Rating: 
Summary: A Socialist's History of the United States
Review: I had misgivings about this book from hearing the authorinterviewed by Brian Lamb on C-Span's Booknotes; but after readingmany reviews I convinced myself that I had to give it a try.For the layman, or amateur historian, American history can be divided into three components; political, social and economic. Zinn's history is limited almost solely to the social conditions brought about by the exploration, industrialization, etc. of the United States; with an extensive review of the evils of imperialism as they relate to the rise of the capitalist state in the 20th century. The book is a treatise setting forth the evils of capitalism. To put it plain and simple, Zinn's essay is a socialist view of the American Experience. The book is filled with quotable quotes, poems and songs to illustrate the plight of America's downtrodden and forgotten. Besides being slanted so far to the left that it loses it's credibility; the book is tiring and repetitive. Zinn's socialist and pacifist observations are repeated over and over again -- ad nauseam. From time to time, the author attempts to put events into some sort of historical perspective; but these efforts are all to brief and seem to be token efforts at objectivity. The book is further harmed by a lack of footnotes... I recommend the book to readers with a good background in United States political and economic history. It provides a "contrary" view of many events, especially during the 19th century; however there isn't much new or insightful in the closing chapters dealing with the post-World War II era. END
Rating: 
Summary: Essential for a well-rounded American History education
Review: This book makes you aware of many facts that you were not aware of and also teaches you HOW things work -- ie all history is perspective opinion and should be taken as such --- it is a book that teaches you to learn for yourself and question --- perfect for all....
Rating: 
Summary: Fight Fight Fight for Revolution!
Review: Pray pray pray for social schemes, We will drag them down, And we'll grind them in the ground, And replace them with a working-class regime! If we ever really had the kind of working class/populist/participatory government Zinn seems to want, the first thing that such a mob would do is burn down the BU campus and Howard Zinn's house. I liked the book when I was 17 and stupid, but after reading real historians like Braudel and Woodward, Zinn seems laughably amatuerish.... END
Rating:
Summary: Ideology, not history
Review: This has got to be one of the most controversial books featured on Amazon. Reviews seem divided between Liberals (who think Zinn is God) and Conservatives (who think he's Satan). Here's what I say: Zinn may make some good points (I haven't checked his sources, so I can't be sure), but doesn't seem strongly concerned with historical realism. In fact, almost everything he says seems geared towards furthering a Marxist political agenda. This results in America being grossly misrepresented. Zinn makes it sound as if anything in support of the Upper and Middle classes is Evil, whereas anything is favor of the Lower class is Good. The supposed reason: the Lower class somehow represents "the people" (and therefore the country's best interests) more than the Middle and Upper classes. If Zinn were to check any actual statistics, he would discover that MOST of America is Middle class. If anything, this would make the Middle class MORE representative than the Lower class. I am not saying that the government shouldn't take action for the Lower class: they should (what kind of action? I have no idea). All I am saying is that it is unfair to make anyone who is NOT poor into a villain (Zinn admits that the Middle class might be redeemed, but sees no hope for the Upper class). I understand that Zinn doesn't have the space or time to include EVERYONE'S viewpoints. That's okay. No one does. The problem is that Zinn presents his own (very narrow) viewpoints as the only road to Utopia (which they clearly are not). In fact, he goes to such extreme legths to prove his point that a great deal is left out. For example, he lingers for pages over the negative aspects of Capitalism, The Civil War, and World War II, but says practically nothing about the GENERAL course of these subjects and events. At some point, is stops looking like history and starts looking like pure Dialectical (i.e., Marxist) drawl. One particular blunder on Zinn's part: he glorifies the Communist Party for having taken a pacifistic stance in the US and the UK in 1939. He seems to ignore the fact that the Communists joined the war two years later- on the same side as America and Britain! A little partisanism on the part of our historians is hard to avoid, but Zinn takes it way too far. If you are interested in Left Wing politics, you should probably buy this book. If you are looking for a good history text, look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: it is...
Review: it is being taught in schools-- I'm in High School and that's where I read it
Rating:
Summary: FINALLY, THE TRUTH!
Review: This book is a treasure which I shall read over and over again. As I read it several questions arise: 1)why isn't this being taught in school 2)if this is the truth, then what was I learning in school 3)Perhaps I should school my own children.
Rating:
Summary: Everyone Is Biased, But Some of Us Aren't Evil.
Review: This has been said by several other reviewers, but obviously it needs to be said again, because people aren't getting it. Stop calling Howard Zinn BIASED ! One of the central insights Howard Zinn has always tried to share with us is that EVERY HISTORIAN IS BIASED. There is simply too much history for any signifigant amount of it to be written down ever. Therefore, the historian, no matter how long his book is, must be very selective in what events he/she chooses to record. By choosing some events and leaving out other he/she is making a tacit value-judgement ( "these events are important and these aren't" ). Now, Howard Zinn's point of view is that the suffering of the masses is more important then whether or not so-and-so was really good at making money and/or killing people. That's why Howard Zinn's heros are the defender's of personal freedom ( Harriet Tubman, Eugene B. Debs, etc. ), not military heros and rich white men that happened to be elected president. Now, if you see Howard Zinn as biased, but think that the history books that everyone reads in school aren't biased then congradulations!, you've been successfully brain-washed. The difference between Howard Zinn and most historians is this: Most historians are biased in favor of the rich and powerful; Howard Zinn is biased in favor of everybody else.
Rating:
Summary: A good sounding concept, but to much propaganda
Review: Zinn starts out with a good idea and concept but unfortunately lets it all slip away as every chapter repeatedly turns into a manifesto of anti-establishment politics. Suddenly, everything that ever happened in American history is wrong and the US is nothing but a machine for exploiting the masses in favor of the privileged few. There are some fair points and issues brought out by Zinn, but they end up being obfuscated and devalued by his manifesto-like approach to the subject. The main points I took from this book: 1) This book should not be the first American history text one reads. It is a good and useful read if one has already read one of those standard texts that Zinn so much detests. I am not saying this because I am trying to ideologically bias readers before they stumble upon the truth according to Prof. Zinn, but simply because of the way Zinn's book is written. It is not really a history, but rather a collection of chapters each pointing out the bad in US history. Thus, one should read a more elementary text first before reading this one. 2) Prof. Zinn is so adamant in trying to show how everything that ever happened in US history is basically a ruling class conspiracy where this same ruling class is always careful to give just enough freedom and satisfaction to the oppressed to keep them from revolting. However, since he is well informed about this conspiracy I am surprised he devotes absolutely no time to maybe show us the intricacies of how it actually worked. If this conspiracy has been functioning so well since the founding fathers, I am curious to find out how all these people got it going in the first place. Did the founding fathers have a secret meeting we don't know about where they hammered the details of their conspiracy and then promised to keep in touch over their mobile phones? Instead all we get is quotes, quote and more quotes, about how so and so has been abused and mistreated. While I do not doubt the truthfulness of these, after a while the point of each gets lost as Zinn rarely offers any analysis in between. My favorite example is the chapter on Labor Unions where he keeps going with his quotes forever, and then when the time finally comes for him to offer some analysis and opinion he can only come up with a weak sentence that goes something like this: "There were other people with better and more noble ideas (i.e. on how to organize a society), but unfortunatley the time was not right for them to be heard". What people? What Ideas? Where? Why?. Zinn leaves this to dogma, all we get to know is that what happened was wrong. 3) As some have written in their reviews here, it is useful to read both Zinn and Johnson. They are diametrically opposite in ideology, but I did find Johnson more structured in his approach. You may agree or disagree with Johnson, just as you may with Zinn, but I feel that Johnson presents his interpretations of events in a better way. He does not inudate the reader with quotes, which seems to be Zinn's strategy. Finally both authors finsih their books with some heavy opinionated drivel. Johnson becomes borderline racist in his denial of some of America's problems, while for Zinn everything is a problem that can only be solved by Zinn's utopian vision of cooperating communities where we all hold hands together and live hapily ever after. The last chapter of the book suggesting a derivative of hippie communes to organize a society is laughable. Anyway, despite all of these disagreemnts I do think that Zinn brings a lot of issues forward that one should think seriously about. America is and in many ways has been unfair to many of its underprivileged people and races. But so have many other countries, actually I challenge Zinn to name one that hasn't. However, that does not make everything that America has ever accomplshed or developed into wrong. Thus, 3 stars for the subject matter, no stars for presentation and how it was covered.
Rating: 
Summary: Germany, NY Times, Patriotism
Review: Zinn's epic, energized yet sometimes empty-minded undertaking: People's History hit home as a text which - finally - attempted to answer the question, "America...for whom?" And despite some shortcomings - which I will momentarily address - it at least never wavered from its central tenet that an immensely detailed story of America's underclass is largely untold. Ostensibly written as an example of Affirmative Action itself, the book gave the impression of a work trying to make up - in one great, $15 swoop - for perceived ideological and prioritization wrongs made by prior scholars of the proverbial American Experience. This book (and maybe Zinn's existence as an accepted commentator?) seems necessary only because of such transparent, top-down versions of American history which have so overtly made their way into US high schools. Now instead of wailing a pointless, overly passionate diatribe thrashing Zinn's Marxist/class-laden analysis - or rather critique - of the US, I'll keep it to three simple points: 1. Germany. Though I - like Zinn - find the bombing Dresden an unacceptable and deplorable event of the war, I feel greatly disturbed/confused with his argument depicting British/US bombing efforts as more needless and inhumane than those of Germany (413). Are readers to believe that the British/US military was more barbaric, thoughtless, and heartless than the German army in WWII? If not, why make this comparison between the two forces? 2. The New York Times. Zinn's, at times, enormous use of New York Times citations seems extremely outdated when stacked next to such works and largely-held ideas as a myth of the liberal media. Especially in light of the view radical circles have of the Times - and often rightfully so - as nothing more than an extension of the US press release machine, how could Zinn place so much trust into this libertarian, mainstream publication? With every reference to the so-called paper of record, his credibility took a beating. 3. Patriotism. Zinn's fluid, aggressive and radically-charged read made me both despise, yet yearn to fix institutional politics. His mutilation of America's two party system as a tool to aid America's underclass so incisively struck a chord in my political thought process, that I feel I will never be able to vote again for a major party candidate. And yet at the same time, I've never felt my vote counted more. Aw, shucks.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best history books
Review: Even though I am only 16, I know what a good book is. To call this book just "good" would actually be an understatment. A People's History of the United States shows exactly what history is in other people's eyes. Zinn believes that he can not tell what history is so he finds it in others. In the very first chapter; Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress, showed me right away that Zinn was not just another history author. He's an extremly tallented writter and author. I hightly recomend this book to anyone who is as big as a history fan as i am.
|
