating critique of the "specialized labor takes the humanity out of work" line of thought, read Davis Gordon's "Resurrecting Marx". I can safely say thatr this is probably the worst history ever written.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read! (but not for the reasons you'd think...)
Review: This book is a must-read, not for unrepentant leftists, who already believe all of this, nor activist teachers and their captive high school and college audiences whom they wish to indoctrinate, but for those who seek a handy reference guide to how the left thinks. You see, this book lays out every important aspect of U.S. and world history of the last 500 years, and filters it through the lens of an angry, righteous leftist. It is a fabulous research tool! Keep it on your shelf, and any time you need to, you can look up an historical event, and find out the exact, biased and morally bankrupt position taken by the left in that particular instance. I did just that as I read through this fascinating piece of work. There are as many examples of Zinn's disingenuous writing as there are historical events. For instance, look up Cuba in the index, and you'll find that Castro, upon winning the revolution, immediately set to work distributing land, setting up free education and health care, and otherwise being a swell guy. Don't bother looking for any descriptions of Fidel's totalitarian police state, complete absence of civil or property rights, no free speech, no political parties, no elections, jail time or worse for daring to criticize fidel...a society which was and is so awful that hundreds of thousands have risked their very lives in trying to flee (also a crime) in makeshift boats. Same thing with the Sandinistas, over whom Zinn almost pops his spleen in outrage over the perfidy of the American govt. Again, they were the "popular choice," and once in power set about heroically providing health care, education, re-distributing land, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. That they also set right to work dismantling any and all freedoms is nowhere to be found, that they were a totalitarian state which permitted no criticism or dissent, which jailed or murdered its opponents, which would not permit elections until finally forced to do so, at which point it was promptly thrown out of power, never to return. It is indeed depresssing, but unsurprising- to find that Zinn was a college professor, who presumably has lectured for years and years to students who probably soaked up his biased drivel like a sponge. That the United States government has sometimes been guilty of bad foreign policy or of supporting corrupt regimes, does not mean that our entire history is one long, relentless litany of horror and domination and oppression. But that's what you'll come away with if you read this horrible screed. Unless, as I suggested, you just treat it as what it is: a perfect compendium of leftist thought.
Rating:
Summary: total garbage
Review: This is one of the worst most biased history compilations I have ever read. Anyone who wishes to read it would be advised to look into the black history of the author
Rating:
Summary: Consistently the Best
Review: I just ordered another three copies of this book and I have owned dozens of them. It is my favorite gift to young people because it is a history they don't usually read and a necessary balance to what they are spoon fed as American history in school. I have one granddaughter who just graduated high school and starts college and I want her to read this book first. History is written by winners which is why a history about the real movers and shakers of history, the masses who suffer under the yoke of the ruling classes is necessary. It is one of the best books about history ever written because it is the most honest and balanced (yes, balanced because the right has already had their turn) presentation of an often ignoble history. Thanks Howard Zinn. (See other quotes and references to the works of Howard Zinn and other progressive issues in egalitarian-progressive portals at:
http://pnews.org/)
Rating:
Summary: Actually it is History of American Protest and Labor Dispute
Review: Tough book to review. His bias is clear, but he is also upfront about it. I feel the greatest flaw of the book is that it paints history in incredibly "good vs evil" colors. While attesting to narrate a history of the American people, Zinn is also willing to portray much of America as remorseless villains. His portrayal of police forces make them seem as humane as stormtroopers in Star Wars. While the "underclass" have names and inspire sympathy the police forces and conservatives are faceless drones whose only role in history is to step over others. Then violence of his favorites is always justified implicitly while all other forms of violence are a symbol of tyranny. In this he falls in the same flaw he critiques, American history may at times glorify the American role and gloss over its failures, Zinn commits the same mistake in the opposite direction greatly focusing on American failures and forgetting its virtues. Zinn's book has also very little comparison to other countries, American racism, poverty and misogyny is never placed in a historical context. America's reality becomes always compared to an unexpressed ideal; with no allowance for a period of development in any historical scenario. For instance read Gordon Woods "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" for a completely different view on the American Revolution (and much more comparative to the eighteen century reality of the world).
The book also becomes even more childish as it approaches more modern periods, while in from the Jacksonian and the Progressive era Zinn was willing to basically list the strikes happening in America (again without contrast to foreign comparisons, British for example), as he tries to explain quickly his views in modern American society his lack of arguments becomes more apparent and the superficiality of his so ambitious work is made more evident. This is also very Marxist rendition of history. Class struggle dominates, and the charming explicative simplicity of Marxist analysis of history is ever present (along with is implied superficiality), along with a good dose of paranoia on the abilities of Big Brother over the centuries. The good and bad guys are so obvious in Zinn's History that all that he could do to make it more so was to dispense white and black hats as the old Westerns did. Why three stars then? Well the book is also very passionate and a very fast read. Although I greatly disagree with the philosophy in it, this is a very clear presentation of it. The very influence of this book and its views on the American historiography and debate makes it a very important read. Those who agree with everything Zinn says really should read more in depth views of history that can greatly challenge this thesis, while those who can't read it at all must open their minds for the incredible value of the questioning (whether at times sophomoric) that Zinn can create.
|
