Rating: 
Summary: Good critic sense, mediocre history
Review: First of all I'm not american and I lack what Zinn often criticizes, a classic american hero-history, so my opinion on this book could be slightly different from an usual american reader review.
One of the reasons I bought A People's History is simply because I received a typical european education very focused on every aspect of main euro countries, say Western ones, with scarce notions about american history; for instance I was taught about the Revolution and the Intervention during the WorldWarII but not much more, and I was curious to learn something more specific especially about the epic figures of the Presidents and the Supreme Court, so I bounced on this book with absolute no clue about Zinn's political view.
I have just finished to read the 2003 edition, and this is what I think about this huge book,
Pros:
1)If you don't feel shocked and indignated by criticizing classic american heroes such as the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, etc or by talking openly especially about their mistakes and their bad decisions or policies, the book is indeed a good approach to build a true critic sense, for it makes you ask important questions and seek difficult answers, and this is crucial in history teaching. This is indeed important I repeat.
Cons:
2)Zinn tried to write in a novelist-style, concentrating on a topic and climating from the least to the most important things to say about, while commenting and drawing consequences, but at the same time forgetting completely about the time-line stream, the thing that probably most gives sense to history itself.
This can lead to a very frustrating reading, when you try to find out what happens before and what next, but you simply can't because here he talks about 1887, a line below about 1900, five lines below about 1870 and so on.
3)There are topics very well described along with most incomplete references, last ones especially about the 'rich and powerful' facts, who anyway still remain facts. So if you don't have a classic american education it's sometimes difficult to understand what's going on because everything's focused only and always on the same topics. Along with this you can't find a single note or precise account especially about statistics and statements, so you can never be sure if you can buy what Zinn says.
4)The last chapters of the book tend to fall either in utopistic dreams or melanconic complaining, and Zinn never gives a valid and possible alternative choice; I'll give you just an example: you can't criticize Clinton's policy of reducing the deficit if you omit what are the consequences in the long run of an increasing deficit caused by social either military expenses; it's not so easy as Zinn often says to spend money on social programs and yet promoting an economic growth while creating new jobs! In matter of fact, even if you can't accept this on a political or moral point of view, the economy grows and creates jobs as long as the corporations earn money so they can later invest.In conclusion I can say I was disappointed from the book from a pure technical historic approach, but I consider anyway the book excellent, and I really mean it, to develop an independent and critic mentality, for actual national american media don't help in this, nor the history class the way is done in american schools, all this not depending on which political party you believe in. My rating: 3 stars, good but not too much, don't make the mistake neither to be too much impressed nor to consider it junk
Rating: 
Summary: Amazing.
Review: The people who rate the book with 1 star are just angry conservatives who havent even read the book. The book is purposely meant to be biased. It tells the story of American history from the point of view of "the losers" because we all know that the winners write history. If you want something written from George Washington's point of view, go buy a textbook... those are as biased as possible. This book is fact after fact. Yes, there are some things that could have been added, but nothing is perfect (but this comes pretty close). VERY readable. Flows great. Hundreds of quotes. Everyone should read it.
Rating:
Summary: Revision of Official History, non-privileged elite Pap
Review: An excellent book , balancing the Official History written by a privileged elite Some people should read a dictionary before making any comment... revisionist [n.]
1. A Communist who tries to rewrite Marxism to justify a retreat from the revolutionary position. populism [n.]
1. The political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.
Rating: 
Summary: Revisionist History, Populist Pap
Review: The good: It's easy to read. The bad: It's pure revisionist historical pap. The concept of objectivity in historical writing is completely lost on Zinn. Some might find this intertaining, others maddening, yet others still infuriating. The more of this work I read, the less substance I detect. It's junk history, insubstantial, largely fact-less, with no objectivity, basically, a liberal-leaning revisionist perspective of the last few hundred years. Skip it.
Rating:
Summary: One-Side of the Story
Review: Unfortunately this book is very-one sided. Zinn leaves out crucial events and issues that help to validate his attacks on America. In dealing with the Japanese/Attack on Pearl Harbor, he leaves out extremely crucial information about why the United States was forced to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan. He leaves out the part about the 25 million Chinese who had been relentlessly slaughtered by the Japanese and how Tojo had armed civilians in case a fight between the Allies and Japan would take place on Japanese soil. He blatanly leaves out references to events like the Rape of Naking and the horrible slaughter of American GI's in the Pacific Theatre. Unfortunately, there is so much crucial information left out of this book, that is it absolutely useless as a reference for Amerian History. I am sure however, that Joesph Stalin would find it quite amusing...
Rating: 
Summary: hate western civilization..love this book.!
Review: No! I am being absurd. Just like howard Z when takes countlesss qoutes from those of minority views in groups and presents them as the majority. Im sure poeple in these groups appreciate being labeled as socialist, or worse, when they are not . Hispanics for instance,(save one or two issues) are more conservcative than you might think. Not that I am hispanic, If only I were, then I wouldnt have to face the guilt of being white, american, and industrius... the most heineous of crimes. Heres what should be included in any history book. "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide welfare but only those specifically enumerated" Thomas Jefferson
Rating:
Summary: The Best Book I've Ever Read
Review: And in my mind, a top contender for greatest book ever written. Aknowledging that any history is, by it own nature, one sided, Zinn writes an eloquent, very well researched book on the other side of American History. This book chronicles the history of the United States through the lowest class' eyes. The result is an incredible version of our country's history that sheds light on the treatment of the majority of American's throughout our history. Written with compassion and an eye for detail, Zinn completely commanded my attention throughout the whole book. I think this should be taught in public schools.
Rating: 
Summary: Slanted History, Untold Stories
Review: The concept of following history through the eyes of "the downtrodden" is a noble one, and the book does a decent enough job of it while dispelling some of the mythology and disinformation about America's foundations. But Zinn is overly sympathetic to the motives and ideologies of various movements in America, particularly communists and their sympathizers. It's as if he doesn't realize (or more likely, chooses not to) that for many of them the plight of "the worker" was so much cover for their own power grab. The book is a counterbalance to more pro-European historical texts but has its own problems with portraying "reality".
Rating:
Summary: Great polemic, lousy history
Review: Zinn presents his case clearly and consistently for 688 pages. I enjoyed his POV, especially his attention to the property interests of the founding fathers that set the outer limit of their revolutionary zeal. Zinn is up front about this sympathies from the beginning, and shouldn't be faulted for making his case. However, I was unhappy with the "history" itself. Zinn often jumps around from event to event and he's sparing with his dates. When he could be specific he's nearly always vague, favoring phrases like "that summer" rather than giving a month or day. It suggests to me that he's drawing from memory or old notes rather than directly from his sources. He's consciously loose with his sources, giving a bibliography rather than endnotes or footnotes. Granted, there would be a lot of them, but they'd substantiate his claims, especially his statistics. I was often surprised by them and wanted to quote them, but it would be nearly impossible to sort through his book list and track down his reference to, say the percentage of literate white males in 1740. He says he tries to credit his sources in the text where possible, but he never gives a page number, and for periodicals, he doesn't give the date. I got the feeling, especially in the later chapters that he was drawing heavily on just having read the paper for the last 30 years. In the end, he admits that his history shorts the West, and he draws from East Coast papers of record for much of his analysis. As he nears the present day, he totally loses perspective, and he veers off into what could have been, rather than telling what was. He should have cut the book short after the Vietnam war. I can't vouch for the factual basis of what he reports, one way or the other, but I was deeply disturbed by his poor referece on page 662 to Barbara Ehrenreich's recent work. He misquotes the title as "Nickeled and Dimed", and goes on to state that she spent a year working at various jobs, including as a factory worker. She only spent three months working odd jobs, and she wasn't a factory worker. After 662 pages, I was left doubting the veracity of everything I read before.
Rating:
Summary: Unpleasant realities of our past come to brutal light.
Review: Howard Zinn has meticulously cobbled together large swaths of unpleasantness in American history, for which many reviewers here have reviled him. This book is not remarkable because of its relentless pursuit of great atrocities in our past, but because of its accounting of the amazing, inspiring people who fought those atrocities. Howard Zinn reveals the histories of people who were executed, financially ruined, and universally loathed in their own time for their fierce and unstoppable dedication to basic human rights. The United States would not be the great country it is today without these great, uncelebrated people. Thank you, Howard Zinn, for keeping them alive.
|
