Analysis of A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn’s, Peoples’ History of the US and Larry Schweikart’s, Patriots’ History of the US are two analytical views on history that most people would consider politically conflicting. Zinn’s Marxist book was widely praised by liberal activist and Schweikart’s book is greatly publicized by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. These two widely known historians turned their focus on writing two historical pieces that would fill in the “historical holes” that weren’t being taught in the educational systems. It created a type of diverse learning that made for a great argument while still allowing the readers to understand all sides of the topics at hand. Zinn really dismissed the common “white mans history” and focused his approach on a multiple minority perspective. Schweikart’s book is very different in the sense he takes aim at Zinn as he targets words like “great discovery” and “war on terror” which Zinn only used as scare quotes. Schweikart’s book really reads like old history textbooks from the moral principals of the American founders that built this nation to the ideological view of American prosperity. No matter who shares the views of the political perspectives or condemns them because of its bias stances both historians felt responsible in writing the history of the United States.

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

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

In chapter four of A History of the United States by Howard Zinn, he explored the condition and state of the English colonies concerning the American Revolution. He implored on how the American Revolution successfully supplanted the tyrannical system of England with the same kind of tyranny. He continued expanding on all components of the American Revolution such as what led to the rebellion and dissatisfaction of the people and how after the American Revolution, nothing had really changed other than who became the current puppet master.

2. By assigning both, The People’s History of the United States, and A Patriot’s History of the United States, it allows us to take a look at two different views of American history. Howard Zinn, the author of The People’s History of the United States, seems to tell the story from the view of those not in power, like those in slavery, women, and Native Americans. Conversely, the authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and

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”?

essay. Hook is a much better writer than Zinn. Hook is able to point out all

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.

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.

of America. In writing this book, the major aim, for Zinn, was to set a quiet revolution. This

Later on in A People’s History of the United States, Zinn questions whether “all this bloodshed and deceit – from Columbus to Cortez, Pizarro, the Puritans – [was] a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization.” Zinn

In his excerpt entitled The Land of Opportunity author James Loewen highlights the invisible struggles of the middle class. Loewen’s chief complaint is that the segregation and exploitation of the working class has been marginalized by the American social elite and all but erased from high school history books. Mr. Loewen posits that the authors of our children’s textbooks “construe labor history as something that happened long ago, like slavery, and that like slavery, was corrected long ago” (Loewen). While it may be seen as insensitive to compare the labor movement to slavery, Mr. Loewen is joined by other authors and activists who argue against rewriting or marginalizing our history in order to preserve our “national identity”. In order for our nation to continue to excel, we must learn from our mistakes not hide them. American history has been tumultuous and rife with conflict; which has led to a shift in ideals, and thus aided in the elevation of the people as a whole – this struggle is necessary and must continue.

Over the past few weeks of class, we have covered the first five chapters of our textbook, written by George Brown Tindell and David Emory Shi called, “America, A Narrative History.” Each chapter told the reader a narration of the history of America, as opposed to an expository version of America’s history. Each chapter had its own main idea over a portion of history, along with many details that cover the importance of the main idea. As a reader, one may obtain a deeper appreciation for the country 's history, prior to entering the class on the first day. The most important aspect of history, besides the battles that are fought, is the different cultures that make up today’s modern America.

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

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