Summary Analysis There is probably no country in the world where racism has played—and continues to play—a more important role than the United States. Beginning in the early s, English settlers were desperate for unpaid labor.
Rather, they are the result of the collective efforts of millions of humble story tellers upon whose work the name "Howard Zinn" has been grafted. Seriously, now, the erasure of the whole concept of individual contributions to history is a disaster, a perversion of Leftism that would logically have to deny even the greatness of Marx.
The liberal New Republic went inside-the-beltway, neo-liberal, we-like-power under Reagan in the 80s.
You're maybe thinking of The Nation? It you're an elite Zinns argument organization that wants to be taken seriously as a policy-setter or commenter, you do what you gotta do. Actually those letters cite, at best, a few minor quibbles one of which was fixed in the online edition we're reading.
I'm always a bit mystified by Zinns argument adoration of Zinn, especially here on Metafilter, where one would think most people want something more substantial. Zinn did no independent archival research of any kind in putting it together.
As to "errors," the problem with it isn't so much facts it gets wrong like "X happened on Y date rather than X date"--although it has its share of those sorts of problems as its desperately simplistic "Goodies vs. Baddies" account of history. Clearly there's something about Zinn that got under his skin so there's a kind of captious and slightly snarky quality about his take on the man that seems off, somehow.
That doesn't mean he doesn't make important points. I know he's a beloved favorite of many, but he does get it wrong. The New Left historians were hardly the first cohort of scholars to enlist history in the service of a political crusade or a social agenda" And THAT was what probably brought Zinn to make his polemical moves, as well as opening up the eyes of untold millions of people that their is a voice other than the dominant voice to be heard, when it comes to your history.
This is important, because the social agenda created by those who have "won" in the historical past, can often set forth precedents and lies and subtle distortions that are set forth only to keep those "winners" in power, even at the cost of those who are reading and believing that history.
Zinn was another one of those guys who said "question everything".
Most students are familiar with the Declaration of Independence. But have they ever critically examined the text or questioned the motives of its authors? In this lesson plan, students weigh contrasting interpretations by prominent historians to answer the question: Why did the Founders write the. Chapter 4: Tyranny is Tyranny · The American leadership was less in need of English rule, but the English were more in need of the wealth of the colonists · During the ’s, 5% of Boston’s taxpayers controlled 94% of the city’s taxable assets · The lower class performed many uprisings and mob actions as grievances against the rich. Essay Howard Zinn vs. George Wood Words May 6th, 4 Pages What is Gordon S. Wood’s argument and what is Howard Zinn’s argument on the nature of the American War for Independence and what evidence do the .
I could not have said it better. I had straight up communist history professors when I was getting my masters tell me to stay away from Zinn and he was never to be cited. It is popular history, with all of popular history's defects. This isn't to say that Zinn did not have a huge impact on American thinking.
The last chapter pretty much sums up Zinn's aims and goals. As for the subtitle of this book, it is not quite accurate; a "people's history" promises more than any one person can fulfill, and it is the most difficult kind of history to recapture.
I call it that anyway because, with all its limitations, it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance. That makes it a biased account, one that leans in a certain direction. I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction-so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements-that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission.Zinn’s Argument As an activist, anarchist, and self-declared democratic socialist, Howard Zinn admires the American people and their enthusiasm to improve their circumstances through protest and provocation (Zinn, Personal; Zinn, A People’s ).
Similarly, Zinn roots his argument that the Japanese were prepared to surrender before the United States dropped the atomic bomb on a diplomatic cable from the Japanese to the Russians, supposedly.
AmERIcAN EdUcATOR | WINTER – 27 By Sam Wineburg H oward Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States has few peers among contemporary historical works.
With more than 2 million copies in print, A People’s History is more than a book. It is a cultural icon. After a fierce argument, it was voted to exclude women, but it was agreed they could attend meetings in a curtained enclosure. The women sat in silent protest in the gallery, and William Lloyd.
In this slim volume, Zinn lays out a clear and dynamic case for civil disobedience and protest, and challenges the dominant arguments against forms of protest that challenge the status quo. Zinn explores the politics of direct action, nonviolent civil disobedience, and strikes, and draws lessons for today.
Howard Zinn's Biased History This is a weak argument attempting to validate information as provided by the government, which naturally would like the public to believe that its programs are.