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

[Dr. Oza]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peopl..._United_States

it was fascinating

shows the parts of american history that most seek to forget, ignore, or blot out

has anyone else read it?

if so, what are your thoughts

[Stavroforos]

This was mandatory reading in my high school's AP US History course.

The book is crap.

[Sun Devil]

This was mandatory reading in my high school's AP US History course.

The book is crap.

Same here. After two chapters I stopped reading because you knew exactly what he was going to say for every time period. It's the most boring book ever I think.

[SigniferOne]

Nobody seeks to "blot" out any parts of the American history, people only seek to put them in their proper perspective. Zinn, an explicit post-modernist and socialist, seeks to magnify those parts which seem to emphasize his thesis of class-struggle and multiculturalism, regardless of the facts and with a perverse notion of what constitutes justice in representation of history.

That's why a "People's" History of the United States -- an explicitly class-based framework for looking at history, which is immoral and has been made outdated decades ago, when Stalin began purging people.

[43rdFoot]

The author of that book had his conclusions set and only then looked for evidence to prove it. That is a fundamentally poor way to write history.

[razor-]

The author of that book had his conclusions set and only then looked for evidence to prove it. That is a fundamentally poor way to write history.

That pretty much sums up all marxist history books.

[Gromovnik]

That pretty much sums up all marxist history books.

yeah, but it's also true for every other -ist books. When the author pushes his agenda from page 1, the result is predictable.

[Ardruire Iacób]

yeah, but it's also true for every other -ist books. When the author pushes his agenda from page 1, the result is predictable.

If they can argue their point with enough evidence, then it at least ought to still be considered. If they pretend that their bias is objective, then feel free to demean it.

[conon394]

That's why a "People's" History of the United States -- an explicitly class-based framework for looking at history, which is immoral and has been made outdated decades ago, when Stalin began purging people.

Sig I don't see how Zinn's analytical framework is rendered immoral by Stalin. The US might have a relative loose class structure in comparative terms but that does not mean it has not at any one time had many 'classes' or elites who perceived many types of people as distinctly underclass. The work is polemical certainly but a valuable polemic even if wrong - since it forces represents a different view that if you disagree with it has to countered. A historical framework based on just CW is hardly sound.

[Garbarsardar]

Sig I don't see how Zinn's analytical framework is rendered immoral by Stalin. The US might have a relative loose class structure in comparative terms but that does not mean it has not at any one time had many 'classes' or elites who perceived many types of people as distinctly underclass. The work is polemical certainly but a valuable polemic even if wrong - since it forces represents a different view that if you disagree with it has to countered. A historical framework based on just CW is hardly sound.

No, you don't get it.

Stalin kills people from 1930 to 1952. Stalin is a commie. Red. Socialist. Because of that everyone who has an viewpoint that can be considered by someone else as "socialist" is immoral. His family and his dog as well. Now, 28 years after the death of Stalin someone is writing a book. He has a viewpoint that someone could consider "socialist". Therefore he, his viewpoint, family, dog and pet monkey are immoral. Actually all books we don't like are immoral. Hitler knew that and burned lots of those. That taught them to be immoral. And retrospectively outdated.

[SigniferOne]

Sig I don't see how Zinn's analytical framework is rendered immoral by Stalin. The US might have a relative loose class structure in comparative terms but that does not mean it has not at any one time had many 'classes' or elites who perceived many types of people as distinctly underclass.

By being adamant against perspectives which embrace class-struggle, I am hardly protesting against the fact itself of classes existing. Obviously they do; different ranks of people, with different social positions, have existed and will always exist. You don't have to be a Howard Zinn to talk about the different classes in society, perhaps the struggles of one, the achievements of another etc.

But Zinn talks about American history in the same way as many other intellectuals who had embraced the word "People", for instance as People's Republic of China, or People's Democratic Republic of Korea. He views American history in a Marxist framework; not just of classes and their struggles, but the inherent virtue of the Worker class, the inherent vice of the Capital-holding class, the history of the country as a history of exploitation of the former by the latter, etc.

This is the framework that was revealed to be immoral by people who actually put it into practice in actual countries. But we shouldn't be so surprized, because Marx himself called for extermination of those who are undesirable in his Das Kapital. Thus I will not withhold myself from calling the whole Marxist system immoral. Not only is it wrong for for its murders, it is doubly wrong for its institutionalizing of theft and robbery. If the Capitalists are by definition exploiting the Workers, then it is only just for the Workers to rise up and take what's theirs is it not? By such sophistry this disgusting philosophy tries to spread its word.

[Garbarsardar]

By being adamant against perspectives which embrace class-struggle, I am hardly protesting against the fact itself of classes existing. Obviously they do; different ranks of people, with different social positions, have existed and will always exist. You don't have to be a Howard Zinn to talk about the different classes in society, perhaps the struggles of one, the achievements of another etc.

But Zinn talks about American history in the same way as many other intellectuals who had embraced the word "People", for instance as People's Republic of China, or People's Democratic Republic of Korea. He views American history in a Marxist framework; not just of classes and their struggles, but the inherent virtue of the Worker class, the inherent vice of the Capital-holding class, the history of the country as a history of exploitation of the former by the latter, etc.

This is the framework that was revealed to be immoral by people who actually put it into practice in actual countries. But we shouldn't be so surprized, because Marx himself called for extermination of those who are undesirable in his Das Kapital. Thus I will not withhold myself from calling the whole Marxist system immoral. Not only is it wrong for for its murders, it is doubly wrong for its institutionalizing of theft and robbery. If the Capitalists are by definition exploiting the Workers, then it is only just for the Workers to rise up and take what's theirs is it not? By such sophistry this disgusting philosophy tries to spread its word.

It is one thing to criticise a book on methodological grounds and a totally different one to reject a whole category of historiography because of what you perceive as its conceptual framework.

The first is a valid scientific process, the second is exactly what every totalitarian government did. It is ironic that you simultaneously berate Stalin and reject books as immoral.

Apart from that, it is unfortunate that you will never have the pleasure to enjoy, say, The Mediterranean (The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II)) of Fernand Braudel. And it is a good example, here. Braudel and the whole group of Annales, used Marxist principles (analysis of economic-social structures) while rejecting at the same time the aspect of Marxist Class History. Still it was "immoral", I guess...

[conon394]

Personally I find the book sloppy and emotional but useful for example (with respect to Bill Clinton’s nominees for the SC)

“He showed the same timidity in the two appointments he made to the Supreme Court, making sure that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would be moderate enough to be acceptable to Republicans as well as to Democrats. He was not willing to fight for a strong liberal to follow in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan”

So as a democrat and a liberal was Bill Clinton really failing to fight the good fight. Nope Zinn forgets that Brennan was nominated by Ike and not to be Liberal voice on the court. Further Brennon views became more liberal in reaction to a perceived right leaning of the court in his later years. Similarly Suter the SC judge was not really the judge I think GB senior though he was nominating.

See for me Zinn is a useful tool to remember all is not as we remember it and the day in day out world of Democracy is never neat and tidy

In fact his chapter is all over the map – Clinton should have cut the military, but some how what bullied Yeltsin more, gotten rid of Grenspan because he didn’t worry about jobs enough but not worried about job losses that would have resulted from economically punishing China, Mexico, Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia (besides what about his first chapter and the West imposing itself on the New World cultures – so making Indians change bad, making Arabs change good?)

Look I think the work is weak, polemical, emotional and frankly often silly and sell contradictory. But one is always better of at least knowing what the extreme right and left think so you can see how poor their analysis really is.

[Ramashan]

Its not a book you can take in a vacuum. It does however point out many events that did historically occur that we are never taught about. It helps balance out what is going on in society. When all you learn about are those in power, is it acceptable to disregard what the working class is going through? Should we ignore the events that were unseemly because they might tarnish the beliefs entertwined in our culture.

If you read the book and ignore Zinn's opinion of the situation, you do get a well rounded look at what was going on in history.

Honestly, when people talk about getting rid of unions and regulation on industry I think of what the workers were going through before all this and have to say that that is not a viable solution. And much of that is based on information I read in Zinn as well as The Jungle and reading the source material at the time that my professor made us read in order to understand why The Jungle was written. It happened, you can't deny it. Its just a matter of what you use the information for and doing further research on your own.

[Ramashan]

If the Capitalists are by definition exploiting the Workers, then it is only just for the Workers to rise up and take what's theirs is it not? By such sophistry this disgusting philosophy tries to spread its word.

In a society that demands that the individual take responsibility for their welfare and not the government, does the work have a right to stand up to foul play by the employer? Especially in a society of either you accept what ever work is given or you starve. Do workers have any rights what so ever? Or do they either work where they can for what ever's offered or starve?

Refusing to even accept the struggle of the working class as a form of acceptable history is more on the scale of sticking your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut because your not happy with what your looking at in my opinion.

[conon394]

But Zinn talks about American history in the same way as many other intellectuals who had embraced the word "People", for instance as People's Republic of China, or People's Democratic Republic of Korea. He views American history in a Marxist framework; not just of classes and their struggles, but the inherent virtue of the Worker class, the inherent vice of the Capital-holding class, the history of the country as a history of exploitation of the former by the latter, etc.

This is the framework that was revealed to be immoral by people who actually put it into practice in actual countries. But we shouldn't be so surprised, because Marx himself called for extermination of those who are undesirable in his Das Kapital. Thus I will not withhold myself from calling the whole Marxist system immoral. Not only is it wrong for for its murders, it is doubly wrong for its institutionalizing of theft and robbery. If the Capitalists are by definition exploiting the Workers, then it is only just for the Workers to rise up and take what's theirs is it not? By such sophistry this disgusting philosophy tries to spread its word.

I guess I don't see the link as such Sig - class based analysis by historians is not Stalinist totalitarianism - and in the case of Russia or France one can hardly ignore the reality of elite oppression of a grand scale the elite really did dig their own graves...

But what I'm objecting to is calling Zinn immoral or something to be ignored. Calling his book immoral is drifting close to suggesting some ideals need to be suppressed - I don't hold to that. Even vile Nazi crap should be allowed so that it can be exposed for junk it is.

In Zinn's case I would say he is in reality a very weak advocate of the ideology you suggest - rather he wrote a history of America as Zinn would have it criticizing every thing Zinn would not have done if he had godlike power (ie not an elected leader of a democracy – that the neat thing about right history you never have to try an too all the crap you complain about no one else doing) - in fact reading his work he is certainly no democratic and champion of the people - or only a champion of an idealized people that uniformly do what he believes or wants irrespective of their own needs or interests or the self contradictory cost and arguments he espouses from one chapter to the next.

If I were teaching History I would very much make it a to be read text since is a very good example of the kind of slip shod biased historical analysis that comes form the political extremes and pervades the net now ..

Example:

"Beneath the noise of enthusiastic patriotism, there were many people who thought war was wrong, even in the circumstances of Fascist aggression. Out of 10 million drafted for the armed forces during World War II, only 43,000 refused to fight. But this was three times the proportion of C.O.'s (conscientious objectors) in World War 1. Of these 43,000, about 6,000 went to prison, which was, proportionately, four times the number of C.O.'s who went to prison during World War I. Of every six men in federal prison, one was there as a C.O.

Many more than 43,000 refusers did not show up for the draft at all. The government lists about 350,000 cases of draft evasion, including technical violations as well as actual desertion, so it is hard to tell the true number, but it may be that the number of men who either did not show up or claimed C.O. status was in the hundreds of thousands-not a small number. And this in the face of an American community almost unanimously for the war. "

Sounds impressive – Zinn has found the peoples disgust with the WW2… or not.

In this case the 10 million number for WW2 is actual drafted men into the armed serves not selective service registration (which is also not a credible number it excludes women in the military and possibly the Marines, and the Navy). But let’s let it stand as the relative number for Army and (maybe) Marines…

With a little poking about In WW1 as far as I can tell the US WW1 Total of actual drafted soldiers in the ‘army’ was no more than 4 million with only 2.5 million serving abroad.

Given WW1 saw some 300,000 draft avoiders with far less mobilization than WW2 one begins to see the weakness of his argument that we should be impressed with 350,000 draft avoiders in WW2. CO number seem in line with the 3-4 times expansion in US manpower drafts… not some indication of popular disgust with the war (WW2).

[EmperorBatman999]

I got that book from my teacher as an award, but too bad I hate US history.

[Tiberius Tosi]

In a 1998 interview, Zinn said he had set "quiet revolution" as his goal for writing A People's History. "Not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions. In the workplace, the workers would take power to control the conditions of their lives."

Using history and writing history to achieve such ends is just wrong. To write a history book with the sole intent of causing a change means that you are focusing only on what will cause those people to do so, and therefore are omitting much of history and only cutting out and manipulating what facts benefit your ends. Historical textbooks like this are supposed to be as neutral in tone as possible, not as a means of causing people to change their conditions now by giving them a distorted view of the past to believe their lives are not what they think they are now.

I got that book from my teacher as an award, but too bad I hate US history.

If you can call this book US History to begin with, it is pseudo-history and borderline conspiracy (almost more of a social-conflict sociological history theory than an actual history textbook). And yes, the majority of US History is quite boring (1816-1860 is somewhat boring, and 1866-1913 is mind-bogglingly boring lol, with the Gilded Age making one want to shove a pencil through their eyeballs).

[EmperorBatman999]

If you can call this book US History to begin with, it is pseudo-history and borderline conspiracy (almost more of a social-conflict sociological history theory than an actual history textbook). And yes, the majority of US History is quite boring (1816-1860 is somewhat boring, and 1866-1913 is mind-bogglingly boring lol, with the Gilded Age making one want to shove a pencil through their eyeballs).

I never bothered reading it. And never will, especially since it's written by some Marxist.
And don't forget the "roaring" twenties. That was a boring time, atleast in my opinion. Only thing that made it interesting was the stock market crash and Prohibition.

[conon394]

Refusing to even accept the struggle of the working class as a form of acceptable history is more on the scale of sticking your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut because your not happy with what your looking at in my opinion.

But Zinn is all over the map he is not writing about the working class but what ever bugs him at any time without any reference to to how he would solve the issue or make it better or even critically considering the actual nature of the democracy he his busy throwing stones at - presidents are not Tsars (their word is not law) but Zinn acts like they are.

I mean most odiously he brings up the US didn't stop the holocaust - how? Either he means we have the right to intervene in any country wherever we find something Zinn does not like but not when someone else does (ie it OK to topple Hitler to save Jews but not Aztecs to stop blood sacrifice that's indigenous culture)... or what exactly should have done in WW2. Most camps were far out of US and UK bomber ranger without landing in Russia something Stalin would not allow, and until late in the war the missions needed required daylight raids that were were unsustainable without escort. The Allies only had so many bomber would Zinn demand diverting attacks against fuel and critical war targets to maybe damage camp rail head for a day or two (or kill camp prisoner) but see the war extended for how long?

How can he criticize Bill Clinton for failing to slash military spend to zero but than negatively attack the US for no intervening in Europe before 1941. The only way the US could influence Hitler was to have a ,massive military build up comparable to Germany or Japan but than FDR would be a fascist and what would give him the right to dictate policy to Germany - if Cotez didn't have the right to stop the Aztecs...