It lives up to the hype, but, I mean, it's not really amazing or anything. It's a pretty bare bones skim through the history of the United States written very simply so as to be easily readable to anyone who picks it up and regardless of any knowledge of said history. I did quite enjoy how it was heavily based in telling this American history through the eyes of the people who it bled through, showcasing the many revolutions, uprisings and how the large, paradigm-shifting events of the country affected on a micro level and not just a broad macro level. And, yes, I realize I'm an idiot for not realizing this seeing as how the book is literally called "A People's History," but I thought it was just a cutesy title.

The winners write the history. Howard Zinn writes what happened to the other guy. The chapters on the civil rights movement were most engrossing.

People who don't approve of Zinn's equal opportunity perspective of history love to call him an America hater. I'm sure that George W. Bush would say that he's an enemy of freedom. But the thing that I love so much about Zinn and this book is his consistent ability to portray the United States (as defined by its history) as so much more than a static, monolitichly motivated country. Traditional approaches to history tell a student that our country was founded by white Christian men with lots of money and connections and that since then everything of value that has gone on here was contributed by those men. It tells us that you must be one of those men to be significant, to be a worthwhile citizen of the United States. Zinn and his colleagues of other inclusive historians fight against exactly that idea. They write about women, Native Americans, labor activists, homosexuals...all these groups of people who have long been considered insignificant in the forming of our more perfect union. Zinn isn't an America hater, he's a man who wants to tell its true story, one that fleshes out the beauty and mistakes of our national past, portraying a much more dynamic country than traditional history allows.

Written in the 70's, this book admitedly now lacks some of the radical quality it possessed when it was published. Still, it's in that list of books that truly changed out country and the way Americans think and I love it for that.

This is a history book intended to tell the stories that don't get told. It isn't centered around typical heroes or presidents or nationalistic jingoism. It tries to tell the "people's history"

Yeah, it's biased. Zinn admits as much.

Yeah, it's negative. Zinn admits as much.

And, yeah, if it's the only history you read, you come away with one viewpoint and, perhaps, a bit of bile in your mouth. But it shouldn't be the only history you read. It should be the history that helps balance the prevalent "Go America!" tellings that dominate our schools and our bookshelves.

I don't agree with everything Zinn stands for but I am so glad to have his history; one that focuses on the lost stories, the stories that reveal our leaders as human, fallible and, in the end, unable to change the world for the better. The stories that we didn't hear the first time around and probably wouldn't have heard if it weren't for Zinn's history. The class conflict, racial injustice, sexual inequality and national arrogance that shaped our nation right alongside the victories, the ideals and the lofty accomplishments of our heroes. The stories that question Roosevelt, a hero of the social left, as stringently as they question Reagan, a hero of the conservative right.

It shouldn't be shocking to me that most of the stories highlight how greed runs rampant; economic inequality is the hidden menace that manifests shielded by more obvious issues of color and gender. If you look for a reason why the downtrodden were trodden down, you usually find greed. Business, wealth and profits.

To me, that's the bottom line; greed. Human greed spoils any idealistic social structure, whether it be communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy or even anarchy. Eventually someone gets greedy and starts to take advantage and then it all snowballs. The Greed Domino Effect, as it were. When I read Zinn's history, I read stories about how the people who were crushed by greed tried to fight back. And I remember that, in my own life, I should try to ignore the dictates of monetary success and greed and, instead, try to live a life that, at the very least, does no harm.

And while I realize that any teller of history has an agenda and, ergo, a grain of salt should always be handy, Zinn's history is one of the few that has daily reminded me to try to be a better person. And if I aim higher, maybe I can be a better person who helps other people learn to be better persons. And beyond that, maybe if enough of us try to be better people, we can help in largely significant ways; we can work together to help "America be America again - The land that never has been yet - And yet must be - the land where every man is free." (Langston Hughes)

And if that is this book's only redeeming quality, it's well worth the read.

A well written, but severely flawed historical work.
It reads more like sociology than history, with Zinn's concern for social groups and people's movements. Now, at a certain point, those areas with overlap, but for the most part he seems less concerned with getting to a historical truth than preaching a message. At that point, one has to wonder how he deals with contradictory evidence and conflicting opinions. Does he grapple with them and try to sift through all the available evidence? Or does he dismiss them as constraints brought on by more traditional/biased/capitalist thinking?
The most irksome thing about this work, however, is its over-reliance on secondary works. Normally, when a person wishes to "rewrite the history" of a nation/group/period, they go to primary sources from the time (letters, diaries, newspapers, etc). However, in the bibliography, very few original primary sources can be found. Instead what one finds is a list of books Zinn used to bolster his beliefs about American history. Indeed, since this book takes secondary works and synthesizes the information, Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is a tertiary book of history, and not a very good one, at that.

This book taught me more about U.S. history than any class I ever took. I was never interested in history in school. Maybe I was just a budding socialist predisposed to reject the presidents-and-wars perspective. Maybe it was just boring.

Zinn's history is more accurate to what was actually going on than the textbooks are, and much more interesting. Viewing U.S. history as a struggle to gain and keep power on the part of the very rich, I began to see parallels with our own time, time-tested tricks of manipulation. It is in the best interest of those in power for the people to have a hazy, patriotic view of American history, or they might start recognizing BS when they hear it:

"...up to this time, as we knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war..."
-President Polk in 1845, justifying the invasion of Mexico

"The determination of our slaveholding President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success in wringing from the people men and money to carry it on, is made evident, rather than doubtful, by the puny opposition arrayed against him. No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party...by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other."
-Frederick Douglass, in 1848, on the war with Mexico

"If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it--that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to play the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privelege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have."
-Bolton Hall, treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, writing in 1898 about the Spanish-American war

"I intend to be most conservative, but in the interests of the corporations themselves and above all in the interests of the country."
-Theodore Roosevelt

"...a review of the diplomatic history of the past 35 years will show that petroleum has historically played a larger part in the external relations of the United States than any other commodity."
-a State Department officer, in 1945

"Victory is in sight."
-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on Vietnam, 1963

"I have never been more encouraged in my four years in Vietnam."
-General William Westmoreland, 1967

"Hanoi has accepted near-total defeat."
-Columnist Joseph Alsop, 1972

"I am absolutely convinced if Congress made available $722 million in military assistance by the time I asked... the South Vietnamese could stabilize the military situation in Vietnam today."
-President Gerald Ford, April 1975

"By virtue of its military victory the United States is likely to have more influence in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries than any industrial nation has ever exercised."
-NY Times business correspondent, after the Persian Gulf War

"One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native-born against foreigh-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country."
-Howard Zinn

I like the book, because, well, I know that I should like it. After all, if it’s good enough to get a shout out from Good Will Hunting, it should be good enough for me. And of course, I find Zinn’s project of telling an alternative history admirable and important. But here’s the thing: I don’t really like the book. I kind of felt like Zinn essentializes all of the subaltern figures of history as mostly good, righteous people (for example, the poor racist southern farmer isn’t that bad; he was just taught to be racist by rich white plantation owners to reinforce the plantation system). I just felt like he gave rather flat and generic portrayals of the poor white southerner, the socialist, etc. Also, he couldn’t mention minority women with out mentioning their “double burden,” a classification I think many women would quarrel with. On top of that Zinn starts out with the premise that it is possible to challenge the conventional narrative of progress by telling a people’s history, by looking to the voices normally ignored in text books. He barely questions whether or not it is truly possible to recover a people’s history; he barely mentions that a lot of these voices, especially those of the Native Americans obliterated by Europeans, are forever lost. I might have wanted more of a discussion of that somewhere in Zinn’s nearly 700 pages. To me the book was good. Maybe even great. Especially the chapters on Columbus and the New Deal. But I think it also deserves some criticism. Why it is so unanimously heralded, I don’t quite get. Chalk that up to one more thing that Will Hunting knows that I don’t.

I think the publishers forgot a word on the cover of this book! If they had called it "A People's PARTY History of the United States" I would have at least known what I was getting into. That one word makes a big difference; one version, the People's History, sounds like a history written in an effort to humanize our history and to include those not typically afforded space in a history text. If it were rightly called A People's Party History, I would have known it for what it was: a history of Socialist and Labor movements in the US in a book focused on talking about class warfare.

Don't get me wrong, I like rebellion and screwing authority more than most people I know. But I thought from reading the back of the book that this would be a history focused on blacks, latinos, women, and other minority groups in the US. He tries to pay lip service to this, but its not what he cares about. Just as one example among hundreds and hundreds: there is a single sentence, wedged in between a history of the Wobblies and a discussion of the constitutionality of Section 7 of the National Industrial Recovery Act (abhorred by labor unions) that reads, "Women, after a long and difficult battle won the right to vote." One sentence? On a constitutional amendment that gave suffrage to 50% of the US population?

He has my attention when he is talking about the paternalism inherent in some of the Civil Rights language, but he loses it completely when he unreflectively refers to motherhood a "prison" or all business owners as "monsters".

Not worth your time.

Actually, if you're even somewhat familiar with American History (and I'm not talking about what you learned in your politically correct high school readers, even though in recent years more of the 'bad stuff' is leaking out to our high school students), there's nothing new here. So why are so many upset by Zinn? Most say they are bothered by Zinn's subjectivity (but who cares? after all, it's his book) and what some say is his "whining" tone. Hey, this will help you build your critical thinking skills and delaing with the reality of bias (never, ever read just one book on complex issues to get it all, or at least most of the true picture) And if he does focus excessively on the rich as creators and cause of all negatives historically, well, he's not too far off (for more, read The End of Money and The Future of Civilization by Thomas H. Greco). But there certainly are positives within most existing negatives (for more read A Patriots History of the United States).

But back to all the people whining about Zinn's whining (yeah, I know, funny, huh? ;o)What frequently happens is that people respond emotionally and within that emotion analyze incorrectly, therefore, missing the mark and attacking the author (not always, but often). What is most likely affecting most people is an initial exposure to long-covered truths, something Zinn has nothing to do with. And if you love your country and you're getting pummeled by constant negatives about that country, well . . . from that emotional state you shoot missing the mark.

But there's nothing new here, and you don't have to take my word. If you're looking for different perspectives on the same material, try this short list:

Revisiting America: Readings in Race, Culture, and Conflict; Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong; and to add to the fire, Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (yes, the one Hugo Chavez shot to the top of the bestsellers list); Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy; What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World; ad infinitum. Basically anything Chomsky.

As for the conservative reading list, there's . . . ahhhh . . . wait a tic? I don't see anything beyond the one book mentioned above. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me get on the phone to McCain. I'll be right back.

n  «In ogni momento alcuni devono essere ricchi e alcuni poveri, certuni eminenti e di posizione elevata per potere e dignità, altri meschini e sottomessi.».n(1)

Mi accingo a scrivere questo breve commento su questo saggio straordinario, avendo ancora in mente le altrettanto straordinarie parole pronunciate stamattina dal Presidente Mattarella, in occasione dell’inaugurazione di Pesaro Capitale italiana della cultura 2024:
«Cultura è conoscenza. Ma anche coscienza.», « ... circolarità della cultura che non sopporta restrizioni o confini, che pretende il rispetto delle opzioni di ogni cittadino, che respinge la pretesa, sia di pubblici poteri o di grandi corporazioni, di indirizzare le sensibilità verso il monopolio di un pensiero unico.», «La sostenibilità è un nome della pace.», «La distruzione di risorse non può essere gabellata come sviluppo ma va indicata come regressione.»
Dio, o chi per lui, mantenga in salute questo galantuomo.
Veniamo al libro, scoperto grazie al prezioso suggerimento di @Orsodimondo, che ringrazio.
Un saggio interessantissimo, che copre un arco temporale che va dalla scoperta delle Americhe, fino ai primi anni del terzo millennio. Forzatamente sintetico quindi, ma cionnonostante, denso, dettagliato, ricchissimo di notizie, avvenimenti, documenti e testimonianze, di atti ufficiali e riservati, articoli di riviste e quotidiani, di dichiarazioni di politici, militari, finanzieri, attivisti per i diritti civili, esponenti delle minoranze, e molto altro ancora.
L’intento di Zinn era raccontare la storia di questi quattro secoli narrandola dal punto di vista delle minoranze, degli esclusi, dei poveri, dei “tartassati”, per dirla con Steno.
«I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek.
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.» (2)
A voler riassumere, maldestramente, il prezioso patrimonio di informazioni, idee, opinioni contenuto in questo libro, si potrebbe dire che la storia degli Stati Uniti si fonda sul patto non scritto tra capitale privato e potere politico. Con tutti i disastrosi effetti che ne sono derivati.
Naturalmente, questo “patto” tra ricchezza e potere politico non è certo una peculiarità della giovane democrazia degli Stati Uniti d’America, ma è palese come abbia governato, sia pure con modalità e risultati molto differenti nel tempo e nello spazio, l’intera storia dell’umanità.
Zinn afferma: «Ciò che impariamo sul passato non ci consegna la verità assoluta sul presente, ma potrebbe stimolarci a guardare più a fondo delle superficiali affermazioni dei leader politici e degli “esperti” citati dalla stampa. Gli interessi di classe sono sempre oscurati dal velo onnicomprensivo dell’”interesse nazionale”.»
Conclude dicendo: «È una sfida a cui tutti noi possiamo scegliere di partecipare, oppure possiamo restare a guardare. Ma dobbiamo sapere che le nostre scelte contribuiranno a determinarne gli esiti.».
Amen.
Consiglio caldamente di leggerlo. L’umore non ne beneficerà, ma la consapevolezza sì. Almeno credo...

(1) 1630. Dichiarazione del governatore John Winthrop in occasione della Fondazione della Massachusetts Bay Colony nel 1630.
(2) «Sono il bianco povero, ingannato e spinto da parte,
sono il nero che porta le cicatrici della schiavitù.
Sono il pellerossa scacciato dalla terra,
sono l’immigrante aggrappato alla speranza che cerco
mentre trovo soltanto la solita vecchia stupida solfa
di cane mangia cane, potente schiaccia debole.»
(Langston Hughes, 1901–1967 – Let America be America Again)


n  Appendice cronologica di avvenimenti e testimonianze (lacunosa, arbitraria, strampalata, non autorizzata, inutile... ah, beh)n
1492. Isole Bahamas. Gli indiani arawak accolgono Cristoforo Colombo e i suoi marinai, portando loro cibo, acqua, doni. Tre anni più tardi, cinquecento di loro verranno trasportati in Spagna per essere venduti come schiavi.
1630. Fondazione della Massachusetts Bay Colony. Il governatore John Winthrop dichiara: «In ogni momento alcuni devono essere ricchi e alcuni poveri, certuni eminenti e di posizione elevata per potere e dignità, altri meschini e sottomessi.».
1776. Il 4 luglio, il Congresso proclama la Dichiarazione d’Indipendenza, che sancisce la fine della dominazione Inglese sulle colonie americane.
1830. Con l’approvazione dell’Indian Removal Act, prende il via la deportazione dei nativi americani verso le terre ad Ovest del Mississippi, “Il Sentiero delle Lacrime” (1834). Un membro anziano della tribù dei Creek disse: «Ho ascoltato molti discorsi del nostro Grande Padre Bianco. Ma questi iniziano e si concludono sempre con queste parole: “Allontanatevi un po’, mi state troppo vicini”.»
1845. Il direttore della Democratic Review John O’Sullivan scrive: «Il nostro destino manifesto (Manifest Destiny) è quello di espanderci in tutto il continente assegnato dalla Provvidenza al libero sviluppo dei milioni di nostri abitanti, che si moltiplicano ogni anno.». Oh, un destino manifesto...
1848. Con il trattato di Guadalupe Hidalgo si conclude la guerra di aggressione contro il Messico. Gli Stati Uniti versano al Messico quindici milioni di dollari. «Noi non prendiamo nulla con la forza, Dio sia lodato.».
1849. Harriet Tubman, schiava nera fugge dalla piantagione, aiutata dagli attivisti della Underground Railroad e raggiunge la Pennsylvania. Compirà diciannove viaggi e salverà oltre trecento schiavi.
1864. Fiume Sandy Creek, Colorado. L’accampamento di circa 600 membri delle tribù Cheyenne e Arapaho, nonostante i trattati di pace stipulati, viene attaccato da 700 soldati comandati dal colonnello John Chivington. L’attacco si conclude con il massacro di circa 150 nativi, tra cui numerose donne e bambini.
1907. «La legge non rappresenta la morale o gli ideali dell’umanità più avanzata, ma rispecchia, esattamente come una pozza riflette il cielo, le istanze e gli interessi delle sempre più nutrite classi di possidenti.» (Gustavus Myers, 1872-1942 - History of the Great American Fortunes)
1890. Torrente Wounded Knee, South Dakota. L’esercito attacca il villaggio di nativi Sioux Lakota e massacra trecento uomini, donne e bambini.
1903. A seguito di un contenzioso tra Stati Uniti e Colombia per la creazione e gestione del canale a Panama, il Presidente Roosevelt autorizza in intervento militare, che porta alla creazione della Repubblica di Panama, difesa, ça va sans dire, dall’esercito statunitense.
1911. Frederick Taylor espone la sua teoria del management. Partendo dalla supposizione secondo cui gli operai sfruttavano opportunisticamente la disomogeneità dei processi produttivi per minimizzare lo sforzo lavorativo, elabora un metodo di organizzazione scientifica del lavoro, il “Taylorismo”.
1911. Helen Keller, intellettuale sorda e non vedente, scrive: «Se mai contribuirò al movimento socialista con il libro che talvolta sogno di scrivere, so come lo intitolerò: “Cecità industriale e sordità sociale”.».
1914. «Controllano la gente con i soldi della gente.» (Louis Brandeis, Other People's Money And How the Bankers Use It).
1914. La Commissione sulle relazioni industriali riferisce che nel 1914 si contarono trentacinquemila incidenti mortali sul lavoro e settecentomila infortuni. Non fu un anno eccezionale. Era la norma di tutti gli anni.
1914. Massacro di Ludlow. La Guardia nazionale spara con le mitragliatrici sui minatori in sciopero. Muoiono undici bambini e due donne.
1933. Il Presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt avvia un programma legislativo di riforme, noto con “New Deal”.
1939. Esce “E Johnny prese il fucile” di Dalton Trumbo.
1942. Roosevelt firma il decreto che consente all’esercito di arrestare senza mandato, imputazione o udienza tutti gli americani di origine giapponese della costa occidentale, di portarli via dalle loro case, di deportarli in campi lontani dalla costa e trattenerli in stato di detenzione.
1945. Nonostante il Giappone abbia già manifestato, attraverso canali diplomatici, l’intenzione di arrendersi, il 6 agosto Alle 08:14 e 45 secondi del 6 agosto il bombardiere Enola Gay sgancia "Little Boy" sul centro di Hiroshima, uccidendo sul colpo tra le 70 000 e le 80 000 persone.
1950. Il senatore Joseph McCarthy, con il suo discorso di Wheeling, in Virginia, inaugura la stagione della caccia alle streghe... comuniste (maccartismo).
1953. Il 19 giugno, Julius ed Ethel Rosenberg vengono giustiziati sulla sedia elettrica, condannati per spionaggio a favore dell’Unione Sovietica.
1957. Henry Kissinger pubblica un libro in cui afferma: “Con la tattica adatta, una guerra nucleare non è necessariamente distruttiva come sembra.”. Credo che Putin ci stia pensando seriamente...
1959. A Cuba, i rivoluzionari guidati da Fidel Castro abbattono la dittatura di Fulgencio Batista, sostenuta dagli Stati Uniti.
1960. Il budget militare degli Stati Uniti è pari a 45,8 miliardi di dollari, il 49,7 per cento del bilancio totale.
1961. (presidenza Kennedy), un gruppo di anticastristi, coordinati e finanziati dalla CIA, sbarca nella Baia dei Porci per avviare una insurrezione armata. Il tentativo fallisce.
1962. L’arsenale nucleare degli Stati Uniti: millecinquecento bombe atomiche (della potenza ognuna, pari a quella di Hiroshima), cinquanta missili balistici intercontinentali, ottanta missili installati su sottomarini nucleari, novanta missili in basi oltreoceano, millesettecento bombardieri in grado di raggiungere l’Unione Sovietica, trecento cacciabombardieri sulle portaerei, mille caccia supersonici.
1965. Durante la presidenza di Lyndon Johnson gli USA intensificano in maniera significativa il proprio coinvolgimento militare in Vietnam. Il Presidente Johnson, in un discorso televisivo alla nazione il 28 luglio 1965, afferma: «Ho chiesto al generale Westmoreland che cosa gli servisse per far fronte a questa crescente aggressione. Me lo ha detto. E noi soddisferemo le sue richieste. Non possiamo essere sconfitti con la forza delle armi. Rimarremo in Vietnam.».
Nel gennaio del 1973, dopo aver visto morire 58.272 suoi soldati e circa due milioni di civili vietnamiti, gli Stati Uniti firmano gli accordi di pace di Parigi. L’allora Presidente Richard Nixon, affermò: «Abbiamo finalmente raggiunto la pace con onore.» Secondo un calcolo ufficiale, il costo diretto della guerra ammontò a 165 miliardi di dollari.
1968. Il 16 marzo a Mỹ Lai, un villaggio a circa 840 chilometri a nord di Saigon, soldati dell’esercito degli Stati Uniti, agli ordini del tenente William Calley, uccidono più di cinquecento civili, principalmente anziani, donne, bambini e neonati.
1968. Memphis, Tennessee. Il 4 aprile viene assassinato Martin Luther King.
1969. Settantotto nativi americani occupano l’isola di Alcatraz, nella baia di San Francisco, occupando l’ex penitenziario federale ormai abbandonato.
1973. Cile. L’11 settembre il governo di Salvador Allende viene rovesciato da un colpo di stato guidato dal generale augusto pinochet (“pinocchietto”), orchestrato dagli Stati Uniti e dalle sue multinazionali, I.T.T. in testa.
1974. Dimissioni del Presidente Nixon, in seguito allo scandalo “Watergate”.
1979. L’Unione Sovietica invade l’Afganistan.
1980. San Salvador, El Salvador. Il 24 di marzo, l’arcivescovo cattolico Óscar Romero y Galdámez, a causa del suo impegno nel denunciare le violenze della giunta militare del suo Paese (finanziata e appoggiata dagli USA) viene ucciso da un sicario degli squadroni della morte, mentre sta celebrando la messa.
1983. Il Presidente Regan approva un progetto per la realizzazione della Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), finalizzato a difendere gli USA dalle armi nucleari russe. Tutti i test, falliscono. Sotto la presidenza di George W. Bush, il progetto viene rilanciato e ampliato ai paesi NATO.
1991. Il 16 gennaio, a seguito dell’invasione del Kuwait da parte dell’Iraq di Saddam Hussein, l’esercito degli Stati Uniti del Presidente George H.W. Bush, alla testa di una coalizione internazionale, invade l’Iraq. È l’inizio dell’operazione Desert Storm.
To be continued..............

DO NOT READ THIS BOOK! EVER! BURN IT! HOWARD ZINN SHOULD BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED IN A PUBLIC FORUM!!!

Seriously though, when I describe my highschool sophomore year history class I generally use the following sentence, "The theme of sophomore year history was: White people - bad, the downtrodden - good." Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" was our textbook. I HATE THIS BOOK! His basic thesis is that America was built on the blood and suffering of the poor. And while this is definitely a perspective that should be considered and included in any comprehensive understanding of American history, it SHOULD NOT BE THE PRIMARY MEANS OF INTERPRETING OUR HISTORY!!!!

Zinn is one of those people who will ALWAYS find something to bitch and moan about. There are other histories out there that cover the time, and do so well, probably even delving into many of the situations and events that Zinn does. But Zinn's is book is much closer to propaganda than history. It's necessary to have a bias in your writing, but some level of impartiality is also useful.

Anyway, there's my take, do with it what you will, but when I count up the list of my most reviled books/ideas that I've ever been exposed to, Mr. Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" ranks up near the top of the list.

In life I’ve been lucky to have had great teachers; I’ll never forget first reading A People's History of the United States in my high school U.S. history course. Even when he was cracking jokes, Mr. Sheehan always encouraged an active questioning of the historic record, and wanted us students to familiarize ourselves with a number of perspectives. I imagine this is how Howard Zinn entered the lives of many an impressionable or disaffected young person.

So what is this book? Well, it is more or less what it boasts to be: “A People’s History,” Zinn looks at U.S. history through the lens of the working class—the people. He also criticizes those in power that benefit off the exploitation of this group, as well as systems of control used to maintain this status quo. This includes re-examining the prevailing understanding of what American democracy entails. Starting at the very beginning, Zinn boldly asserts:

“The Constitution…illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for the middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law—all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity.” (99)

If it’s not readily apparent, those who hold dear the ideas of “American exceptionalism” or extreme free-market capitalism will probably hate this book. Ingrained in the earliest version of what we conceptualize to be the United States, Zinn will challenge most notions of perceived greatness. This is after all a country built by the labor of enslaved blacks and on land stolen from Native Americans.

Zinn does not pull any punches when it comes to bluntly stating how racism, misogyny, fear, and other vain forms of division have been used to maintain America as a caste system of sorts with little room for social mobility. He makes a good case for how this is facilitated by a deeply entrenched and prevalent narrative:

“Control in modern times requires more than force, more than law. It requires that a population dangerously concentrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught that all is right as it is. And so, the schools, the churches, the popular literature taught that to be rich was a sign of superiority, to be poor a sign of personal failure, and that the only way upward for a poor person was to climb into the ranks of the rich by extraordinary effort and extraordinary luck.” (262)

Taking a step back, it must be noted that the vast majority of published history adheres to a distinctly American form of story-telling that upholds rugged individualism and prioritizes the roles of esteemed individuals. Do you have a favorite president? Well, Zinn is going to do his darndest to kick out the pedestal upon which you view that guy. In this volume, no leader that upholds any system of inequality is free of criticism, which sometimes results in flippant quips such as this hot take on FDR in WWII:

“Roosevelt was as much concerned to end the oppression of Jews as Lincoln was to end slavery during the Civil War; their priority was policy (whatever their personal compassion for victims of persecution) was not minority rights, but national power.” (410)

It is important to contextualize that during World War II, FDR signed Executive Order 9066 which resulted in the unjust internment of Japanese Americans. Nearly a century earlier, Lincoln passed the Homestead Act to appease expansionists at the expense of Native American’s homes and lives. These are objectively bad things. Still, if pressed, I myself would be inclined to cite FDR and Lincoln as two of America’s most impactful presidents, but is important to remember the totality of a leader’s legacies, which are often more complex than an overly simplistic, feel-good narrative.

What Zinn most advocates for in this volume is that people must organize, not blindly follow a charismatic savior. ‘Be the (organized) change you want to see in the world’—or something to that effect. The socio-economic underpinnings that enables the preservation of power, affluence, and influence of the wealthiest elite can only be effectively challenged by the many, not the exceptional few.

“One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native-born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country.” (632)

If you think that’s chilling, in 2019 the Washington Post has since reported that the top 10% now own more than 70% of the nation’s wealth, with the top 1% having more than the bottom 80% of the population combined. So if these statistics upset you, please vote if you do not already do so.

Howard Zinn did his part by creating this accessible, pop-history of sorts that could be easily digestible by the working class, and change the conversation. On that note, while he does properly cite and contextualize his historical quotes, sadly, to my personal chagrin, he does not include detailed footnotes. If I have any criticisms of this work, they mostly boil down to this irksome observation. But that said, even if history isn’t your jam, this book is still easy enough to understand and a good learning tool.

Overall, I would still definitely recommend this book as a well-argued resource (and/or effective paperweight). Rather than an end-all be-all source on the subject matter, however, I would consider it more as an excellent launch point for further study. By Zinn’s own (refreshing) admission in the Afterword, his conception of the working class is hindered by the constraints of his own lived experience. So if you are interested in reading more, I would also recommend:
-tA Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America by Ronald Takaki
-tThe History of White People by Nell Irvin Painter
-tAn Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
-tThe Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
-tThe New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander

If you have any other must-read suggestions please leave your recommendation in a comment! In the spirit of Howard Zinn, and plucky high school history teachers everywhere, let’s keep the conversation going. Or don’t, you know, you do you.