Howard Zinn 's 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.

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,

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

What every American should know by Eric Liu thoroughly examines the issue of cultural literacy and its place in modern America. It takes on a convincing argument against E.D. Hirsch’s book on the same which included some 5000 things that he thought define cultural literacy and every American should know. Liu argues that America has changed over time, becoming more multicultural, and to capture the cultural literacy of the country, no one person should sit down and come up with what they think everyone else should know. Instead he suggests that in order to capture the view of the nation, every American should be involved in the making of the list. The most engaging part of this article is Liu’s idea that this new list that is crowd-sourced should always change according to the times. It should not be cast in stone because things in this day and age change really fast; what is a hit this month will be old news in the next one. This is what cultural literacy really is; keeping up with what is going on around you and being open to learn new things as they emerge. This can also be said of education; in order to stay educated in any field, you have to be in the know of in terms of new developments.

In the poem “America,” by Tony Hoagland, the idea of Americans being consumed with their money is shown using symbolism and metaphors. The speaker in this poem is a teacher whose name is never mentioned. One thing revealed in the poem is that the speaker has a father who is presumably very wealthy and successful. One of the teacher’s students compares America to a maximum security prison. A recurring theme throughout “America” is Hoagland showing examples of America’s greedy society using a teacher, student, and a father’s experiences. Using metaphors of money and symbols of rivers filled with merchandise, Tony Hoagland captures how the teacher begins to think after he hears his student compare America to a maximum security prison.

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

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.

1. According to Zinn, what is his main purpose for writing A People's History of the United States?

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

A People's History of the United States, originally published in 1980, as a work of non-fiction by the political scientist and American historian, Howard Zinn. Zinn seeks to show us American history through the eyes of common, everyday people rather the views of biased historians. A People's History is included in high school and college curriculum across the United States and is a favorite of American