Howard Zinn Injustice

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

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,

Howard Zinn’s argument on the nature of the American War for Independence was the war for independence was not a social revolution. Instead, he argues the colonial elite used the war for their own personal gain in power and status. The wealthy and powerful found a strategy to maintain and even increase their social and political status by leading the war against England and the courtiers associated with England.

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

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

Today, many American’s are proud to identify that the Declaration of Independence marks the beginning of freedom for North America. However, as students in history classes across American schools and colleges dig deeper into the realities of the country’s battles for freedom of rights it represents that from the beginning the Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the American people. The signing of the Declaration of Independence on the face of it depicts it as liberty and democracy, but the realism is that the American colonists had little choice or no choice at all, in how the American British governed its people. It is clear, the American colonies never gave up their fight for freedom and human rights, but the British Revolution still

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.

A Peoples History of the United States was written by Howard Zinn. Zinn’s main purpose for writing this book was to give a precise and detailed exposition of American History from the victim’s point of view. “I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves…” He wants to uncover hidden episodes of the past, be skeptical about the government and even talk about the cruelties the victims put on each other because of their oppressors. He wants to understand why the oppressors killed the victims and how these victims felt and what actions they took. Zinn wants to tell history’s greatest achievement from the point of view of the people who get slaughtered, robbed, taunted and anything else that happened to the victims while

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

During the late 1700’s the American colonists waged a war for independance on the British arguing their fundamental liberties had been deprived. As the founding fathers declared themselves independent from Great Britain, and built their new nation, they quickly addressed their ambitions in the Constitution. However as the former colonists built their new nation, they decided their revolution ambitions needed pragmatic alterations. These objectives that the former colonists addressed in the Declaration of Independence were in one way or another modified, expanded upon, or subverted. The dispute of civil rights for the Colonists was expanded upon and subverted, in order to appeal to white property owning males. Furthermore the former Colonists wanted to create a form government in which the citizens had the power, this intention was expanded upon

This book has proven to be an enlightening read. It both teaches and inspires. Howard Zinn has offered us a perspective of the real story of American history heretofore unavailable to us – history from the perspective of real people – immigrant laborers, American women, the working poor, factory workers, African and Native Americans.

In the early 1600s, the greatest empire of that time, the British empire, demonstrated one more time its immense level of power by conquering the New World. The Jamestown settlement, also known as the beginning of America, was occupied by a group of British conquerors willing to impose their traditions, culture, and language on the natives of Jamestown. Many historians, politicians, and influential people, as the Queen of England, have claimed that the first British settlement in America was founded by three principles that nowadays govern most of the countries in the world: democracy, equality, and diversity. While a vast number of people agree that America has been strengthened by embracing those three principles, many conservatives, as Patrick J. Buchanan, have disagreed with that idea. Patrick J. Buchanan, one of the most influential conservatives in the U.S. who has run for President three times, has mentioned in many of his publications how atrocious is for a country, especially for the United States, to embrace democracy, equality, and diversity. In “Deconstructing America,” Patrick J. Buchanan claims that the founding values of America have not only stopped it to prosper, but also have helped to destroy it and pull it apart. Patrick’s arguments of the destruction of America are actually very accurate and effective.

It is easy to interpret the American Revolution simply as a struggle for freedom. The magnanimous phrases of the Declaration of Independence have embedded in our hearts and minds glorious images of the Founding Fathers fighting for the natural rights of man. The American Revolution, however, also had a darker side to it, the side of self-interest and profit. The signers of the Declaration represented various classes – the working class, the wealthy land owners and merchants, the intellectuals, and the social elite. Each of these strata had its own set of expectations and fears, which lent a new dimension to the cause of the Revolution. The pressure of these internal, and often overlapping groups, combined with the oppressive external