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.

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!

“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...

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.

This is one of those "history" books that gives us real historians crippling migraines, chiefly because it's utter rubbish yet the masses gobble it up. All the more galling given that Zinn has a long history of fabrications (which he doesn't even deny) that he defended on the grounds that the social outcome he desires justifies deceiving the masses. Because the ends justify the means. To quote Samuel Butler: "I doubt not but it will appear / With pregnant light; the point is clear. / Oaths are but words, and words but wind; / Too feeble implements to bind..."

Really, there are two types of people for whom this book is intended: 1) the already-converted who want a "history" that doesn't tell them anything uncomfortable or that might contradict what they've a priori concluded to be "fact"; and 2) those who don't know any better and can be fooled & flummoxed because, like, Zinn is famous!

This is a MUST READ! Historical accounts of events as they SHOULD be taught in schools, from the People's perspective, not just the privileged view from the top.

A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn is a 2005 Harper Perennial Modern Classics publication.

I admit, up front, that this my first go at this book. I vaguely remember some controversy surrounding a history book that exposed the darker side of American History, and whether or not it belonged next to traditional history text in schools. However, this book came along after I graduated from high school, having been published in 1980, to the best of my knowledge, and my own children used traditional history textbooks in school.

It wasn’t until I heard the state of Arkansas was trying to have this book banned from its schools, that it piqued my interest. So, I checked it out of the library just to see what was so controversial about it.

It’s been a very long time since I picked up a history textbook of any kind. So, if nothing else, this book gave me a little refresher course on historical events. But, of course, I do see why some people would find learning about the underbelly of American history disconcerting.

The history covered begins in 1492 and was updated up to 2000’s war on Terrorism.

I’d never heard about most of these ‘untold’ portions of history, but as long as they are true, I don’t see the problem with informing students of the darker aspects of their history. The important thing to note, however, is the motive behinds some of these events and one's own perception of them.

If I began looking through this book with any kind of preset ideas, it would be in favor of telling the whole truth, not just the truth that paints our ancestors in the most flattering light possible. Still, I did pick up on a ‘tone’ here and there I wasn’t so sure should exist in a book designed as a teaching tool.
Of course, one could argue, those same ‘tones’ show up in more traditional history textbooks, too, and keep in mind that my ability to access 'tones' can be wonky sometimes, apparently.

Because I checked this book out of the library, and needed to get it turned back in, I didn’t read the book like I would a novel or any other kind of book. I skipped around here and there, skimmed some areas, and spent a great deal of time on topics that interested me the most.

The point, the author seemed intent on stressing, was that the rich took power and gained much off the backs of the poor or ‘downtrodden’. I think you would have to be truly dense not to pick up on that, but again, if it’s true, then by all means, at least allow the book in the classroom as a companion to the more traditional studies.

One thing I believe is clearly under attack in our present climate, is critical thinking. To disallow this book in the classroom because it shows another side of the story, is unhealthy. Students must learn to look at the information and make informed decisions about the data presented to them. Not only that, I just don’t like the idea of banning books. If the schools feel that strongly about using the book in the classroom, then at least give them the chance to check it out of the school library.

This is not your typical ‘dry’ history text, and I do understand why some people either loved it or hated it. For me, I hate to be wishy washy, but I fall somewhere in the middle. I didn’t hate it, and while it was interesting, I didn’t feel overly impressed either.

3 stars

It would take a book to properly dissect Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, whose popularity belies its wretched vacuousness. At his best, Zinn gives voices to labor leaders, civil rights activists, feminists and pacifists whose contributions to American history and culture are habitually ignored; also his colorful depictions of strikes, protests and massacres are worthwhile. Far more often, he warps history into an unchanging monolith of Elites oppressing or killing everyone else. His analyses are less nuanced, sophisticated or credible than a Politburo comic strip: Native Americans as Utopian proto-Bolsheviks until ravaged by savage European capitalists; the American Revolution as an elite conspiracy to co-opt a Jacobin-style class uprising; the Civil War waged less to end slavery or preserve the Union than to crush immigrants and labor unions (!?!); progressive politicians from Lincoln through FDR and LBJ as corporate frauds; Communist China, Cuba and Vietnam as genuine people’s democracies (unlike capitalist Amerikkka!); Kennedy’s biggest crime being not his Civil Rights ambivalence or foreign adventurism, but tax cuts; Vietnam as scheme to plunder Indochina’s tin and rubber; multiple chapters blathering about the Trilateral Commission like an Alex Jones screed; and, most unwittingly damning, protest movements as, simultaneously, inexorable forces of righteous resistance and powerless dupes easily defeated, co-opted and misled by Rich White Men. The WWII chapter is particularly mendacious, criticizing FDR for not entering the war sooner, then attacking him for (allegedly) provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor; praising Communists for opposing American intervention while ignoring their endorsement of the Hitler-Stalin Pact (or mentioning the actual fascists, rather than Imaginary Zinn Fascists, who dominated America First); and naturally, claiming the US is no better than Germany because Jim Crow and Hiroshima. This is a terrible, terrible book that ought to offend anyone who knows anything about history; sadly, because it confirms some individuals' biases, it will remain widely read and headache-inducingly influential.

One of the most poorly written pieces of propaganda I've ever had the misfortune to read. I'll give it this: it filled in a few blindspots in my knowledge of history. There were several major events that I could swear I never learned about in history classes. (Perhaps because my high school history teacher was also the football coach and gave extra credit on exams for guessing the point spread of the upcoming game, but that's another story.) Other than that, reading this book was like pulling teeth -- from the laughably poor prose to the confusing and unnecessarily alinear chronological organization to the blatantly biased viewpoint (which, in fairness, the author acknowledges and justifies to some extent). The upside is that, now that I've read it, I won't be talked down to by all the raving liberals in my life who insist it's on par with the fucking Bible. But real, I mean.

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.

I was assigned this work for my introduction to political science course in college. I have to admit I groaned at the very title when I saw it on the syllabus, suspecting what I was in for. And yeah, this book was about what I expected--very much a very hard left wing--no, Marxist interpretation of American history. I hated it, was scathing in my assigned paper on Zinn, and was duly marked down. I learned to parrot Zinn back on the final exam and did well. So yes, I have a grudge against the book.

But I also don’t trust it as history. You won’t find sources cited in this book--it’s a popularization, a synthesis, based on secondary sources with a very pointed agenda. It’s blatant propaganda--not history. I have heard a couple of good things about this book even from those who are opposed to Zinn politically--that it did help influence people to look beyond the “great man” triumphalist narrative of history and look at the contribution ordinary people make--and that at least Zinn is no respecter of the powers that be. I’m a little skeptical though that Zinn had much influence on creating a more diverse narrative of American history--there were a lot of true scholars, who did do original research, involved in that revolution of how we look at history. And by the way the parts I was assigned didn’t actually involve the history per se, but Zinn’s views on democracy itself--that’s what I was tested on. But reading through his villainization of America was depressing and annoying. I think it’s because I just have encountered too many Marxists in college--and life. It made Zinn’s take not enlightening and exciting but very predictable.

History is about power, said Eugen Weber. Who has it, who uses it, who loses it. This one is about the powerless majority, the humble members of society. The farmers, mechanics, laborers. The Native Americans dispossessed of their land. The slaves dispossessed of their liberty. The women and children, the rent payers, the downtrodden. This is the flip side of the elitist history you learned in school. It is not about kings or presidents, founding fathers or saviors or statesmen. It is "disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance." Always on the side of the people, it does not claim to be a "balanced" account of history. It IS the balance. It provides what is missing from other histories. A must read if you want a balanced understanding of American history.

This book is class conscious, not nation conscious. It discusses America's major wars, but only to challenge their legitimacy and decry how they supplanted class issues with nation issues. This book is populist. It celebrates examples from American history of powerless groups that organized to protect themselves from the powerful. This book believes in the virtue of disobedience. It calls for and hopes for non-violent revolution in an America that is "a system in deep trouble." "Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes." Alienation is spreading upward.

A brilliant interpretation of American class struggle from the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the 1980s.