 Highly recommended!
I have never been interested in United States history as it has always bored me tremendously. That might be because I was a product of the American public education system in the 90's and early 2000's. This is the first book that has not only piqued my interest in the subject but I couldn't put it down. A factual and more realistic account of the history of the U.S. compared to what is taught in public school. Get this book and find out why the right doesn't want you to read it.
As a little side note, some reviewers stated that their is no sources, however that is simply not true. There is a long list of sources in the back of the book by chapter. There were around a dozen things that interested me that I hadn't known were true. After doing some research they all checked out 100%. The sources for much of the information are well documented and easily found, but for some you have to do a little digging, someone isn't going to do it for you.
 Modern Multicultural Diatribe
I do not recommend this book. It is not that it is a bad book from a literary point of view - it is actually well written and it has some unique and interesting observations that make for good conversation starters and would be a good catalyst for starting a research project if you were so inclined, but it is not an objective rendition of history by any means.
It is not that his description of historical events is inaccurate or false because they most assuredly are not. The trouble, from my point of view, is that the book is not really a history of the United States so much as it is a cultural critique of United States history from a modern academic elite, left-liberal, multicultural, class identity perspective (simply "academic liberal" in the rest of this review). Someone sympathetic to this academic liberal view of things will find it very persuasive, but it is not a balanced view of things from the perspective of the people living at the time. The whole realm of revisionist history on this basis is not only ideologically biased, which I fully recognize is true to some extent in all history books, but this one is deliberately biased to establish what is deemed to be a morally `superior' position from the academic liberal point of view. On this point I will quote Jacques Barzun from his book From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the present, 500 years of Western Cultural Life "... I have not consulted current prejudices. ... every period stands justified in the sight of God, it deserves at least sympathy in the sight of man. ... It is waste of breath to point out that every observer is in some way biased. It does not follow that bias cannot be guarded against, that biases distort equally, or that controlled bias remains as bad as propaganda... One has then the duty to report the informed judgment of others." [italic emphasis added by me] And elsewhere Barzun says "Our age is so tolerant, so broad-minded and disinclined to violence in its ideologies, that to find a case made out for the temper of the 16th or 17th century is bound to affront the righteous [and I will add the 18th and 19th centuries]. Yet without exposure to this annoyance, one's understanding of our modern thoughts and virtues is incomplete."
The common method in this type of writing is to take indisputable historic facts for a particular time or event and use this as the framework to hang academic liberal ideology on; this makes it appear the writer is revealing a new truth of the time in question when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Zinn's "truth" is only a subjective truth in his academic liberal view of the world. As he says of Columbus' description of America to the court of Madrid "His descriptions [are] part fact, part fiction" and I submit that the events presented by Professor Zinn are as well `part fact, part fiction'; his facts are no doubt accurate, but his description of the social and cultural conditions leading up to various factual events and the consequences resulting from the events are all seriously skewed or even fabricated to conform to Mr. Zinn's modern liberal academic view of things. In short, it is a very subjective "history" and not at all objective in any common understanding of the term.
The problem I have with this type of revisionist "history" is that Western civilization, and America in particular, is always portrayed as a continuous chain of immoral colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation of "minorities" (including women) and the laboring `underclass', with little if any saving grace. Again, the conditions he describes are no doubt reasonably accurate, but his interpretation of their causes and effects are what is ideologically misleading, and from my point of view dishonest. It is not just Howard Zinn's book that has this flavor; most such texts of the last 30 or 40 years that receive high academic acclaim follow this same pattern.
And further, I believe Howard Zinn's book is deliberately biased in a way specifically designed to denigrate, delegitimize, and undermine classic Western culture and civilization in subservience to any and all other cultures regardless of the fact (or more likely because of the fact) that classical Western culture and its political respect for individual rights and responsibilities has achieved the greatest personal freedom and productive society in the history of the world (and not incidentally given professors like Howard Zinn and other `intellectual' elites the freedom to preach their ideology). But academic "intellectual" elites, such as Howard Zinn, with their socialist mentality and ideology can not stand this fact; indeed, from their point of view it is not admitted to be a fact.
What is missing from Mr. Zinn's narrative is Jacques Barzun's sense of appreciation for, and understanding of, the civilization and cultural norms of the times in question; everything in the past is judged and critiqued based on the modern academic liberal cultural viewpoint. As a counterpoint, Paul Johnson, in his parallel book A History of the American People, does not refrain from covering the brutality and mean spiritedness of events in history, but he portrays them in the context of penecontemporaneous cultural norms as unbiased by modern sensitivities as can reasonably be expected. Howard Zinn on the other hand deliberately portrays everything from a modern liberal cultural bias and he does this intentionally to denigrate and delegitimize opposing views of events more consistent with the mores of the times. (Incidentally, Paul Johnson's book is a close parallel to Howard Zinn's in both time and events covered but beyond that there is no similarity at all; Johnson's was copyrighted two years earlier, 1997 vs. 1999 - it is almost as if Zinn wrote his to counter Johnson from a modern liberal multicultural viewpoint to give university faculties a text with a "politically correct" version of the period from Columbus to now. If you look at the references in both books you will find very few overlap and all of Zinn's that I am familiar with are either "politically correct" academics or disenchanted writers from previous times - i.e. everything about America from the beginning is negative, nothing is positive or enlightening. Jacques Barzun's book also covers the same time period, but his book covers both Europe and the United States; his is copyrighted in 2000). From my point of view both Johnson and Barzun are far more reliable historiographers of the times and events in question.
Starting with Columbus and his encounter with the Indians, then on to the general European conquest of the Americas and the colonization displacing the indigenous people, the conduct of the slave trade, the American Revolution (The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are particularly vile documents in Zinn's view of things), the Civil War (his take on the motivation for and consequences of the civil war are particularly disingenuous), on to the industrialization of the nation, then World Wars I and II, and on through Korea and Vietnam, and ultimately the present everything is seen as a continuous chain of exploitation, oppression, and imperialist aggression of the under-classes and poor nations by the rich and powerful - no exceptions and no saving grace - it is all class warfare in a truly Marxist view of things. His book is filled with quotations from labor leaders, war resisters, fugitive slaves, disgruntled workers, and other discontents but nothing from the less disaffected members of society and many of his quotations are without context or perspective so it is impossible to tell whether the situation is a general condition or just a fringe anomaly. Zinn reduces every subject into a simplistic, two-dimensional (good, bad) reflection of his opinion - and he does a fairly good job of structuring everything to fit this opinion.
But without even getting into the book we see on the cover a tip-off to its multicultural revisionist "history" slant; it states "A People's History of the United States is the only volume to tell America's story from the point of view - and words of - America's women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers," and I might add, paraphrasing Jacques Barzen again, "with all the current prejudices." It also states on the cover that Howard Zinn is "a historian, playwright, and social activist" and I will add that his history and plays are all consistent with his social activism. I have to concede here that at least this is honest advertising: if you subscribe to modern multicultural ideology you will like the book; otherwise you are duly warned to steer clear of it unless you are doing research to counter its destructive intent. And I do mean "destructive intent." The whole point of writing books like this is to indoctrinate students (and the general public that the author hopes will read the book) in the socialist, multiculturalist ideology (actually a primitive tribal community culture) with the intent that in due time the entire population will fall into line with the preferred ideology like sheep (sheeple?) and we will finally reach utopia - read George Orwell's Animal Farm and Aldus Huxley's Brave New World for a glimpse of what this world would be like (will be?) if people like Howard Zinn were to get their way.
What people like Howard Zinn and his academic and other literati elite cohorts have in common is disdain for the Western tradition; they admit no moral virtue or insight of the human condition in classical Western culture. In contrast their evocation is to claim that the evils of imperialism, colonialism, oppression, and exploitation are now, and have always been the daily rituals of Western society. But if Zinn and like minded academics are correct that America (and Western cultural in general) is so evil, corrupt, and degenerate how is it that we are the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world (at least up to now)? Why do all the minorities and downtrodden of the world take great risks to come to the United States and not the other way round?
I wish everyone would read this history.
When Martin Luther King Jr stated that this nation was the most violent of all, he only needed to share this great piece of literature as his evidence. This nation had a chance but we have blow it with our greed and hate. Too bad Howard is not around to document this first Black President's failures. They are so similar to the other ambitious politicians grab for more land and power at the expense of THE PEOPLE. Thank you Howard Zinn for writing a true history of the greed, violence and hate.
Kindle version is a ripoff
Again, a book that is available for less in paper print than in the Kindle digital version. I will never purchase a digital copy for more than I can the physical book. Completely defeats one of the main selling points of the Kindle -- and it makes no sense -- I can't resell it, share it with friends, and there is much less cost to produce. Taking advantage of those of us who jumped on the bandwagon of ebook readers by charging more just because you can is simply wrong.
Ripoff
Charging 35% more for a Kindle edition than for the paperback is simply unacceptable. Would have bought the book at 9.99, which by the way is still quite expensive for something you can't resell and is locked away in Amazon's technology.
|
