Howard Zinn: "A people's History of the United States"

[Zhade]

Poll question: Howard Zinn: "A people's History of the United States"

I'm reading the 20th Anniversary edition, and have really found it fascinating and detailed. So, how many have read it? Did you find it informative? Is it biased, like the librarian at my library said it was, or do you find it to be very honest?

If you've read it and didn't like it, can I ask why?

(EDIT: Subject line did not like the apostrophe after Zinn. Subject edited.)

[proud patriot]

1. I've read it , I love everything Zinn ,

yes I'm, bias ;-)

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[murielm99]

3. If your librarian said it was biased, she is probably a

right winger.

It contains history that you don't get in the usual history books.

Maybe she is only comfortable with Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, Pochahontas saved John Smith's life, and all the other mythology they feed us as kids.

I liked it.

[Zhade]

39. Yeah - it really threw me off for her to give me her opinion.

I did NOT like it.

[murielm99]

44. I was a librarian for many years.

In a public library, one of your jobs is reader's advisory.

We kept a whole list of series, and read-alikes. People would often ask for books in a series, or by the same author. They would ask for something similar, too. Of course, this mostly applies to fiction.

But they also asked for advice on non-fiction. "I'm looking for something good about the Civil War."

Inter library loan is great, too, if you don't have everything.

I offered my opinion if it was positive. If it was negative, I only gave my opinion when asked, or I referred the patron to some brief review. I NEVER just volunteered a negative opinion. "Well, it was not my kind of book, or not to my taste, but you may like it. Try it and see. Let me know." People always wanted to discuss what they had read. Why would anyone discourage a person from reading a book?

However, I live in a small town, and they did not pay me much. I also had some very interfering and conservative board members. I quit before they ran me out.

Some of the more influential people in this little place have a habit of casting off people they don't agree with, or like. They run them out of town. I have seen it happen to a couple of pastors, a teacher, a football coach and a couple of police chiefs. We farm here. I wanted to keep my reputation, and raise my family. It was better to find another job.

[Zhade]

59. Her opinion was unsolicited. I mentioned the title, she made the remark.

Completely unprofessional, IMHO.

[jaysunb]

4. your librarian

is full of shit !!

[Disturbed]

5. A must read..

for anyone interested in the real history of the USA.

It debunks the fairy tale of America that is taught in school.

[MountainLaurel]

57. Another great one:

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen

[wysi]

6. My own view...

I had Zinn for Poly Sci at BU in 1987 and was later reasonably well-acquainted with him. He's a terrific guy, and very much practices what he preaches (and came to his views through experience with war and suffering).

[johnfunk]

7. DUers should buy it, and start with the chapter on Vietnam...

... it's eerily prescient.

[Lone_Wolf]

8. It is a great book...

I can't imagine why your librarian would say it is biased. Zinn's thesis is that history is often told from the point of view of the conquerers. The problem with this is only half of the story is told. In other words, the history we learn is sanitized. Zinn makes up for this by simply telling history from the point of view of the conquered.

For example, we in school we learn that Christopher Colombus was an explorer who discovered the New World. About the biggest criticism he receives in most history books is he thought he was in India. We donlt learn that Christopher Columbus enslaved the Arawaks of the Bahamas and is largely responsible for their genocide all in the quest for gold. What was Zinn's source for this? Columbus's own logs.

[KoKo]

13. Good description of it...Yes, it tells the other "half" of the story. It'

s very good. You won't look at American History quite the same way after reading it. Really makes you rethink some policies we've taken for granted.

[FlyByNight]

9. Should be required reading

Terrific book.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

10. Marxist bias. Missed some key social movements & events.

Just two glaring misses in an imperfect book:

His treatment of WWI pretty much ignores the anti-German hysteria, which was a major feature of the homefront during that war, and had a deep affect on the German-American community.

His treatement of the 1960s and its aftermath misses gay liberation as a movement that surfaced from the 60s to be become a major social & political movement of the last 30 years.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

11. On edit...a caveat.

Zinn does tell an "other sides" story..pulling together things from various sources into one volume, so this book is valuable becuase of that...saves the reader alot of reading into labor and minority history.

But this book should not be read as a primary source or a primary reading in US history. I would use this book as a supplement to some other general survey of US history.

[Zhade]

40. What about when the two directly clash - what then?

For example, the fairy tale that all the Founding Fathers were perfect - when, of course, many of them owned slaves, were the elite who wanted to keep the masses down, etc.

[paulk]

12. I read it a long time ago

not as sold on it now as I was then, but I'd definately still recommend it as a good starting place.

[Kenneth ken]

14. I've read it, and of course it's biased

that is largely the point of his writing it; to counter-balance the corporate-dominated view of history which is forced on students in this country.

It is a very good book, definitely should be required reading, not to exclude other histories, but to supplement. The purpose of reading history is to get as many accurate views as possible, and form one's own opinion on what is good vs what is bad.

Isn't that also what news of current events is all about? Learning the truth so one can make informed decisions?

[troublemaker]

15. Well said

[Kenneth ken]

17. thank you.

I try to make my posts sound intelligent. :D

[rinsd]

55. Bingo! (nt)

[troublemaker]

16. It's biased, but was written with that intention

for a spectacular middle of the road survey that's easy to find in used book stores, I recommend

THE OXFORD HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
by Samuel Eliot Morison (sic) 1965

It's the most perfectly balanced thing I've ever read. Like all great history it's by a liberal of the classical type; essentially a moderate Democrat.

[Kenneth ken]

18. Thanks! I added t to my list. n/t

[durutti]

19. It's not "biased" at all.

It only seems that way because the whole point of the book is to cover history from the point of view of the oppressed. We're accustomed to the view from the boot-wearer, rather than those trampled on. For this reason, the book tends to make the white, male, right-wing, and/or well-off uncomfortable. I suspect your librarian is one or more of these things.

[K-W]

20. Not a very bright librarian, all history is biased.

That is the entire point of the book. You cant make an unbiased account of history, because turning history into a narrative is always a biased process.

The point of his book is to give a narrative that is just as supported by facts as any other narrative, but presents a very different picture of things. History from the perspective of people who's perspectives are usually ignored in standard history books.

The only issue is whether or not his facts are supported.

[Zhade]

41. "The only issue is whether or not his facts are supported."

Do you contend that his facts are not supported, or are you saying that's what OTHERS say?

[milkyway]

21. A life-altering read. I read it when I was 23 and haven't been the same

since.

[Darranar]

22. Fantastic book. n/t

[RobertDevereaux]

23. An eye-opener! n/t

Zinn is a true patriot.

And his son-in-law, Jon Kabat-Zinn, is a great spiritual guru as well.

[Digger]

24. Oh yeah,

it's a good read for all open minded literate people.

Too bad this is only a small percentage of the population.

[PassingFair]

25. I particularly enjoyed

The history of the labor movement. Eugene Debs rules!
I had actually expected the book to be a lot more biased.
Seemed like a factual layout of our history to me...

[OnionPatch]

26. I'm reading it now!!

I almost posted about it the other day. There is some really fascinating stuff in there. For example, there was a lot of opposition to WWI and protests, etc.
If this book is biased, then so are the history books you read in school. I don't consider it biased at all. It's merely told from a different perspective. And it's about time someone told it from this perspective.
PS. I just read the part about Debs today! What a hero. I had never heard of him!

[Lone_Wolf]

45. That's EXACTLY why people need to read his book...

People simply don't know who historic figures like Eugene V. Debs or "Big" Bill Haywood are. Many people have heard of Helen Keller, but don't know that she was a Socialist and one of the first feminists. That part of her story has been sanatized. Most people don't know that the Government sided with the Robber Barons and used troops to put down strikes.

The fact is labor has a interesting, coloful, and tragic history. The Elites have known that people can't learn from history if they don't know it. This is why we get their preferred version. They don't want us learning our past and organizing.

[laura888]

48. Yup. We MUST have something to counter the History Channel

Talk about bias! Gross glorification of war, 24/7.

[Mr_Spock]

27. There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent peopl

[Zhade]

42. Excellent quote. Sums it all up for me.

NT!

[last_texas_dem]

28. I actually own it but haven't yet read it

I have between twenty and thirty books lined up to read; books that I bought while I was in college and didn't have time to read anything but the materials I was assigned to read for class! Now I have more time and am slowly making my way through the stack... I'm a bit intimidated by People's History b/c of its size but it looks like it will be really good...

[Selwynn]

29. Howard Zinn himself says its biased - there is no such thing as unbiased..

..history.

Zinn says, and I'm paraphrasing here, that we can strive to be "objective" in the sense that don't deliberately lie or distort the information we present, deliberately skew the truth or in anyway purposely attempt to mislead. However, that's the end of our attempts at "objectivity." He says that by the mere decision of a historian as to what events he will choose to include vs. what he chooses to exclude, he has already demonstrated a bias - you can't cover history objectively. We place some events at higher importance than others simply by our decision to cover some events and not others - and that is a subjective choice.

Zinn's aim has been to cover the parts of history that others have not, and to tell history from the perspective not of the conqueror, but the conquered, not from those in power, but from those struggling for their rights, not from the victors who normally tell history, but from the perspective of those who have fought with such honor through our history for rights, freedom, liberties, and justice - and who have barely earned even a mention in the history books of our schools. Zinn takes the conventional ideology of the ruling class and instead tells the story of America from the perspective of the poor black woman, the young immigrant, the native American, the laborer, the working class, and so on.

Zinn's work is not "biased" in the sense that it is distorted, unfair, inaccurate or dishonest. It is certainly uncomfortable to the comfortable ruling dogma and ideology of the day. It contains history beyond the pasteurized and spun history selectively spoon fed to us in public education. It is likely to be one of the more authentic and genuine books you'll ever ready. It may also be painful by challenging some of your long held assumptions. People that talk about the books "bias" and mean that it is somehow inaccurate or misleading are most likely uncomfortable and defensive about its unflinching and honest look at our messy, ugly, often violent, very frequently unjust past. But that is what you see when you have the courage to look at our past with eyes open and hearts honest. The benefit to seeing this, is that we might one day - finally - choose to learn something from it.

Sel

[clyrc]

30. I've read half of it

some day I want to finish it, because I did like it very much.

[YoQuieroLiberty]

31. Didn't like it

Biased is fine. Applying the same bias to about 400 years of history is just plain silly and tiresome.

[dpibel]

35. I take it then,

that you found your middle- and high-school American history classes utterly insufferable.

[YoQuieroLiberty]

50. Nope

Not at all. And I had quite a few lefty teachers, especially in college.

I just don't like Zinn's book very much. Sorry.

[Zhade]

43. Telling the untold side of the story is "plain silly and tiresome"?

Wow. Uh, welcome to DU, I guess. You might not be here long - you'll probably find the "bias" (toward things like, you know, the truth) "plain silly and tiresome".

[YoQuieroLiberty]

49. If it goes on for 400 years, maybe

Sorry, I just don't buy that every significant event in American history is the direct result of someone specifically seeking to screw someone else. It's still a good book.

[Selwynn]

53. Why don't you?

The only "bias" that is really present in the book is the bias of choosing to cover different aspects of history than what is normally taught. If someone it is claiming it is "biased" in that it distorts the truth or is dishonest in its facts, I'll challenge that claim. If you specifically disagree with the historicity of these accounts, then please provide me some credible counter-examples.

Otherwise, your only support for your position is you don't like Zinn's book because you don't want to think about the fact that a large part of your history isn't the glorious and Nobel adventure through time that is usually spoon fed to American people by the establishment. I meet lots of people like you; there only defense to facing reality is to say, "I just refuse to believe it is that way." Well, that's not rational - that's just blind ignorance. It's more a psychological/emotionalistic dependency that says "I need to believe that everything America says or does is perfectly good, more than I need to look for truth." That's the prevailing attitude today.

The biggest problem with Zinn's book is not its validity or accuracy - criticisms of the book are rarely challenging the factual accuracy of his account, but only the choice of his selection of accounts - the biggest criticism is that Zinn has the gall to tell history's stories that directly challenge the deeply embedded ideologies of the nation, and remind us of those we left behind, and force us to take a look at something many if not most don't enjoy looking at - the way life is for the working class poor people of America, and their American history, which is a much different history than that of the wealthiest elites and power brokers.

So unfortunately, arguments against the book which basically say "I didn't like it because I don't want to believe that our history is anything by noble and glorious, and I don't want to be reminded of the stories of the forgotten, or the exploited, just don't cut it for me. I would encourage you to take a second, serious read. Not one where you read the book for school in a week's time by blazing through all the pages with your mind only half engaged. But one where, on your own time, you read slowly and carefully from start to finish. An endeavor like that would take you several weeks of 1 hour a day investments.

Don't skip or skim, make notes about what you read and ask yourself why you think and feel what you think and feel about what you are reading - is it based in anything logical, is it emotional, is it content related or application related, if you think something is unfair, think about why - can you make a strong case, do you have any counter-evidence, etc. Study other material related to subjects in the book that particularly challenge you. That's how one should read a book. And one really isn't in much of a place to evaluate a book if one can't honestly say that he/she read it with that level of seriousness.

Sel

[Zhade]

54. Ah, but that's false reasoning.

See, it's certainly not the case that Zinn is saying "every significant event in American history is the direct result of someone specifically seeking to screw someone else" - just that history is written by the victors (duh) and a lot of the screwing-over is secondary, caused by those looking out for themselves alone.

But then, since you claimed to have read it, you already know this. Since this is not an honest portrayal of Zinn's book, I wonder what your real beef with it is.

[G_j]

32. should be rquired reading IMO n/t

[strategery blunder]

33. I read it for AP history

I found the bias refreshing. I do believe it is biased, but I'm also a firm believer in "all history is biased," so that is not a criticism.

I enjoyed it so much that I paid the school district off as if I had destroyed the book. It still sits on my bookshelf, ready for reference.:)

My favorite essays from the book are "Robber Barons and Rebels," "The Empire and the People," and "The Impossible Victory: Vietnam."

Edit for evil, freeperlike punctuation mistake:)

[tedzbear]

34. I finished reading the whole thing last month!

It really opened my eyes to the "other side" of American history that I didn't get in school.

Thanks to Zinn I am now seriously on the look out for the next big third party like the Populist Party in the nineteenth century. It's time we had a party that stood up for the working class and the poor instead of what we have now.
This November is the last time I will be voting Democratic Party (Kerry-Edwards). After that I will be voting Green or whatever the next Populist Party will turn out to be.

Power to the people! The class war is NOW!

:kick:

[UdoKier]

36. Love it. The only history book written from the viewpoint of the underdog

Almost ever other history book is told from the standpoint of the rich investor that created a marketing empire (while crushing unions and exploiting workers) , or the general who (riding over the corpses of his own soldiers) won the war. We are stuck in this iconography that the millions of everyday people who get trampled by the "movers and shakers" are ALWAYS ignored.

It should definitely be required reading. It's factual, and it doesn't allow you to look at historical events with a kind of jaded detachment.

[laura888]

47. Exactly! Well put! n/t

[0rganism]

37. In the immortal words of Rob Corddry, "the facts themselves are biased."

People's History is both biased -- unabashedly so -- and honest. Depending on your relationship with history studies, you may find it to be a very informative text regarding events you never heard about, or you might see it as a droll exercise in perspective shift.

[Lactar]

38. indifferent

Its good as an "other side" book, but a lot of the
stuff is irrelevent or thrown togeather.

[Zhade]

60. Gee, big surprise...

:eyes:

[Laughing Mirror]

46. For those of us who cannot or will not read People's History of the United

Matt Damon reads it for us, audio links at this archived DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1004061

[IrateCitizen]

51. I found it to be one of the most incredible books I've ever read

To those who claim that it's biased, my answer is, "Well, DUH! ALL history is biased." Zinn even acknowledges this in his introduction, that all historians are innately biased because of what they choose to include and what they choose to leave out.

Zinn's book is extremely important because it provides a PERSPECTIVE of history that is different from the one that we are commonly taught -- that is, it gives the perspective of the vanquished, the oppressed, those struggling against the powerful for their rights.

The book cannot be denounced as "untrue" because of the massive amount of supporting material included in it. One can disagree with Zinn's overall perspective, that the common theme of history is primarily a struggle by the masses against the rich and powerful, but it's impossible to dispute the accuracy of his supporting information.

Personally, this book changed my entire outlook on the history I had been taught from the time I was a child. "It knocked me on my ass," as Matt Damon told Robin Williams it would do in the movie "Good Will Hunting". Funny thing is, when I spoke to the founder of the new group Iraq Veterans Against the War, a former Marine named Mike Hoffman, he also stated that Zinn's book was one of the primary influences on his thinking without being prompted.

It's something that everyone should read at some point in their lives. They don't have to agree with everything, but it's important to at least be EXPOSED to this perspective, rather than only hearing history as told by the victors and the powerful.

[semillama]

52. It's essential reading for any good citizen

Definitely one of my favorites, along with "Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong" by James W. Loeven.

Another book I would strongly recommend for those who liked "People's History" is "Europe and the People Without History" by Eric Wolf. It's a classic text that examines the development of the modern world from perspectives of some of the cultures that the Europeans went out and "discovered." It's especially valuable for its treatment of the development of capitalism and how non-capitalist societies interacted with developing European capitalist economies. Wolf does a real good job of exploring the interactions and interconnections of societies through trade and expansion. Wolf argues that most, if not all, social changes and upheavels can be linked to a change somewhere in trade.

I think that reading Wolf should be the next thing anyone does after tackling Zinn.

[BaltoLefty]

56. Read it, liked it

A good companion book would be "The Open Veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano. If you read Spanish, read the original rather than the translation, but the translation's not too bad.

Cindy

[scarletlib]

58. Best history book I have ever read.

[Karenina]

61. Kick!

:kick: