A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922, New York, - January 27, 2010, Santa Monica) was an American historian, playwright, philosopher, socialist thinker and World War II veteran.

Historian Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States chronicles American history from the bottom up, throwing out the official narrative taught in schools —with its emphasis on great men in high places— to focus on the street, the home, and the workplace. Known for its lively, clear prose as well as its scholarly research, it is the only volume to tell America's story from the point of view of —and in the words of— America's women, factory workers, African-Americans, Native Americans, the working poor, and immigrant laborers. As Zinn shows, many of our country's greatest battles —the fights for a fair wage, an eight-hour workday, child-labor laws, health and safety standards, universal suffrage, women's rights, racial equality— were carried out at the grassroots level, against bloody resistance. Covering Christopher Columbus's arrival through President Clinton's first term, A People's History of the United States features insightful analysis of the most important events in our history. This edition also includes an introduction by Anthony Arnove, who wrote, directed, and produced The People Speak with Zinn and who coauthored, with Zinn, Voices of a People’s History of the United States.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز بیست و چهارم ماه مارس سال2016میلادی

عنوان: ‏‫تاریخ آمریکا از سال1492میلادی تا سال2001میلادی؛ نویسنده: هاوارد (هوارد) زین؛ مترجم: مانی صالحی‌علامه؛ تهران، نشر آمه، سال1390، در928ص؛ شابک9789642071708؛ چاپ دوم سال1391؛ چاپ سوم سال1393؛ چاپ چهارم تهران، نشر اختران، سال1397؛ موضوع تاریخ آمریکا از نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م

این کتاب را استاد تاریخ نگار و دانشمند روانشاد «هوارد زین (سال1922میلادی - سال2010میلادی)» بر خلاف دیدگاهها و روشهای پیشین برای بازگویی تاریخ «آمریکا» که تأکید بر تشریح رویدادها از دیدگاه اشخاص توانمند و مطرح زمان داشتند، نگاشته اند؛ «هوارد» رویدادهای تاریخی را از دیدگاه مردمان عادی، و افرادی که برای بدست آوردن آزادی، حقوق مدنی، و بهبود شرایط اقتصادی خود، تلاش میکردند، همانند مهاجران نادار اروپایی، برده های آفریقایی، کارگران، و زنان بازگشایی میکنند؛ این کتاب سهم بسزایی در بازنگری و برداشت آمریکاییها از تاریخ کشورشان دارد، و تصویر بسیار دیگرگونه ای از قهرمانان سنتی تاریخ «آمریکا» همانند «کریستف کلمب»، «اندرو جکسون» و «تئودور روزولت» به نمایش میگذارد

کشتیهای بزرگ در ساحل پهلو گرفتند، و «کریستف کلمب» ظفرمند پا به خشکی گذاشت، تا سرزمینی نو را کشف کند؛ این روایتی رسمی از کشف «قاره آمریکا» بوده است؛ اما به راستی ساکنان بومی سواحل که به آن کشتیها نگاه میکردند، چه اندیشه ای و چه پایانی داشتند؛ روانشاد «هاوارد زین» در کتاب «تاریخ آمریکا» به روایت تاریخ، از زبان آن کسانی پرداخته اند، که تا اکنون سخنگویی نداشته اند، و البته ایشان به جای داوری اخلاقی، و سوگواری برای بگذشته ها، تلاش دارند تا تاریخ، از چشم دیگری هم دیده شود، و راه برای اندیشه ی بهتر گشوده گردد؛ برای همین «زین» به جای دمیدن در شیپور تاریخ دولتی، داستان کشف «قاره آمریکا» را از دیدگاه بومیان، و «آراواکها»، و ماجرای «قانون اساسی ایالات متحده» را، از دیدگاه بردگان سیاهپوست، و سرگذشت «اندرو جکسون» را، از دید «سرخپوستان چِروکی»، و ماجرای جنگ داخلی را، از دید «ایرلندیهای نیویورک»، و «جنگ مکزیک» را از دید سربازان فراری لشکر «ژنرال اسکات»، و پیدایش و توسعه صنایع، و صنعتمداری را از نگاه زنان جوان کارگر در «کارخانجات نساجی لاوِل»، و جنگ «اسپانیا و آمریکا» را از دیدگاه «کوباییها»، و اشغال «فیلیپین» را از دید سربازان «سیاهپوست لوزون»، و «دوران زراندود» را از نگاه «کشاورزان ایالات جنوبی»، و «جنگ جهانی نخست» را از دیدگاه سوسیالیستها، و «جنگ جهانی دوم» را از دیدگاه «صلح طلبان»، و «طرح نیودیل» یا «اصلاحات روزولت» را از چشم «سیاهپوستان محله ی هارلم»، و انحصارطلبی و سلطه ی آمریکای پس از جنگ جهانی را از دیدگاه «کارگران مزارع» در «آمریکای لاتین» مینگارند.

ایشان با تکیه بر سندها و به ویژه نوشتارهای بر جای مانده، و پژوهشهای پژوهشگران، نشان میدهند زمانی که «کلمب» وارد شد، شمار جمعیت مردمی که بر عرصه ی پهناور زمینهای «قاره آمریکا» پراکنده بودند، نزدیک به هفتاد و پنج میلیون بود، که شاید بیست و پنج میلیون تن از آنها ساکن «آمریکای شمالی» بودند؛ آنان در واکنش به شرایط گوناگون اقلیمی و خاک، صدها نوع فرهنگ قبیله ای گوناگون، و شاید دو هزار زبان گوناگون را پدید آورده بودند؛ آنان فن کشاورزی را به کمال رسانده، و دریافته بودند که چگونه باید ذرت را به عمل آورند، چون به صورت خودرو تکثیر نمیشد، و باید آن را کاشت و داشت و آبیاری میکردند، و پس از برداشت محصول، باید غلاف یا پوشش روی ذرت را میکندند، و دانه ها را جدا میکردند؛ آنها با نبوغی باور نکردنی انواع دیگری از میوه و سبزیجات از جمله «بادام زمینی»، «کاکائو»، «توتون» و «کائوچو» را پرورش میدادند

اساطیر و داستانهای برجای مانده، همگی از اندیشه ی والا، و دل پرمهر سرخپوستان حکایتها دارند، کما اینکه «کلمب» خود به روشنی به خوش قلبی آنها اشاره میکند، و البته آن را ساده لوحی میداند؛ براساس گزارش «کلمب»: (سرخپوستان بسیار ساده لوح هستند، و چنان به راحتی اموال و داراییهایشان را به دیگران میبخشند، که تا کسی به چشم خود نبیند، نمیتواند باور کند، آنگاه که شما تقاضای چیزی را میکنید که از آنِ آنهاست، هرگز نه نمیگویند؛ درست برعکس، آنها حاضر هستند همه چیزشان را با دیگران شریک باشند...)؛ «کلمب» در پایان گزارشش از اعلی حضرتین تقاضای یاری کوچکی کرده بود، و میگفت در برابر، در سفر دیگرش «هر قدر طلا که نیاز داشته باشند...؛ و هر تعداد برده که بخواهند» برایشان میآورد؛ به این ترتیب به خوبی پیداست که «کریستف کلمب» و اخلاف و جانشینانش، به بیابانی برهوت و خالی از سکنه نیامده بودند، بلکه به دنیایی وارد شده بودند که در بعضی محلها - درست همانند خود اروپا - جمعیت بسیاری زندگی میکردند، که فرهنگی پیشرفته و پیچیده داشتند، و روابط انسانی در میان آنها تکامل یافته تر از اروپاییان بود، و روابط میان مردان، زنان، کودکان و طبیعت، شاید زیباتر و دلپذیرتر از هر جای دیگری در دنیا، به دقت طراحی و تعیین شده بود؛ ساکنان بومی، مردمانی فاقد زبان نوشتاری بودند، اما قوانین ویژه ی خودشان، اشعار و تاریخشان را به یاد سپرده، و با واژگانی شفاهی، که شاید پیچیده تر و کاملتر از اروپاییها بود، همراه با آواز و رقص و نمایشهای آیینی، و سینه به سینه به نسلهای پس از خود جابجا میکردند؛ آنان توجه ویژه ای به رشد و پرورش شخصیت، پایداری اراده، خودمختاری فردی، توانایی همسانی، نرمش و حوصله، احساسات و عواطف، اقتدار و توانایی فردی و نیز همراهی و شراکت با یکدیگر و با طبیعت اطراف شان داشتند؛ اما رهآورد «کلمب» برای «اسپانیایی»ها چه بود؟ به روایت «زین» آن همه طلا و نقره ای که به تاراج رفت، و به «اسپانیا» برده شد، مردمان «اسپانیا» را غنیتر نکرد؛ تنها مدتی امکان برتری ناچیزی در موازنه ی قوا را به شاهان «اسپانیا» بخشید، و اینان فرصتی پیدا کردند، تا سربازان مزدور بیشتری، برای جنگهایشان اجیر کنند؛ آنان به هر حال جنگها را باختند و تنها چیزی که باقی ماند تورمی مرگبار، مردمانی گرسنه، ثروتمندتر شدن ثروتمندان، فقیرتر شدن فقیران و طبقه کشاورزی در هم شکسته بود

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 04/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Why write a history of the United States when you know it is one-sided and basically propaganda? I understand his stated reasons for writing the book but I think the truth is better than "this is propaganda to fight mainstream history that I think is propaganda." Any one-sided historical accounts are not worth people's time and knowingly writing one is a waste of time. The truth remains obscured.

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

What? You want the truth? What's wrong with you?

Howard Zinn saw a problem in the world, a great bias in our understanding of history, a history written by the winners--by tyrants and industrial magnates and warmongers--and so he did something about it: he created an equally flawed and opposed bias, just as carefully constructed to prop up his own one-sided conclusion, in an act which always calls to my mind Bob Dylan's line:
n  

"In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand. At the mongrel dogs who teach. Fearing not that I'd become my enemy. In the instant that I preach."

n
A staunch idealist, Zinn's standard method is to throw out the baby with the bathwater: he finds an imperfection in a plan or event, and declares that, since it it not perfect, it should be rejected, outright. There is no pragmatism, no sense of compromise, no utilitarian notion of 'the greater good' for Zinn--if there is a flaw in an action, then that action must be condemned.

He has come out as saying that war is never a solution, that since people died, the conflict of World War II is not excusable, that the cessation of the Fascist war machine was not worth the cost. Of course, this beggars the question: what else? Is there some better solution to the problem, is there anything else that could have been done to prevent it?

Likewise, he has rejected US intervention in Korea, despite the fact that when we look at the split Koreas today--the North a wasteland of violence, malnutrition, and ignorance, the South a modern nation with a thriving economy--it is difficult to argue that, despite the deaths in that war, the intervention was not, overall, a positive.

Certainly, I am not of the camp who believes the US to be some sort of 'World Hero', that we are justified in policing the world, or in enforcing our ideals upon other nations, but neither do I buy the image Zinn paints of the US as a hand-wringing Disney villain that ruins everything it touches--the real truth of the matter is somewhere in between.

Some things which the US has done, such as our interference in Afghanistan--well on its way to becoming a modernized, self-sustaining nation in the mid-20th Century--tearing down its government, arming its warlords, and making it the staging ground for our Cold War battles with Russia--are awful examples of selfishness forced upon the world. The actions of our government and intelligence community there were not for the greater good, they were at the expense of the Afghans to our own benefit, and there are many such damning examples, but to focus solely on them is just as bad as ignoring them entirely.

Zinn has received much credit for revealing truth, for reinvigorating our education system and our view of history, but honestly, his work was a bit late for that--already, such diverse perspectives were emerging, and while it took some time for them to trickle down to Middle Schools and the public consciousness, nothing in his book was a revelation to devoted students of history.

Even those historians who were sympathetic to minority experiences and opposed to the white-washing of history tended to condemn Zinn for cobbling together a poorly-researched work which took only those parts that were convenient to his thesis and left out all else--and beyond that, twisting and misrepresenting his sources to his own ends.

But his work is sensationalistic, and work of that sort has a way of finding its way into popular discussion, whether it is accurate or not. His opponents can cite him of an example of 'all that is wrong with that point of view', while his supporters are attracted by the fact that his work tends to cast as the true heroes of history the uninvolved thinker, the academic who talks a great deal, attends protests, but does not get his own hands dirty, since in Zinn's approach, to interact directly with the imperfect world is to sully one's self.

It's hardly surprising that, in the modern age of 'Entertainment News', as represented by the vehement spewing of incoherent bias, figures like Zinn and Chomsky should become elevated. Zinn's book is like the 'documentaries' n  Zeitgeistn, or n  What the Bleep Do We Know?n, like Daniel Quinn's n  Ishmaeln or Hesse's n  Siddharthan, or the writing of Bell Hooks--all works that are fundamentally more concerned with the author's prejudice than with anything resembling fact.

In college, it's not uncommon to find folks who are devoted to all of the above--and if there's a better way than that to say "I have relatively little capacity for critical thought, but need constant confirmation of my own specialness', I don't know it. But then, such works are liable to spark off movements--not because they are accurate or well-written, but because they flatter certain preconceptions in the person who reads or watches them--meaning that the movements they inspire are not far removed from cults, centered as they are on philosophies which do not correspond to reality.

It is truly sad that, in the end, the common state of politics can be boiled down to a question like 'Do you follow rush Limbaugh, or Kieth Olbermann?', when in fact both of them are equally sensationalistic purveyors of half-truths delivered by way of ideology-filled rants. One sometimes wonders what we might achieve if we were able to think of the world in terms other than false dichotomies--but since I, unlike Zinn, am not an idealist, I shall have to accept the fact that it's simply how the human mind works, and do my best to work within that system.

This is one of those books that I pick up on occasion and read another chapter. Want to know what REALLY happened in this country's history...minus the varnish and bullshit? Some of the names will be familiar, but this ain't your high school history book...

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

In 1846, in Concord, Massachusetts, the writer Henry David Thoreau ran into a tax collector called Sam Staples, who asked for his poll tax. Thoreau declined to pay, refusing – he said – to contribute to what he regarded as the government's illegal war against Mexico. He was put in prison.

When Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, ‘What are you doing in there?’ it was reported that Thoreau replied, ‘What are you doing out there?’

Howard Zinn is not in jail (he's dead), but the message to readers is much the same. This is a big book with a big chip on its shoulder. It's not really a history of the US at all, it's a kind of ‘Marxist Companion to’ American history – but none the worse for that, and Zinn can hardly be accused of concealing his biases. He's very upfront about the fact that this book ‘leans in a certain direction’. His reading of history is one dominated by social and economic inequality presided over by governments that protect capitalist interests at the expense of people's lives. And, as you might imagine, he's not short of examples.

It's interesting that many of those who dislike this book seem almost personally offended by it. That is worrying, because it suggests that American patriotism (which is almost a state religion) has succeeded in convincing people to identify themselves with their governments, one of the things that Zinn is trying, passim, to argue against. Certainly ‘America’ as a state does not come out of this very well, but I rather doubt that Zinn believes any other countries are much better; the point is only that the US is no different.

Instead of memorable dates or acts of statesmanship, then, we have a history of the disenfranchised and the working-classes, from Columbus to the War on Terror, demolishing the fiction that the US is a ‘classless’ society and establishing the importance of protest and activism in achieving any meaningful social advances.

In some cases this means coming at the familiar stories of American history from a new angle – as is the case with the settling of North America, which Zinn sees as straightforwardly genocidal, or his account of the ‘Roaring’ 1920s, which focuses on the country's staggering wealth disparity. Sometimes again, Zinn's approach is more or less in line with traditional narratives, as for instance when it comes to the civil rights movement. And finally there are the stories in here which you don't typically see in histories of the U.S. at all, such as the rise and ultimate fall of American unionism, something I, like most people in Europe, have often wondered about.

What I love about books that focus on protest movements is that they help break down the idea that countries are monolithic, or that the behavior of a state is even moderately successful in enacting the wishes of its populace. And the US has had some of the most courageous and eloquent protesters anywhere. Emerson may not have gone to jail for his beliefs like his friend Thoreau, but consider the letter he wrote to President Van Buren in 1838, on the subject of Indian Removal. The policy, he says, is

a crime that really deprives us as well as the Cherokees of a country for how could we call the conspiracy that should crush these poor Indians our government, or the land that was cursed by their parting and dying imprecations our country any more?

Others had the presence of mind to produce this stuff on the fly. Eugene Debs, jailed for speaking out against the First World War, told his judge in court:

Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

(And critics call this an anti-American book! You're cheering over heroic Americans the whole way through – they just happen to be in confrontation with their government most of the time. It's very moving, and I was a bit of an emotional wreck for much of the three weeks I spent reading it.) The gradual emancipation of women furnishes some of the best anecdotes. Elizabeth Blackwell, a doctor who got her medical degree in 1849 from Geneva College, wrote about one of her first cases, where she called in a local physician for consultation on a pneumonia patient:

This gentleman, after seeing the patient, went with me into the parlour. There he began to walk about the room in some agitation, exclaiming, “A most extraordinary case! Such a one never happened to me before; I really do not know what to do!” I listened in surprise and much perplexity, as it was a clear case of pneumonia and of no unusual degree of danger, until at last I discovered that his perplexity related to me, not to the patient, and to the propriety of consulting with a lady physician!

It was interesting to discover that many of the radical female activists of the early twentieth century – and there were a lot of awesome women involved in anarchist syndicates and that kind of thing – were ambivalent on the question of suffrage, regarding votes as, at best, a distraction from the real issue of class warfare. Zinn is broadly sympathetic, just because he likes people who are angry; indeed activists who take a more conciliatory approach don't always come off well here. Martin Luther King's ‘I have a dream’ speech, for instance, is ‘magnificent oratory, but’ – the crucial qualification – ‘without […] anger’.

All of the book's themes come together when it discusses war. There is a bracing résumé of the US's appalling military interference in Central America, and cynical (but convincing) discussions of Korea and Iraq. On Vietnam, Zinn is even more scathing than conventional wisdom would suggest – indeed, there is a sense that self-congratulatory cultural ‘admissions’ of failure have served to gloss over the ugly realities. Consider the 660 Vietnamese civilians massacred at My Lai, for example. The soldiers of Charlie Company took their time raping and dismembering the women, rounding up and killing the children, and forcing the rest of the villagers to lie down in ditches while they walked up and down shooting them, while divisional command staff watched from a helicopter. None of the anguished, important, self-examining Hollywood treatments of the conflict have come close to facing up to this kind of thing.

War is recognised here as a class issue. ‘If there is a war,’ wrote Bolton Hall in an appeal to the working classes in 1898, ‘you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory.’ Zinn encourages readers to consider what exactly is meant when politicians talk about the ‘national interest’, so often to be equated with corporate profits. But more generally, there is a welcome consideration of the justification for spending citizens' money on vast military projects instead of on ways to help those of them with no food, housing, or employment. As Eisenhower said, in a moment of rare presidential clarity:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

Welfare is one of the many issues on which both sides of the American political spectrum have united in inactivity, allowing the term itself to become almost a dirty word. (A similar process has happened with ‘socialism’.) In a 1992 survey, 44 percent of people thought too much was being spent on ‘welfare’, but 64 percent thought too little was being spent on ‘assistance to the poor’. *headdesk* Vocabulary is everything…

It's true that there is, at times, an unnecessarily conspiratorial tone here – the implication that some knowing capitalist-patriarchal cabal is deliberately manipulating events to the people's detriment. Events are manipulated to the people's detriment, but the reason is systemic rather than down to individual villains (though yes, there are some conspicuous exceptions). And the ruling classes can't win: advances in social justice or economical equality – of which there are, in fact, many – are attributed to an Establishment desire for ‘long-range stability of the system’ rather than to any humanitarian motives. Where concessions have been made, ‘the chief motive was practicality, not humanity’.

Zinn does say at one point that the American system ‘was not devilishly contrived by some master plotters; it developed naturally out of the needs of the situation’, but such reminders are only necessary because they are belied by his general stance. Still, over the 700-odd pages, I think the system is illustrated rather well. The account left me energised, fired-up. And people should be angry. As Zinn's history shows, the advances in American society have only come about because people got angry and forced the government to act. Now is certainly no time to stop.

5 Stars - Superb book, one of my all time favorites.

I've been meaning to read this for years and I am so glad I finally did! I knew from the cover that I would probably like this book because my favorite historian, Eric Foner, is quoted and gives a glowing review. This is a nice, hefty book and since it is a comprehensive history of the U.S., from what are probably considered non-traditional viewpoints, one might assume it's dry. However it is not. Zinn is able to describe historical events, movements, concepts from the perspectives of people history classes often leave out. There is even some historiography though not too much where the book is dry. Really there is a nice balance of facts, analysis and historiography. I will say that personally a lot of what might be considered new facts for some were not new for me. I attribute that to absolutely fantastic history teachers and professors I've had throughout my academic career. They really tried to give the whole picture - not the stereotypical rich, white male viewpoint. That being said, of course there were facts (and in some cases, whole movements) I was unaware of and I'm now glad I know about them. I'm going to refrain from giving a detailed analysis of each chapter because there is just so much to share, so I'm going to share some of my favorite thoughts and quotes.

One of the thoughts I had reading this, and want to share, is something that was eloquently described in season one, episode one of The Newsroom. The main character is asked what makes America the greatest country in the world, and after a few bullshit answers he let's loose.

It's not the greatest country in the world, professor! That's my answer.

I'll spare you the whole response, but if interested here  it is. There is this spoken and non-spoken belief that America is the greatest country in the world, and this book proves it is not. Now, that doesn't mean great things haven't happened and there haven't been incredible moments and eras. However, American history is stained with genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, etc. The U.S. is no better than any other country but there are things that make it unique and special. It's not perfect, never will be but if we can own up to our mistakes and try to make amends we can get on the right path.

Quotes

n  

"To emphasize the heroism of [Christopher] Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves - unwittingly - to justify what was done." -p. 9

n

n  

"The leaders of the Independence movement wanted to use that mob energy against England, but also to contain it so that it would not demand too much from them.: -p. 65

n

n  

"When feminist impulses are recorded, they are, almost always, the writings of privileged women[.]" -p. 110

n

I had to wait literally two years for this book to become available at my local library. Very encouraging to see this rise of civic responsibility in my community. Every U.S. citizen owes it to the country to understand our history, and few sources can compare to Zinn's impressive A to Z. It's about as far from an impartial account as I can imagine, and with good reason: Zinn wants to highlight the history of the U.S. not through a few heroic individuals but rather the larger body of its citizens.

I am pleased to report that a lot of his interpretation has entered America's cultural zeitgeist already. I am disappointed to report that relevant action in light of these histories remains to be seen.

Written with spirited vigor, Zinn directs his (not always engrossing) narrative to move quickly through his major points. Supporting text from primary sources is integrated well, and if anyone complains that he's cherry-picking his quotes the retort must be made that he's specifically selecting voices and focusing on events to support his argument. This is not an unbiased piece, nor is it meant to be. The Shelley quote he opens with makes pretty clear what type of action he's calling readers to.

3.5 stars out of 5. I didn't do much shopping around for editions and the one I read has lengthy sections at the end of each chapter with discussion questions or classroom guidance, so the page count is heavily padded. I also ended up first with the 1997 edition and finished the updated info from 2003 by eBook. This made my experience kind of disjointed - I would have preferred a version with the teaching materials excised.

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.

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.