What a book. Life changing may be hyperbole but it's not too far from the mark. So little of this is widely known by the people of America, and it shows.

Read it as part of the "American Literature and Culture" course of the PhD program. Back then (about three years ago) I was so naive that I actually read the material assigned by professors and the syllabi. As I grew older and wiser, I realized I have too insubordinate a temperament to fit in the academia.
However, I don't regret having read this book, since it served as an accessible and brief introduction for me to the history of America.
Before this, my only familiarity with American history was a picture book called Pocahontas about this knock-out native-American lady who falls head over heels for this blonde European lady killer. I read that book when I was a little kid, and to be honest, I fell in love with the lady myself.
Later on, since the environment in which I grew up was seething with anti-American heroism and nationalism, we were given this book to read. We were supposed to develop some sort of aversion toward the Land of the Free, which did not happen. However, I learned enough about the history of America to be able to react to commercial cinema (and culture) depicting Native Americans as savages and Europeans as saviors with "what a load of [euphemistically speaking] malarkey!"

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.

Zinn’s big book runs to near 700 pages, and at times he seems bent on letting no act of resistance to injustice go unmentioned. This, he feels, is the glory of American history. Of course all history books focus on some chosen theme, and Zinn is very explicit about his own choice to highlight the stories of disadvantaged and marginalized people. Also of course, many Americans have been deeply offended, feeling that Zinn paints their glorious nation as evil by nature. To those who feel affronted by Zinn’s rebukes to racism, sexism, militarism, corruption, etc., I’d suggest they stop identifying with those things so much.

Many readers may view Zinn’s book as a stream of moral outrage. But I find it has good entertainment value, and in many cases it’s simply hilarious. For one example, Zinn describes the aftermath of the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, after “Operation Urgent Fury” blew away the tiny nation’s socialistic government. Nine years later, Grenada had suffered an “invasion of banks.” The capital town of St. George’s, with its population of 7,500, now hosted 118 offshore banks, and as the New York Times explained, “St. George’s has become the Casablanca of the Caribbean, a fast-growing haven for money laundering, tax evasion, and assorted financial fraud …” (p. 589).

I write historical fiction for a living, which means I wake up, eat breakfast, and then go down the rabbit hole of historical research every day. Along the way I'm constantly bumping into the bits of history that get glossed over, rewritten, or forgotten altogether.

This books is an omnibus of those moments, a fascinating and distressing look at the cause and effect of hundreds of years of American imperialism.

This is one of the most eye-opening books I have ever read. The late Howard Zinn takes off the filters with which American history is taught in schools and takes an unflinching look at how the US has not been the benevolent protector of democracy that propaganda would like us to believe. Not that the founding principles were wrong - they were ideal then and with some modifications re slavery and women's rights are still relevant today - but American domestic and foreign policy has been held hostage by Big Capital and Old Money for over two centuries. It should be made essential reading for high school seniors and college freshmen to avoid the kind of knee-jerk reactionism that resulted in Drumpf's election in 2016. The US is not a perfect country and has its share blood on its hands and conscience and ignoring that ensures that we will repeat the same errors resulting in the deaths of innocent people again and again. An absolutely critical read.

Especially in the current hagiography of praising America's past as the if there was some lost utopia to which Drumpf, Inc wants to return to "Make America Great Again", Zinn's open-eyed, factual, and documented history reveals that this is all pure right-wing propaganda. All corporate and imperialistic entities commit atrocities in order to rise and maintain power, and the US is no exception to that. Yes, there is an ideal of freedom but it is one that has to be fought for generation after generation or it will be lost forever - THAT is what Zinn's book is all about and why it is important now!

The news just gets worse every day and the truth ever more elusive. Zinn's book remains a critical assessment of American history and a reminder that all of our rights from the Constitution to Social Security to Civil Rights to the Great Society were paid for with blood and sweat and must be preserved despite the constant attacks by Drumpf and his Republican cronies.

What can I say about this book that hasn't been said before? It's been on my to-read list literally since the eleventh grade. So I guess the most shocking thing I can say is that it took me this long to read it.

I knew a lot of the history described, either through other books (1491, Lies My Teacher Told Me, 1776) or because I worked for many years as an editor of New World history and anthropology. Maybe this is surprising, but what I was most shaky on was the late 20th century history. Or at least, I was shaky on the context. I can tell you about the race and class conflicts that underlie King Philip's War and Bacon's Rebellion, making those events crucial to the shaping of American culture... but I knew less about the Iran Contra affair. I can tell you about WWII, but not as much about Vietnam. I can tell you about the nineteenth century labor movement, but less about the Black Panthers. There was a big gap in my understanding, and it was the stuff my parents lived through.

What I can say with some certainty (more on that in a bit) is that all of American history---and probably world history---boils down to one thing: class war. The wealthy and powerful have been seeking ways to exploit the poor and powerless for profit for at least five centuries on this continent. Dig deep enough through the underlying causes of any conflict and it seems it all comes back to the bourgeoisie manipulating other people for the sake of capital. And they're shockingly good at it. And nothing has changed.

Except that things have changed. Slowly, incrementally, things have changed slightly for the better. But it has come at great cost and with great effort on the part of the non-bourgeoisie. Labor laws, civil rights, humane treatment of the powerless---all of this has come from scrabbling tooth and nail for years to wrest it from the hands of a wealthy and powerful class that has no other reason to give it up.

ALL OF WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THE STONED RAMBLINGS OF A PUBESCENT ANARCHIST. I'm painfully aware of that. And frankly, Zinn didn't do a good enough job of avoiding that characterization in his writing. He's right, but he sounds partisan. He's speaking the truth, but there are those who will dismiss the message because it sounds like crazed, paranoid propaganda. This book should come with a primer to sociology as a companion volume, even if just to lay down the meaning of some terms to dispel our over-politicization of said terms. As it is, it's completely easy to see why that shitty A Patriot' History... got written.

I loved that Zinn focused so much on economic history, and how those factors influenced social change. Viewing multiracial interactions and gender dynamics through the lens of economics is not only fascinating, but it provides useful insight on how to fix social ills.

I learned a lot. It depressed the hell out of me. And I wish the author had been able to temper his tone to reach a broader audience (he could learn from the weary finality of Michelle Alexander). But I learned a lot and will be using this book as a jumping off point to seek out more history that'll make me sad and angry.

Yay?

Overall a really nice look at American history from the viewpoint of the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. There couldn't possibly be better timing than amidst a presidential election to read a book like this - a book that helps you look at the contrast of what we traditionally believe our country to be, and what our actions show us to be - for what better way is there to consider what we would like our country to become?

It did bog down for me a couple of times, primarily when discussing the gazillion strikes and protests that helped bring us into modernity. The nice thing was that the writing style is approachable and interesting, and each section stands on its own for the most part, so skimming a few pages here and there won't detract from the experience.

I read this book for my AP United States History class required summer reading. I borrowed/recieved it from a friend who had a copy and had taken the class already. A hefty little read it appeared far to borish and complex--a weeks long read at least, and most likely I felt I'd end up trudging through the book word by word without an soul or passion for the text. Begrudgedly I opened up the book and began to run my eyes across the first few sentences. I was completely aghast at the bitter-tone, the rough harshness around the edges of commentary. A political scientist with a message. The United States has been built on lies, violence, and racism. A horrific truth; yet the book gives hope to the those who believe in America. Should be required reading for all those interested in American History.

Professor Zinn’s focus is America, however, the story of elite rule and control can be told and retold the world over. I think it was Claude Levi-Strauss who noted these conditions have existed since the dawn of civilization, ever since our first ancestor consented to be governed – or maybe that consent came at the point of a spear and true consent never occurred. This raises a basic question, are there better operating models? The answer is not clear – have a look at the histories of Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Western Europe, Japan, etc.

Can we improve our lot? Undoubtedly, yes. Is that likely to happen? I doubt it. Why? Because commercial and political interests operate through self-reinforcing gravitational laws that are difficult to fathom in the moment and nearly impossible to override; further, they are dynamic, remorselessly consuming their own, if necessary. While I cannot point to hard data, it seems that with time, our population has become ever more inured to the status quo and that the era of mass strikes and large protests have passed. Yes, a few thousand can turn out to riot on occasion – this is different from the mass protests known to history, where the heartbeat of society marched in the streets and on more than one day. Our collective weaknesses are now well understood and readily available for manipulation by our elites who seek to influence us to further their agendas. I’m hard pressed to see how this system changes for the better.

Professor Zinn’s work is a check on the notion of American democracy, a call to see this country for what it really is, a land graced with abundant natural resources, long governed and influenced by a narrow, corridor of self-interested elites. Professor Zinn’s effort is not new – most of his observations can be found embedded in good, recent histories of our country. His thematic treatment is helpful for the record, telling the 'other side' of the story, though he wanders a bit in his commentary following Vietnam. I did note a few omissions. For example, he did not mention the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 nor the Wilmington massacre of 1898. I guess he had to make choices for readability, for the list of American civil disturbances is long indeed.

This work is also a reminder of what nasty folk we are – not Americans per se, rather humans as a whole. America is surely exceptional, but not alone, in its record of atrocities, subjugations, genocides, and repressions – we can find plenty of sad examples the world over. Common to most tales are various controlling elites using a smörgåsbord of patriotic, religious, military, racist and economic narratives to portray their appalling behavior as something emotionally appealing, all for empowerment and profit.

The events at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 caused me to dwell on the difference in the reaction to revolutionary and reactionary mobs through history, especially since Professor Zinn focused so much of this book on incidents that were met with violence. Some commentators noted that if the mob were a group of minorities protesting at the Capitol, they would have been met with far greater force than the presidentially-inspired madness of that recent day, which, I think, clouds the issue. History tells us that forces acting in the interest of the established order – even if that established order is newly created, such as the Bolsheviks in October 1917 – are met with much more accommodating force than those acting with revolutionary spirit. See the Central American death squads, the paramilitary organizations throughout South America in the past century, the Freikorps in Germany post-WWI, the various strike-breaking agencies used in this country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and on and on. Yes, racism underlies police conduct throughout this country, however, in this one case, the storming of the Capitol, I think a better comparison is to the asymmetrical reactions throughout history when comparing reactionary and revolutionary actions.

Near the end of this volume, Professor Zinn does make some modest, community-orientated proposals for collective improvement. Those words struck me as pleasant but unworkable in the face of the established order. If the American regime is corrupt to the core, then what is the viable alternative? Who has a better model? The answer, I suspect, is no one because of that darkness that lurks in our collective soul. To suggest some kind of national community consciousness, one where our harmful behaviors are shackled is Pollyannish, if not downright impossible.

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..............

You can't review Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" without first declaring your own political bias, so here's a brief summary of mine:

I grew up in a Communist-sympathizing household in Park Slope, that most liberal of all left-leaning Brooklyn neighborhoods. My father had a clear, if sometimes simplistic world-view: the rich were evil, and whatever side of an issue they were on, good people should be on the other side. Like most children, I rebelled, and by college, my politics could best be described as left-leaning centrism in the Clintonian sense. To my dad, this was about as bad as being a fascist or a Republican, and for years I avoided talking with him about politics.

After 9/11, like most Americans, I reflexively drifted further to the right on foreign policy- mostly out of shock and a desire for revenge. While my parents were down in DC protesting the second Gulf War, I secretly felt a certain satisfaction at watching a tyrant like Saddam Hussein get taken down. Over the next ten years, however, I found myself drifting back towards the center- the 9/11 bloodlust wore off and I was left with doubts about the wars. At the same time, I was beginning to notice some dispiriting trends in our domestic situation- especially the constant cycle of boom and bust, the seemingly bottomless materialism of our popular culture, and the growing shrillness of the political debates.

And then 2008 came along, when the banks blew up America. Few of my friends had benefited from the housing bubble (most were too young or too poor to buy property)- so most of us felt doubly fucked: first, by the run up in housing prices, which put even the limited prosperity of our parents generation out of reach, and second, by the bust, which put a lot of us out of work. Watching the government turn around and bail out the banks with our tax money only added insult to injury. And that's around the time I realized that my dad had been right all along: the rich really did control our country, through the banks and the government, and they really were evil- possessed of a monstrous selfishness that cared only for themselves, and nothing about the rest of us.

So, you could say that when I picked up Zinn's book seven weeks ago, I was primed to be receptive to his message. And that message is simple: the rich have screwed the poor in America since the first day the Europeans arrived. In fact, since before they arrived, as illustrated by my favorite anecdote in the book:

Then, on October 12, a sailor called Rodrigo saw the early morning moon shining on white sands, and cried out. It was an island in the Bahamas, the Caribbean sea. The first man to sight land was supposed to get a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for life, but Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before. He got the reward.

And that screwing continued- first, the Native Americans on Hispanola were wiped out (in a genocide that largely goes unmentioned, even in books like Charles Mann's 1491.) Then the Native Americans on the mainland were destroyed. Then the Blacks were kidnapped from Africa, and brutally oppressed for hundreds of years in our fields. So were the poor whites, and the minorities, who were often treated as bad as the slaves. Women, of course, were oppressed the whole time, even in the richest houses. And Zinn observes that even as the general level of prosperity in the country increased, the gains were mostly hoarded by rich white men. This quote is from Henry George, a newspaperman in 1879- but reading Zinn, you come to feel like it could have been written at any time in the last 400 years:

It is true that wealth has been greatly increased, and that the average of comfort, leisure and refinement has been raised, but these gains are not general. In them the lowest class do not share... This association of poverty with progress is the great enigma of our times... there is a vague but general feeling of disappointment, an increased bitterness among the working classes, a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution.

Zinn also makes a convincing case that the method by which the rich kept these gains was straightforward: whenever they were threatened by potential uprisings of people's movements, they simply turned one group against another. For instance, the poor whites against the slaves, or the poor farmers against the Indians, or the poor working men against the newly arrived immigrants, or, when the heat really got too strong, the entire country against another country- as in the Spanish-American War in the late 19th Century.

All this is not to say that I was in total agreement with Zinn. Like many of his readers, I had two different kinds of objections. The first were ones of scope- I found it puzzling that he omitted some struggles (like those of Asians or Hispanics on the West Coast, or the Gays, or the handicapped), while focusing so much energy on others (for instance, the struggles of the radical unionists like the Wobblies.) I was also confused by how little there was on violent leftist radicalism in the 60s and 70s- he hardly mentions The Weathermen, the SLA, the Chicago Seven, etc. Given how many pages he spends on his generally excellent chapters on the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam struggle, these omissions seemed weird- was he consciously trying to soften the image of the left? Likewise, Zinn's discussion of events since 1980 (added in later versions of the book), seem a little breezy- much lighter on quotes and detail than the foregoing chapters.

My second class of objections were about bias. Now, Zinn does a good job of defusing these- for instance, in his afterward, he writes:

This is a biased account... I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction- so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen, and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements..."

But even so, I still found some of his positions a little simplistic. While he does a good job of humanizing the poor and the downtrodden through hundreds of quotes, he never brings the same level of detail to his discussions about the rich. My personal feeling is that the rich aren't a monolithic group (though they often behave in a more unified way than the poor)- they are still a collection of disparate individuals, families, and corporations with their own motives and interests. So when Zinn says that the rich used the pretext of nationalism to advance their own interests in World War One, I ask myself, which rich people? Was it a conscious decision by a single rich person, like the President, or a group of people, like the heads of the big corporations? Or was it a less-than-conscious choice- more an instance of lots of people in power taking advantage of opportunity to seize more power and wealth? Zinn never tells us- and he rarely uses quotes to erase this ambiguity.

Additionally, sometimes he's just a little far-out- so aggressively pacifistic or leftist that he makes stupid claims. For instance, even my dad objected to his discussion of World War 2. Here's a small taste:

What seemed clear at the time was that the United States was a democracy with certain liberties, while Germany was a dictatorship persecuting its Jewish minority, imprisoning dissidents, whatever their religion, while proclaiming the supremacy of the Nordic "race." However, blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see their own situation in the U.S. as much different.

I mean, really- the way America treated the blacks was awful- but there is a world of difference between the apartheid of 1940s America and the genocide of 1940s Germany.

Those objections aside, overall Zinn accomplishes his goal of presenting the other side of American history, and convincing the reader that American government has largely been used by the rich to concentrate their wealth and power at the expense of the poor. Unfortunately, in his final chapters, Zinn doesn't offer much prescriptive advice on how to turn America in a more liberal direction of less income disparity, less war, and more civil rights. He clearly describes what his ideal America looks like- a kind of locavore anarchism, where we all live in small communities and make joint decisions through committees. But he doesn't explain how to get there, or how we could avoid the pitfalls that destroyed all the Communist countries in the past- corruption, oppression, colossal waste of resources.

The closest Zinn comes to realistic advice is reminding us that liberal social change never comes without people rising up in the streets- getting out there, protesting, and generally making noise until the rich and powerful are forced to change course. During just the last couple of months when I was reading this book, we've all seen the power of direct people's movements. Unfortunately, we only saw them in the Middle East- not in America, where more than ever, we need a more just and equitable society. The question that I'm left with is that after witnessing the plutocratic orgy of the last few years, why aren't we all out there, waving banners and demanding change?