Rating: 
Summary: New Edition with the Bush vs. Axes of Evil?
Review: I have found the -2001 version to be a good offset to much of the history that I have learned over the last 50 years. History being only a personal view, whether in a hardcover or a newsgroup posting, I still want to make my own analyses based on as much quantifiable information as I can get. I have received a very wholesome dose of traditional (winner-based) history and I feel that I should also see what happened to the napalmed/massacred/nuked civilians - whoever the perpetrator.Now, I really want to see Zinn's and others views on the recent Crusades against US-identified infidels. How can we reconcile invasions/attacks against civilians in Islamic states and not require the same level of action against Israel, India, Pakistan that also have the ability to threaten the USA?
Rating: 
Summary: Setting the Record Straight
Review: This is a very powerful book that will make you look at American history and society in a different way. It should be made mandatory reading in every college-level history classroom to give equal time and a voice to the people who have been oppressed and silenced throughout our history. Zinn argues persuasively that our history has always been written through rose-colored glasses. Most history textbooks are nothing but a collection of rationalizations meant to justify the brutal deeds and endless greed of a handful of extremely wealthy families, an "American Aristocracy," who have always bought influence within our government to establish laws and policies that to protect their wealth and business interests while giving them a blank check to exploit the poor and the middle class. I noticed that many other reviewers here have labeled Zinn as a communists. I think that's a little mis-leading. Yes, Zinn views history through a bastardized Marxist's prism. He shows time and time again that American history has been nothing but a class struggle between to "haves" and the "have nots." I would label Zinn as more of socialists than communists. He argues passionately for equality for all rather than special priviledges for a few.
Rating:
Summary: Refreshingly realistic
Review: I was skeptical when I began this book, but Zinn's extensive research and copious amount of primary source material convinced me that he - like his book - belongs in the highest tier of American literature that every good citizen ought to read. Not only is his fresh account of American history far more convincing than the chest-beating pro-American tales of adventure and prosperity that fill most orthodox historical approaches, but his clear, smooth and engrossing narrative make it a fun and intriguing read. I suspect the real reason that this book has triggered the controversy it has is because some people have serious problems facing the fact that our beloved country has not - and is not - the ultimate guardian of equality, truth and justice it claims to be. The facts are there - read 'em.
Rating: 
Summary: Good firestarter
Review: The cover of this book should be RED, the color most associated with USSR and China. If you're a communist or just plain and simple dislike the US and want to read the words of someone who feels the same, this is the perfect book for you. The "author" comes up with his own anti-American slant conclusions of history and praises the communists of China. He blames the US for an inordinate amount of "innocent deaths" but never mentions the genocide that took place during the rise and reign of the USSR and China. The only good thing about this book was the 700+ pages I used as firestarter while on a campling trip.
Rating:
Summary: Not to be trusted
Review: Historian David Fischer defines the "furtive fallacy" as the belief that the most significant events and motives in history are off the record and must be guessed. Zinn proves in this book that he is a master of the furtive fallacy, and the related "pragmatic fallacy" of selecting only facts in the service of some cause. The chapter on American independence is a fine example. Zinn opens with sarcastic praise of the founders for "discovering" in 1776 that they could create privilege for themselves by uniting the colonies against Britain. Where does one begin with such blatant libel? Perhaps with documents that show that the idea of colonial union was more than a century old? or with the founders' public and personal writings that consistently describe their motives? or maybe with the rotating system of government that these supposed privilege-seekers established? Even if one accepts a materialist view of independence, how do the founders become the villains instead of the tax-greedy, power-grabbing British ministers? You don't need to take my word or any historian's word for these things. They're all documented in the contemporary legislation, correspondence, and public discourse. Later in the same chapter, Zinn claims in passing that a certain protest march was staged by colonial elites. Where is his evidence? Did he actually read a letter from the organizers, or did he merely conclude on vulgar Marxist grounds that all marches had to be staged? In the latter case you're reading a work of fantasy, not history. If you're unfortunate enough to be in a class that requires this book, I can only suggest that you read plenty of primary source material at the same time, and use it whenever you can. I'll be the first to admit that US high school history is heavily biased (toward the federal government, primarily), but Zinn's book isn't the cure; it's poison.
Rating:
Summary: People's History is a Communist diatribe
Review: The People's History of the United States is aptly named, for it conicides with Zinn's favorite countries, all of which start with "The People's Republic of..." Communism is the heart and soul of this book; it's what drives the author to reach such broad conclusions about a nation that attracts over 1 million immigrants per year and has done more to free individuals worldwid than all other countries combined since recorded history. In fact, before America, no one even knew what democrasy was. Leave it to the egomaniacal millionaires who preach the religion of Marxism (preach, but not practice!) to find fault with liberty. No country is perfect. But what makes Zinn's book and those who love it so wraught with irrationality is that they insist the rest of the world is a fairy tale story book while the United States is an oppressive monstrous society full of misery and pain. Zinn looks at the world with rose-colored glasses, but sees his own nation with such pathological hate it boggles the mind. Zinn consistently fails to answer one question: If America is such a horrible place for minorities, then why do they keep coming here in droves? Do they have a death wish? The answer is: To the ingnorant, hating America is a quick recipe for intelligence and humanitarianism. Socialism itself is based on laziness; what could be more gratifying to the socialist than to sit back and condemn the United States for crimes it can never prove and at the same time feel brilliant and humaine. I'm happy to see Zinn making such a success of himself through this book which has become the bible of the left and Hollywood. If he doesn't watch out, he just might have to acknowledge that he's achieved the American Dream.
Rating:
Summary: Why bother with facts...
Review: 'For readers who prefer their history to be an accurate retelling of the past rather than marching orders for the present, Zinn's writings disappoint. While every historian has his biases, Zinn makes no effort to overcome his. What is considered vice by most historians - politically motivated inaccuracies, long-winded rants, convenient omissions, substituting partisanship for objectivity - is transformed into virtue by Zinn. Through Zinn's looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history's bloodiest state-sponsored killings, transforms into "the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people's government, independent of outside control." The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were "welcomed" by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a "terrorist group" that "seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua." Castro's Cuba, readers learn, "had no bloody record of suppression." If you've read Marx, there's no reason to read Howard Zinn. In fact, reading the first line of The Communist Manifesto makes a study of A People's History of the United States a colossal waste of time. The single-bullet theory of history offered by Marx-"The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle"-is relied upon by Zinn to explain all of American history. Economics determines everything. Why study history when theory has all the answers? Thumb through A People's History of the United States and one finds greed motivating every major event. According to Zinn, the separation from Great Britain, the Civil War, and World Wars I and II - to name but a few examples - all stem from base motives involving rich men seeking to get richer at the expense of other men. The recently released updated edition continues to be plagued with inaccuracies and poor judgment. The added sections on the Clinton years, the 2000 election, and 9/11 bear little resemblance to the reality his current readers have lived through. - In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton's crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this "violent crime continues to increase." It doesn't. Like much of Zinn's rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993. - Predictably, Zinn draws a moral equivalence between America and the 9/11 terrorists. He writes, "It seemed that the United States was reacting to the horrors perpetrated by the terrorists against innocent people in New York by killing other innocent people in Afghanistan." Scare quotes adorn Bush's "war on terrorism," post-9/11 "patriotism," and other words and phrases Zinn dislikes.
More striking than Zinn's inaccuracies - intentional and otherwise - is what he leaves out. Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate all fail to merit a mention. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are entirely absent. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers. While Zinn sees fit to mention that immigrants often went into professions like ditch-digging and prostitution, American success stories like those of Alexander Hamilton, John Jacob Astor, and Louis B. Mayer-to name but a few-are excluded. Valley Forge rates a single fleeting reference, while D-Day's Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles are left out. In their place, we get several pages on the My Lai massacre and colorful descriptions of U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during the Gulf War of the early 1990s. Readers of A People's History of the United States learn very little about history. They do learn quite a bit, however, about Howard Zinn. In fact, the book is perhaps best thought of as a massive Rorschach Test, with the author's familiar reaction to every major event in American history proving that his is a captive mind long closed by ideology. In the current updated version of A People's History, the author declares: "there is no such thing as pure fact." Whether Zinn really believes this, or if it serves to rationalize intellectual dishonesty, one can only guess.'
-Flynn
Rating:
Summary: Revisionist history aka Marxist diatribe
Review: My title says it all. If you read this prattle and you have half a brain you will see straight through it. There are so many VERIFIABLE inaccuracies as to be laughable. Read it for laughs only. The scary thing is that some people actually believe this drivel.
Rating:
Summary: Howard Zinn
Review: Even people who hate Howard Zinn admit that he's a good scholar. But many people hate him, for sure--and you have to remember that when you're reading some of these reviews. On the other hand, most of the reviewers seem to be communists themselves, and so their gushing reviews should surprise no one. I recommend the book with some reservations. Agree or disagree, perspectives like Zinn's keep us from becoming ignorant victims of ideological propaganda. I recommend it because it is a great, well-informed, honest and self-conscious dissenting opinion. Anyone who wants to consider themselves educated needs to consider dissenting opinions frequently. But I have reservations. Most importantly, Zinn's purpose is not to introduce someone to American history. He assumes his readers already know the basics. Of course, many people do not. It's not a history of the US; it's a series of contentious corrections to the history traditionally taught in American classrooms. (Why did the Colonies defeat the British? What caused the depression? Why did Nixon visit China? Unless you know this much, this book isn't yet for you.) Some reviewers complained about Zinn's tone. Zinn is an average writer; better than many academics but worse than any good writer. Other reviewers seemed to assume that either communists or far-right conservatives aren't "students of history." But of course some are. Zinn and Newt Gingrich are both well-informed scholars. (If it matters to you, I am neither communist nor right-wing; I'm just not a political thinker. I'm American, and I think Americans--all of us--can be proud and thankful; but we should recognize that our government and politicians have never been perfect. Ideologies often serve to control people, so dissenting opinions are vital for freedom's perseverance. But democracy and moderated capitalism have often succeeded in blessing their people, while communism has evidently failed everywhere, with more gruesome histories even than capitalism.)
Rating: 
Summary: Biased History as a Goal
Review: Howard Zinn is a hard left-wing academic historian who believes there is no such thing as "objective" history. But he takes this idea further. He argues that historians should not even TRY to write balanced or comprehensive history, but instead they should write a version that supports the political and social values they support. He doesn't care about presenting both sides of a story, leaving it to other historians to tell the other side. In other words, Zinn puts ideology and propoganda over objectivity. He doesn't care if the resulting work is distorted, one-sided or misleading; he argues that if readers want balance they should read somebody else's work and sort things out for themselves. This book is a result of that approach. History of this kind is a lot easier to write, and left-wingers love it. Hence its popularity in undergraduate curriculum.
| 
