If only all of us could be as perfect as Howard Zinn! Then we'd be able to get up on our high horse and look down our nose at all the miserable humanity in the world that have achieved more than he has.

Simply put, "A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" (1995 edition) is one of the most eye-opening, fascinating, and thought-provoking books of its kind that I've yet read. I recommend this book to ANYONE who wants to have a fuller understanding of the United States, its history and evolving character, and the various forces and movements that have shaped it over time.

gotta love how the objections to this text are that it's biased or that it's for 'America haters.' goodness, neither objection should be permitted, except respectively for the subliterate or the fascistic.

if on the one hand the preference is for US history texts entitled 'America is Great!' or 'Triumph of America," it is difficult to see how the former objection makes any sense.

if on the other the allegation is not that author is incorrect, it is hard to fathom how the latter objection could be made.

I don't know why teachers would make kids read a book about America written by someone with so little clarity. In the World According to Zinn, Americans (especially THE RICH ) are responsible for all the bad things that have happened in the last 2 centuries.If you believe as he does that America has been a net bad for the world, then by all means read this book. Hell, memorize it. If you believe that America has been a net good in the world, then read it so you can understand the damage it has done to our high school and college aged generation. This man hates America. Would you have you own biography be written by someone who hates you?


Here is part of an interview of Howard Zinn and Talk show host Dennis Prager:

DP: I believe that we [Americans:] fought in Korea in order to enable at least half of that benighted peninsula to live in relative freedom and prosperity; the half that we did not liberate is living in the nightmare, almost Nazi-like, condition of the North Korean government. Why don't you see that as a great good that Americans did?

HZ: I think that your description of the North Korean government is accurate. It's sort of a monstrous government. But when we went to war in Korea the result of that war was the deaths of several million people. And I question whether the deaths . . . were worth the result. . . .

DP: If America had never intervened, do we both agree that Kim Il-sung, the psychopathic dictator of North Korea, would have ruled over the entire Korean peninsula?

HZ: I think that's probably true.

DP: Do you believe that that would be a net moral or immoral result for the Korean people and the world?

HZ: That would have been an immoral result, but the result of the war itself was also immoral -- I'm talking about the killing of several million people. And what I'm suggesting is that the answer to . . . tyrannies like that is not war, which in our time always involves the massive killing of innocent people. . . . I think we have to find ways other than war to get rid of dictatorships and tyrannies.

DP: I would love that. But this is where we often consider people on the Left, at best, to be naive. . . . Let's talk about that naivete. You believe that there would have been another way to get rid of the Korean communists -- whom we both agree are monstrous -- as opposed to the Korean War. . . . This is the naivete of the Left, that ugly things can be gotten rid of in sweet ways.

HZ: Not sweet ways. I wouldn't say that. And I wouldn't say either in totally peaceful ways . . . by struggle and resistance but not by war. We have historical examples of what I'm talking about. The Soviet Union, Stalinism, was not overthrown by war. . . . Stalinism was really replaced, in time, by the Russian people themselves. . . . What I'm suggesting is that there are a number of places in the world where we have had tyrannies that have been overthrown without war. . . .

DP: Yes, there are. No one would deny that. And there are historical examples of where war is the only way to achieve a moral end.

HZ: Well, I'm not sure that's the only way.

DP: Was there another way to have gotten rid of Hitler?

HZ: In the case of WWII, I don't know what it would have taken to get rid of Hitler. We certainly had to resist him, we certainly had to get rid of him. . . . What bothers me most today is that people use WWII as an example for what we should do today. It's a very different situation.

DP: No, we use it as an example of where war is the moral choice. Are you prepared to say that war is ever the best moral choice?

HZ: No.

DP: Never. Not even against Hitler?

HZ: Well, I'm not sure about WWII.

DP: Wow . . .

Entire transcript at:
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/talk...

Politically, I'm sure I would share many of Zinn's views. Which is partly why this book is dangerous for someone like me. It would probably be easy to read it, and just go along with the comfortable narrative that no doubt 'fits' much of my worldview.

However, I planned to start with reading just the part of the book directly related to the Civil War, but I had to stop reading, because the book was so disappointing.

First, there are not proper notes. I wish I had noticed that before I bought it. For me, that's a cardinal sin and I wouldn't have bought it. You cannot give a legitimate interpretation of history without proper references. All Zinn does is list a bibliography for each chapter.

Second, the writing is sometimes too journalistic, in a teasing way that implies something without explicitly stating it — and so avoiding a need to defend an actual claim. For example, after giving a little bit of back story about black abolitionist, David Walker, Zinn says, "One summer day in 1830, David Walker was found dead near the doorway of his shop in Boston" (p. 180). And that's it. Zinn then moves on to talk about Frederick Douglass. There's no mention of how Walker might have died, just a teasing sentence that leads one to suspect that he was murdered. No evidence is presented, no references are given. (On Walker's Wikipedia page, it says, "rumors suggested that he had been poisoned, most historians believe Walker died a natural death from tuberculosis, as listed in his death record".)

Third, Zinn repeatedly over simplifies the political situation that Lincoln had to deal with. I understand and appreciate the urge to criticize Dead White Men, who are often unjustly revered. However, the following is both unfair to Lincoln and also a misrepresentation of the history:

"[W]hen Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base as Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded." (p. 189)

Lincoln was very keen not to initiate a war with the South. If war was to come, he was determined that the South would start it. Fort Sumter — a federal base, with federal soldiers — was in South Carolina. The SC government said that Sumter had to be evacuated. What was the federal government to do? To evacuate would look weak and set a bad precedent. For the fort to take military action to protect itself would be an aggressive act and the beginning of war. (It would also be doomed to fail because the fort was isolated, unfinished, and not situated to defend itself from inland attacks.) Lincoln's solution to this was to seek to provide needed provisions to Fort Sumter, neither evacuating nor initiating hostilities (nor "trying to repossess the federal base" as Zinn says). The first shots of the war were fired by SC on the civilian steamship which was bringing supplies from the North to the fort.

There are other examples along these lines where Zinn misrepresents the history in an apparent effort to disparage Lincoln. With his general thrust, I agree. Of course, Lincoln was racist. It would have been incredibly surprising if he hadn't been. And for many readers, it would be eye-opening to read some of the racist things that Lincoln said. And of course the North did not go to war in order to abolish slavery. Lincoln was not on a moral crusade, along with the rest of the North, to abolish slavery. Perhaps this is also news to some readers. But that disappointing reality is no excuse for misrepresenting or oversimplifying the political situation to fit a preferred narrative. Lincoln was an astute politician and while the modern mind boggles at how abolitionism could ever have been an extreme position, the fact is that it was, and an abolitionist had no chance of being elected at that time. Lincoln was the right person in the right place, at the right time. He hated slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. (He was vehemently against the spread of slavery, and also hoped for a gradual extinction of slavery in the places where it already existed.) Arguably, only someone with such a combination of views had any chance of actually getting elected in the first place, and having the will and the political skills to find a way to ultimately abolish slavery.

Given that I know how this book misrepresents history in the few pages I read, I have no trust in its other pages and it's pointless to read any more of it.

به‌جای اینکه تاریخ را از دید پیشرفت‌های مادی و قدرت‌نمایی‌های حاکمان توصیف بکند، از دید مردم بدبخت و همیشه‌درحال‌له‌شدن گفته. کتابی بسیار عالی، هرچند که خود نویسنده هم اعتراف کرده که کتاب سوگیری دارد. اما به‌دلیل حجم بالای تاریخ‌های «رسمی»، این سوگیری را لازم می‌داند.
در این کتاب چیزی از فرود بر ماه نخواهید خواند!

sometime in that heady, idealistic autumn of 2002 eric schleder and i were cubicle mates at, gee i think it was still pharmacia, yes, it was still pharmacia. we decided to read people's history in sort of a two person book club. i think we agreed to tackle 3 chapters a week. that was reasonable being that eric had a toddler and another child on the way and i am just lazy.

i stalled out after the chapter about Andrew Jackson, the man adorning our US currency 20 dollar bill. I was so outraged (yes stacey, if you ever read this, i will concede that I am generally looking for any reason to be outraged these days, and the moment i am describing could very well have been the genesis, the violent seed of dissent that was planted) at the slaughter of the seminole indians at his command that i guerilla tactic'd all over a 20 dollar bill writing in blood red marker that andrew jackson was responsible for the death of the seminole nation and proceeded to pay for my lunch at the cafeteria at the pharmaceutical company i was sucking so sweetly from the udder of, with the above mentioned informative $20.00

so after years of sitting on the shelf, i decided it was cold and snowy enough to hunker down and finish the book. i have been reading way too many 'self-help' and 'soul-searching' themed books lately. while essential reading for even the novice narcissist, i thought it might be good to read about other peoples problems for a while.

there is an expanded twentieth century edition that Zinn released. it takes us through the 911 era...a far more microscopic look at the last 100 years than the 100 or so pages it received in people's history. i suppose i should add that to my to-read list.

sd 12/25/07

Holy pignolia, this took me a long time to read.

But it was worth it. Zinn takes you from Columbus's arrival in North America all the way up to the crazy (read: corrupt) 2000 presidential election, highlighting the stories that don't normally get told in history textbooks or mainstream media. It's a "people's history," so he tells Vietnam from the POV of the protesters, industrialism from the workers, slavery from the slaves, etc. I learned a lot of new (and disturbing) aspects of American history reading this book. Zinn's also my favorite kind of historian-- he's clearly excited about and invested in the subject, so he writes about it in a lively voice, using specific examples and anecdotes to make it real. History doesn't feel dead in his hands; it is very much alive and even now informing the choices we make as a country.

That said, this book is unapologetically left-leaning (Zinn explains that since so much of what is already written leans the opposite direction, he doesn't feel the need to keep his book balanced), so not everyone will appreciate it. It also assumes a baseline of American history knowledge in many places, so it would be well coupled with additional resources to lay out some basic facts about certain time periods or events (like wars).

I recommend reading this book alongside something a lot fluffier if you're going to go for the long haul. Otherwise, pick a chapter and read it alongside other books from/about that period and let them inform each other.

Pick up a history book. Any topic. Most likely, it's written by a white Anglo-Saxon Christian male. Almost certainly, it's a binary narrative with some heroic protagonists and unlikeable antagonists. There will be some harping on the jaded trope of civilizational progress wherein things are apparently getting better and people are getting more enlightened. There will be a subtle implication that some societies are farther along this march towards progress than others, and some societies have a lot of catching-up to do. A conventional history book lights a small flame but casts a large shadow; in talking about a few characters who apparently steer the wheels of history, it leaves out entire social, racial and economic groups who constitute the spokes of that wheel.

Howard Zinn focuses on the people whose version of history is less heroic, more prosaic. It talks about the Native Americans who were systematically deracinated and exterminated while conventional history serenades the expanding “frontier” of an incipient America. It talks about the black plantation workers, the womb of whose drudgery bore the embryo of early capitalism. It talks about the struggles of women against patriarchy - that ethereal, overbearing association of men divergent in class-color-religion, united in misogyny. It talks about the countries devastated by America’s war on communism and terrorism. America’s supposedly free media may not have told them this, but the USA and its sponsored regimes have killed more people in the name of freedom and democracy than the atrocities of Communist dictators and Jihadists combined. I know, because my own country Bangladesh suffered a genocide of 3 million people and the rape of a quarter million women in the hands of Pakistan, which transpired under the auspices of the Nixon – Kissinger duo. The US government tried to stifle our struggle for freedom because we voted a left-leaning party to power, and it failed. American media at least did us the courtesy of acknowledging our genocide. Other direct victims of America – Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, El Salvador and South American nations with puppet military dictators – were not so lucky.


We cannot undo the sins of our fathers, nor should we have them hung over our heads. But we mature as citizens of the modern world when we brush aside the false veneer of glory and behold history in its agony.

خیلی فکر کردم که چطور باید این ریویو رو بنویسم. از نقاط قوت و ضعف این کتاب بگم؟ راجع به بخش‌های مختلفش صحبت کنم؟ توضیح بدم که تفاوتش با بقیه کتاب‌های تاریخی چیه؟ در آخر تصمیم گرفتم که صفحه رو باز کنم و خیلی ساده سعی کنم یک سوال رو جواب بدم: منِ قبل از این کتاب با منِ بعد از این کتاب چه تفاوتی داره؟

بزرگ شدن در ایران دهه هفتاد و در یک خانواده مذهبی به این معنیه که تو با شعار مرگ بر آمریکا و راه رفتن روی پرچم "آمریکای جهان خوار و امپریالیست" بزرگ میشی. چند سال بعد، در نوجوانی شاید احساس کنی که همه ی حقایق به تو گفته نشده، چون با فیلم‌ها، کتاب‌ها و موزیک‌های آمریکایی بزرگ میشی و تصویری که می‌بینی بسیار متفاوت از چیزیه که تصور می‌کردی. در این سال‌ها شاید برای اولین‌بار اخبار رو از منابع متفاوتی دریافت کنی و فکر کنی که با یک تفکر دروغین و دستکاری شده بزرگ شدی

در این مواقع به نظرم اتفاقی که برای خیلی از ما می‌افته اینه که ناخودآگاه هرچیزی که توسط این سیستم بهمون یاد داده شده رو در دسته‌ی اطلاعات اشتباه قرار میدیم و حتی گاهی چشم و گوشمون رو نسبت به تایید این اطلاعات از منابع دیگر می‌بندیم. خیلی‌ها از اون طرف بوم پایین می‌افتند و آمریکا تبدیل به سرزمین آرزوها و نجات دهنده میشه .خیلی از ما هم در برزخی این وسط گیر می‌کنیم، جایی که می‌دونی همه‌چیز اونطور که بهت گفته شده نیست، ولی از طرفی هم می‌دونی که حقیقت باید پیچیده‌تر از این حرف‌ها باشه

برای من که سال‌ها شیفته‌ی این فرهنگ و کشور بودم و هستم، نزدیک‌تر شدن به این حقیقت مهمه. از کلمه‌ی شیفته به این معنی استفاده نمی‌کنم که آمریکا برای من بهشتی دوردست بود که هرگز اینطور نبوده و نیست. ولی آنقدر خوانده بودم، دیده بودم و گوش کرده بودم که گاهی حس می‌کردم نیمی از زندگیم رو غرق در این دنیای دور گذراندم. مغزم پر از اطلاعات تکه تکه، درست و غلط و ناپیوسته‌ای بود که در طی سال‌ها جمع شده بود و نیاز به یک تصویر بزرگتر رو با تمام وجود احساس می‌کردم

تاريخ آمریکای هووارد زین کتاب معمولی‌ای نیست. هیچ کتاب تاریخی بی‌طرفانه نوشته نمی‌شه، ولی نویسنده در بهترین حالت در راستای ارائه حقیقت و نوشتن بدون جانب‌داری تلاش می‌کنه. اما این کتاب نه. نویسنده از مقدمه تکلیفش رو با خواننده مشخص می‌کنه - این کتاب بی‌طرفانه نوشته نشده و اتفاقاً به دنبال اینه که صدای گروهی از تاریخ باشه که شنیده نشدند. سرخ‌پوستان، سیاه‌پوستان، زنان، کارگران، مهاجران، اقلیت‌های مذهبی، دگرباشان و دیگر مردم جهان که سال‌ها تحت تاثیر سیاست‌های آمریکا قرار گرفته‌اند. در این کتاب از تاریخ فاتحان خبری نیست، از رشد اقتصادی، قدرت جهانی و سفر به ماه. در این کتاب پدران آمریکا مردان دموکراسی نیستند و لینکن آزاد کننده‌ی برده‌ها نیست. اینجا حقایق به نحوی انتخاب شدند که سوی دیگری از ماجرا رو تعریف کنند

کتاب مثل تمام کتاب‌های تاریخ پر از جزئیات، اتفاقات و آدم‌هاست. ولی تک تک این تکه‌های پازل که به محض اینکه سر جاشون قرار می‌گیرند فراموش میشن، در ح��ل ساخت یک تصویر بزرگ هستند. تصویری که من هرگز فراموش نخواهم کرد. تصویری که بهم نشون میده بهای این قدرت چه بوده و هست و آمریکا چطور به اینجا رسیده. با وجود اینکه روایت کتاب کمی پس از یازده سپتامبر تمام میشه، ولی درک اتفاقات چند سال اخیر مثل انتخاب شدن دونالد ترامپ به ریاست جمهوری و جنبش‌های مختلف سال‌های اخیر برای من خیلی راحت‌تر شد و انگار دومینوهایی که روی هم ریختند تا به اینجا رسیدند رو بهتر می‌تونم ببینم

و از همه مهم‌تر مردم، که این کتاب تاریخ مردمی آمریکاست. هرگز دید تحقیرآمیز یا سرشار از تحسین به این مردم نداشتم، ولی گاهی درکشون برام دشوار می‌شه. مردمی که از بزرگترین متفکرین و دانشمندان دنیا رو در بین خودشون دارند و با این حال قرن‌هاست عمیقاً درگیر تفکر عقب‌مانده نژادپرستی هستند. مردمی که فرزندانشون رو به جنگ می‌فرستند و از خشونت طرفداری می‌کنند و در عین حال گاهی بزرگ‌ترین قدم‌ها رو در جهت دموکراسی بر می‌دارند. فهمیدن این تضادهای عمیق و ریشه‌هاشون سال‌ها من رو درگیر خودش کرده بود و حالا فکر می کنم که بهتر متوجه دلایل پشت این شکاف واضح هستم. دلایلی که در قرن‌ها اتفاقات ریشه دارند

زین ادعایی در مورد کامل بودن این تاریخ نداره و من هم مطمئنم که این همه‌ی داستان نیست. حتما باید کم کم بیشتر بخونم تا به گفته خودش "حقایقی که برای نوشتن انتخاب نکرده" رو هم بفهمم. ولی ریویوهای زیادی مخصوصاً از آمریکایی‌ها که به این کتاب یک ستاره دادند به نظرم کاملاً نشان میده که نویسنده تصمیم به چه کار سختی گرفته. ثابت کردن اینکه به شما دروغ گفته شده و باید جور دیگری نگاه کنید آسان نیست و باعث میشه که افراد وارد حالت تدافعی بشن. این برای من که تمام زندگیم رو با شکستن و از نو ساختن سیستم فکریم درگیر بودم به شدت قابل درکه. ولی فهمیدن حقیقت اولین قدم در راستای تغییره

منِ بعد از این کتاب خیلی بهتر بهای ابرقدرت بودن رو می‌دونه و کمی داینامیک روابط ایران و آمریکا رو بهتر متوجه میشه. منِ بعد از این کتاب شاید حالا نظر خیلی متفاوتی به "جبر جغرافیا" داره و این سوال ها رو از خودش جدی‌تر می پرسه
آیا قدرت و ثروت ارزش این همه خون و درد رو داره؟
آیا تغییر واقعا ممکنه؟ و چطور باید اتفاق بیوفته؟



پی‌نوشت: نسخه فارسی این کتاب رو با ترجمه مانی صالح علامه چند سال پیش کادو گرفته بودم و گاهی در حین خواندن نسخه انگلیسی با فارسی مقایسه کردم. در کل ترجمه خیلی بدی نیست ولی گاهی اشتباهات عجیبی داره که یک مورد رو در آپدیت‌های این کتاب نوشتم

اردیبهشت ١۴٠٠

کانال تلگرام ریویوها و دانلود کتاب‌ها و صوتیشون
Maede's Books

A People’s History of the United States is a meticulously researched revolutionary document that departs from the endorsed, sanitized and sanctioned version of American history that lionizes conquering figures like Christopher Columbus, our elected presidents, and other (largely) white male leaders who are (in fact) the champions of the rich and powerful at the expense and peril of everyone else. Here you will find the stories of the colonized, the displaced, the lied to, the swindled, the exploited and victimized. But more than that, you will find these same everyday resilient Americans resisting, and coming together to demand their rights and take back their power.

This book is so threatening to the corporate establishment there have been numerous efforts to ban it and keep it out of schools. One of those efforts is occurring as I’m writing this: State of Arkansas 91st General Assembly Regular Session, 2017 HOUSE BILL 1834 by: Representative K. Hendren:
“An act to prohibit a public school district of open enrollment public charter school from including in its curriculum or course materials for a program of study books or any other material authored or concerning Howard Zinn; and for other purposes.”

I believe A People’s History of the United States should be required reading for every American.

“History is important. If you don't know history, it's as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, those in power can tell you anything and you have no way of checking up on it.”

― Howard Zinn

-------------------

I majored in history in one of the best programs in the U.S. And have continued to read history, among other books, for years. I should make it clear I am not a Marxist, or even a leftist. Sometimes Zinn is dismissed for these reasons. Zinn is a legitimate scholar and his book is legit.

But I see ill-informed attacks on Zinn. Have trouble with his discussion of Columbus? Try reading the journal of Columbus' first voyage, as I did. This is what trained historians do, consult primary sources. He says that he is not there as an explorer, but on a mission from the King and Queen of Spain to find gold. He has zero interest in the flora and fauna of the New World. He actually considers them a nuisance. He refers to the local people as "talking animals." The Spanish presence puts in motion the slavery and genocide of these people. This is historical fact. Even the Columbus worshiper, the late Harvard historian Samuel Eliot Morison, admits that.

So why the attacks on Zinn? Well those of us who benefit most from a whitewashed (literally) of America history don't want the facts. A Texas-approved high school text for American history used in numerous states refers to black slaves as "guest workers." No problem.

There's a saying: "I hate whom I have wronged."

Let's be honest about our history in terms of wronging others. Native American genocide. Slavery. Mexican-American War in the name of a phony mystical concept "Manifest Destiny." We need to own up to that as part of our history. This is not about liberal guilt. It's about facts.

But it's human nature to be in denial. And in instances like this, double-down on the hatred.

a chapter from this book that still resonates to this day....

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defco...

Defending the white privilege of the conquerors....

"Consider the rhetoric of white supremacy. White supremacists know about the humanity of Jews and black people and whoever else they’re discriminating against — and it terrifies them. One of their slogans is, "Jews will not replace us.” Think of what that means. That’s not what you chant if you thought they were roaches or subhuman. That’s what you chant at people you’re really worried about who you think are a threat to your status and way of life."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-healt...

Excellent Zinn film available on YouTube....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuJj...