Compare And Contrast Howard Zinn And The People's History

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

Paul Johnson (A History of the American People) and Howard Zinn’s (A People's History of

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

In the first five chapter of Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States, Zinn provides an overview of American History by providing examples and detailed accounts of Columbus’s arrival, the experience of the Native Americans after European arrival, slavery, the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the invisibility of women through early American history. In writing this book, Zinn’s purpose was to write more than another history book, just listing events and giving the traditional point of view, but to provide a balanced viewpoint. Zinn believes that, “The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress…[is an example]

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.

Colonial life in America was a time of many victories and failings. It was a learning experience for the people of the time. In a A People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart tell contrasting stories of the issues of colonial life.

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?

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

The modern world is rapidly changing. Events occur and often time’s only one side of the story gets told. But to every event there are multiple way to view it. Take the history of the United States of America for example. In Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s book A Patriot’s History of the United States, the United States is viewed in a positive light. It tells the facts about the United States in a strait forward manner. However in Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States, the United States is generally viewed in a negative light. Zinn highlights how the country has caused problems while rarely admitting that in fact the United States has done more good for the world than harm. While both books are inherently biased based

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.

The study of history and the teaching of history has come under intense public debate in the United States in the last few decades. The “culture-wars” began with the call to add more works by non-Caucasians and women and has bled into the study of history. Not only in the study of history or literature, this debate has spread into American culture like wildfire.

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

Through anecdotes in his book, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, Joseph J. Ellis gives a new take on this crucial period of this country’s history. Ellis crafts this work of nonfiction in such a way so the reader may understand the revolutionary generation the way Americans currently do: the present looking back to the past, and as the Founding Fathers did: the past (their present) looking forward to the future. This allows one to understand the intentions behind some of these historical figures’ actions and whether those actions led to desirable outcomes. Considering these different perspectives in which he writes, Joseph Ellis comes to prove that in order to understand the true significance of the revolutionary generation, it is necessary to take into account the values and relationships between the individual leaders. The author emphasizes social history throughout the narratives by highlighting the major issues that the public faced at that time. Judging the content of Ellis’ writing, it is evident that he is biased toward certain people for he does not highlight many of their flaws, nor does he explain the impact of these flaws on the revolution. Joseph Ellis composed this piece in

Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States is a distinct alternative to most mainstream history textbooks. Zinn’s perspective of different complicated historical issues is exemplified through his unique writing and helps the reader understand different convoluted events. The point of view that Zinn chooses allows him to express hardships and struggles through the perspective of America's victims, slaves, African-Americans, Native Americans, the working poor, and the immigrant laborers. By speaking for the voiceless, Zinn is able to provide readers ample detail while looking at sensitive times in American history. Zinn starts with Columbus and progressively moves into recent history; he extensively illustrates the hidden class struggles and the fight to replace a broken political system, but still remains insightful and takes a holistic approach while evaluating American History.