...
Show More
As a reference or an additional information source, this isn't terrible (4 stars). It really does hit a lot of high points & some that other histories have left out. The writing is good. While dry, it is readable & conveys a lot of information. My copy is an old one that only goes through the Vietnam war. He has updated versions to 2003, I believe.
It is NOT a balanced view of our history & is proposed reading for schools (minus 1 star). It shouldn't be unless read with other materials as it only tells part of the story. If you want to know anything about how minority groups were mistreated, you'll find it here. While accurate, the view is so unbalanced as to become nauseating after a while (minus another star). While most historians have an axe to grind, most do it more subtly than Zinn does.
To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't gossip nor present any incorrect facts, he does present his facts in such a way as to slam our government at every turn. He does bring up some points that many other histories have glossed over, though (add one star).
For instance, in the early history of the United States, he is very careful to point out every group not represented by the Constitution, yet makes no mention of the fact that these people were not represented before the Revolution either. It's good that he brings up the point, but not so great that he leaves the impression that they obviously should have been. It wasn't obvious to the people of that time that they should have been represented. Men of property made the decisions & always had. Women, slaves & men without property didn't get a say. That they eventually did says a lot for the foundation these men laid, which Zinn carefully avoids.
So overall it is a good thing to read, but only with another history to balance it at hand.
Update 4Jun2014: It's agenda is obvious enough that it was runner up as the least credible history book in print.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/a...
Update 25Aug2014: According to this, the first slave owner in the U.S. was a black tobacco farmer. In Chapter 2, Zinn states that while 'some historians think' that blacks were 'servants' (a usage that many southerners used during the Civil War) they were probably treated differently than white indentured servants. He never mentions the information in this article:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_13...
which states that the first black slave owner was a black man who was an indentured servant, worked off his debt to become a freeman & tobacco farmer who then wound up 'owning' his own indentured, black servant. The article goes on to further say there were thousands of black slave owners in the south, something I've never read about elsewhere. Interesting. People can just suck without reference to sex, color, or creed...
:(
It is NOT a balanced view of our history & is proposed reading for schools (minus 1 star). It shouldn't be unless read with other materials as it only tells part of the story. If you want to know anything about how minority groups were mistreated, you'll find it here. While accurate, the view is so unbalanced as to become nauseating after a while (minus another star). While most historians have an axe to grind, most do it more subtly than Zinn does.
To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't gossip nor present any incorrect facts, he does present his facts in such a way as to slam our government at every turn. He does bring up some points that many other histories have glossed over, though (add one star).
For instance, in the early history of the United States, he is very careful to point out every group not represented by the Constitution, yet makes no mention of the fact that these people were not represented before the Revolution either. It's good that he brings up the point, but not so great that he leaves the impression that they obviously should have been. It wasn't obvious to the people of that time that they should have been represented. Men of property made the decisions & always had. Women, slaves & men without property didn't get a say. That they eventually did says a lot for the foundation these men laid, which Zinn carefully avoids.
So overall it is a good thing to read, but only with another history to balance it at hand.
Update 4Jun2014: It's agenda is obvious enough that it was runner up as the least credible history book in print.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/a...
Update 25Aug2014: According to this, the first slave owner in the U.S. was a black tobacco farmer. In Chapter 2, Zinn states that while 'some historians think' that blacks were 'servants' (a usage that many southerners used during the Civil War) they were probably treated differently than white indentured servants. He never mentions the information in this article:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_13...
which states that the first black slave owner was a black man who was an indentured servant, worked off his debt to become a freeman & tobacco farmer who then wound up 'owning' his own indentured, black servant. The article goes on to further say there were thousands of black slave owners in the south, something I've never read about elsewhere. Interesting. People can just suck without reference to sex, color, or creed...
:(
