Democratic America in the Eyes of Howard Zinn Essay

Question 4: Zinn’s interpretation of late nineteenth-century labor unions and strikes differs from Schweikart and Allen’s by Zinn tells all the bad of the labor unions and strikes while Schweikart and Allen tell all the good of the labor unions and

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

minority. It is not right to say that Zinn represents a lot of negativity in his work. What Zinn

Howard Zinn speaks to this in his Afterword, referring to common omissions in orthodox history. He retorts, “The consequence of those omissions has been not simply to give a distorted view of the past but, more important, to mislead us all about the present.” (Zinn, 684) However, in reference to a common insistence on strictly teaching the facts in the classroom, Zinn also claims that there is no pure fact which does not preclude a judgment. True to his claims in his Afterward, Zinn lays out an argument and maintains his position throughout his book in addition to the facts he presents. He has been revered for the serious manner in which he treats his cited works, and for offering

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,

Fourth, the definition of the word "democracy" has changed. The way Americans see the word doesn't refer to a static system as it once did, it is ever changing and improving.

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

Zinn first explains that the governments main interest from the start wasn’t really to even stop fascism but rather to advance the counties own imperial interest. For example, Italy during this time was practicing fascism. If the The US was opposed to fascism the government would have tried to cut Italy off but instead it let American Businesses send oil to Italy. Zinn then explains how policies in the United States almost perfectly mirrored those practiced in the fascists Nations. He portrays this in two ways, first he explains the treatment of women and then explains the racism the broke out in the US towards the Japanese. Fascist nations strongly believed in fallowing gender roles. What I mean by this is that, according to fascists principle women were to basically embrace their stereotypes; staying at home and being good housewives. Even though the US was supposed to be in a war against fascism, it really didn’t do anything differently to help equalize the role of women and men. Apparently other than using women in defense industries the US didn’t do anything different, also keep in mind there were no other options besides women at this time. United states policies kept women out of the policy making areas and only used them for war work. Lastly, Zinn explains how the racist practices in the United starts almost perfectly imitated those seen in fascist nations. He used the

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.

     Democracy is defined as “A system of government in which ultimate political authority is vested in the People.” The Declaration’s

I think that Zinn's arguments were backed up very well with information or logistic examples. I think that the founding fathers were democratic reformers to a certain extent but in the Constitution, minorities such as slaves, indentured servants, women and men without property were not really mentioned which kind of shows that the Constitution was aimed for more of the elite class, usually all who had plenty of wealth and heald a good social status. I feel like

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.

His other authority comes from Mark Twain, who he informs us was “called a ‘traitor’ for criticizing the U.S. invasion of the Phillipines” (160). Zinn quotes Twain when he says “‘[we] have thrown away the

In looking at more contemporary issues, Zinn utilizes interview records and other hard documentation to show us the real stories. For example, the government moved slowly to end segregation, fearful of a change of the face of American power. We see how two of America’s favorite presidents, Eisenhower and Kennedy, did little to change the system during their administrations. Lyndon Johnson pushed for passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. This was viewed