Analysis Of Paul Johnson And Howard Zinn

the 19th century we can view the differences and similarities both writers used to express the

1. Zinn’s main purpose for writing A People’s History of the United States is to show history from the viewpoint of others.

His emphasis in his writing has been antebellum reform movements, what makes this book unique from other historical novels is it attempts to only

Public consensus, similar to politics, varies greatly when it comes to American history, especially as it pertains to the classroom. Views about the content and historical interpretation included in history texts have reached a heightened polarization in recent years. This can be seen in the vast differences between the diatribes of Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States, and Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s, A Patriot’s History of the United States. While both books, prescribed by this introductory course into American History, cover many of the same topics, they clearly paint different pictures. I feel that any text seeking to represent a responsible survey of a

Howard Zinn is a professor of political science in Boston University and Gordon S. Wood is a history professor at Brown University. These two historians viewed the nature of American Revolution from two opposite different perspectives. Zinn viewed the American Revolution as an effort to preserve America’s status; while Wood looked at Revolution as an event that incorporated sense of equality among all Americans. Zinn was able to present the argument better as evidences he provided to support his argument seemed to make more sense and were closer to reality.

From the “underdog” perspective, the Howard Zinn perspective, was a cruel, unforgiving time. According to Zinn,

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 two historians present to support their interpretations? Who do you think presents the better case?

1. Each author had their own objective in writing each of the books. Both books tell the tale of history much like any other textbook. However, each book leaves out certain events creating a noticeable bias between the two. In The People’s History of the United States, the liberal author Howard Zinn writes about American history in a particularly unconventional way to convince the reader that there is another side to the history of the United States, one that does not necessarily invoke a feeling of patriotism, but rather showcases several flaws. On the other hand, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen write about American history in a very patriotic way in A Patriot’s History of the United States to persuade the reader that one should feel a sense of pride in the history of the United States. Although they bear many similarities due to history not changing, the differences between The People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States are very pronounced due to the bias of each author.

never reach the kind of equality that Zinn is looking for even if our society

Poor people had always been the backbone of the U.S. Their contribution to building America has always been overlooked. Rich people look upon the lower class with distaste, calling the unfortunate ones, “savages.” This is why Zinn named Chapter 3 of his book, “People’s History,” “Persons of Mean and Vile Conditions.” He wanted to shed light on those who were taken advantage of while history was in the making— the slaves, the poor people, the Indians also known as the “persons of Mean and Vile Conditions,” in the eyes of the wealthy. Since the rich does not want to be categorized with the poor, they have several techniques and strategies to maintain the status quo where the rich white people were on top of the social pyramid, the poor blacks and Indians on the bottom. For example, some of the techniques are to prohibit interracial marriage between the blacks and whites so “that the white population could remain ‘pure’ and in control.” (Zinn 35), “Negroes were forbidden to carry any arms while the white….would get muskets……the distinctions of status between white and black servants became more and more clear.” (Zinn 56) Authors of history textbooks, traditional historians, and politicians will definitely argue about the assertions made by Howard Zinn. They will say something similar to, “Zinn is unpatriotic.” But isn’t it unpatriotic to call the people whose back the U.S. was built upon, “persons of mean and vile conditions”?

1. Zinn's purpose for writing A People's History of the United States is to write about American history from the viewpoint of the people, and not from the rich or the men that made the decisions, but from the people who lived through those decisions and whose lives were affected. His purpose is not to make the people who were in charge look bad, but to see what they did from all perspectives.

After reading both view points of John P. Roche and Howard Zinn, I felt like there were more things to back up the arguments made by Zinn, which is one of the reasons why I think that the founding fathers were not in fact democratic reformers. The founding fathers were wealthy statesmen who worked for the best of their interests to preserve their wealth.

So far, it has become very clear that Zinn and Johnson view history in almost completely different viewpoints. Johnson comes from a conservative background with an Oxford degree while Zinn, was more of an activist from a Jewish immigrant background. Johnson has pride in America and almost always sugarcoats major events to keep his country looking great, much like what we learn in our current high schools. However, Zinn shows us the left out facts of our American history and his novel is referred to as an anti-history book. Both authors make significant points and it’s great to have both sources available for comparison as well as chance to see both sides of the story.

In June of 2003, Howard Zinn’s “Dying for the Government” was published in “The Progressive” newspaper. He discusses the government’s claim to military victory in Iraq, and he believes that many innocent people have died for an unjust cause in that war. His claim is that soldiers died for their government, not their country. An important part of his argument is his discussion of democracy, which he says is what our country is supposed to be based on. He also brings up some history of U.S. wars and quotes Mark Twain’s statement about the invasion of the Phillipines by the United States. Even though some of his assertions lack evidence, Zinn uses authority

Writing a book with an uncommonly taught perspective, Zinn tried to verify his take on U.S history. There are inserts from various documents, such as diaries, ledgers, and newspapers used as supporting documents to his claim,