Larry Schweikart

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

1. Each author had their own objective in writing each of the books. Both books tell the tale of history much like any other textbook. However, each book leaves out certain events creating a noticeable bias between the two. In The People’s History of the United States, the liberal author Howard Zinn writes about American history in a particularly unconventional way to convince the reader that there is another side to the history of the United States, one that does not necessarily invoke a feeling of patriotism, but rather showcases several flaws. On the other hand, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen write about American history in a very patriotic way in A Patriot’s History of the United States to persuade the reader that one should feel a sense of pride in the history of the United States. Although they bear many similarities due to history not changing, the differences between The People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States are very pronounced due to the bias of each author.

The history of the united states is illustrated and told in A Patriot’s History of the United States written by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen and A People’s History of the United States written by Howard Zinn. Both authors chronicles the history of the united states from the discovery of the new world to some of the more recent events, however with contrasting opinions and perspective . Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen curves towards a more conservative view with focus on a glorified america where sacrifice was necessary for the betterment and advancement of the people. On the other hand Howard Zinn focuses on views from the suffering or underprivileged groups that seems to show a pessimistic

1.) Howard Zinn’s main purpose for writing A People’s History of the United States is to give history in an un-biased manner. For example, he says that he will not glorify any movement and denounce any ‘bad guy’ in history; he will give information as it should be given. Fairly.

This helped people survive the difficulties and tragedies that were happening before them and it made life a little bit easier than it already was. Before the New Deal people who didn’t have a job couldn’t make money, which then meant that they wouldn’t be able to provide food and other resources for their families. Now that people are being provided with jobs they are able to make money and were now able to provide and were able to begin reconstructing their lives. The more people who have jobs, the more people survive and the more our society grows in the right direction(Source G). This connects to the claim because without The New Deal then the unemployed wouldn’t have jobs. If The New Deal wasn’t created, then there would so many people on the streets dying of no food, no shelter, and other reasons. If this happened then our society would only decrease and it would soon enough hit rock

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.

Many different arguments emerged from Roosevelt’s New Deal. Some people believed that FDR was against the idea of business, they had no hope for the economy, and thought that the United States would be in debt forever. In the letter to Senator Robert Wagner, the author explains the unemployment rates, and how the government hasn’t done anything to stabilize the economy. In fact, the author believes that communism is arising and everything clashed together will lead to a “disaster to all classes”. Meanwhile, Franklin Roosevelt was creating jobs to decrease unemployment rates, and he created the National Industrial Recovery Act, which proposed fair competition and collective bargaining for workers. The author of this letter is proven wrong because in fact, America did turn around, and FDR’s policies were ultimately extremely effective. The unemployment rate was brought up again in an NBC radio broadcast by John L. Lewis in 1936. This broadcast spoke about the “labor unrest”, the strikes that unemployment has provoked, and the major issue of huge corporations having the right of self-organization and collective bargaining. Once again, Franklin

The New Deal was good because it provided Americans with hope, jobs, and government assistance during a time when American citizens could not help themselves. The Great Depression caused the US to fall apart economically, and the New Deal was put in place to try to fix the economy. President Roosevelt thought this was the best way to fix the economy, and it was. But that doesn’t mean it was perfect. It also doesn’t mean it worked. While many good things came from the New Deal, many bad things came out as well. But the good outweighed the bad, and the New Deal began the journey out of the Great Depression.

The great depression left the United States in a horrendous position with it's economic standing. The American people looked for help from a president who could propose solutions to help rebuild the economy. This president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who promised to ensure to improve the well being for all men for a comfortable living economically. This sounds great, a lot better than the depression, but his democratic supporters didn’t necessarily know or understand how he was going to achieve the tall order. FDR achieved this through the new deal which helped the economy a great deal and lifted the U.S. out of the depression. However, this deal left a large portion of his supporters angry.

Many have argued that the New Deal was unconstitutional and violated the rights of government power. Roosevelt responded to these arguments speaking of political and economic inequality claiming that “these economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they are really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of of power” (Voices of Freedom, 169). He believed that those who disagreed with his programs sought to protect their own economic interests. The New Deal and its programs assisted so many suffering at the time, and helped save the nation by throwing the people a lifeline, giving them hope for the future as opposed to the alternative which, proven by Herbert

Nonetheless, with the New Deal it addressed the problem of unemployment and the rights of the people. In 1933 the unemployment of nonfarm workers had increased, there were millions of unemployed citizens (Doc J). Which lead to the New Deal to create jobs to provide relief to the unemployed such as with the Civilian Conservation Corps, which employed jobless men in reforestation projects. Not only were jobs being developed, but the rights of the individuals as workers were being enforced more “Huge corporations, such as United States Steel and General Motors… Have no right to transgress the law which gives to the workers the rights to self organization and collective bargaining.” (Doc G). With the NLRA which allowed workers to form unions, removing the yellow dog contract; people were now able to form labor unions without having problems with the employer. The New Deal might of not not ended the Great Depression, yet it did improve the job opportunity for the American citizen and allowing more rights for the

Howard Zinn was an acclaimed historian and social rights activist, born in 1922. He has written many well-known books, including A People’s History of the United States and A People’s History of American Empire. The reason that these books are so well known is because Zinn is a very special kind of historian. Unlike other historians who might be more objective about history and just give you the straight facts, Zinn is openly partial in his account of history giving readers a more subjective view of these events. This causes his writing to have a bias, much greater than what usually comes naturally in history, and portray history from the side of the oppressed. This undermines typical history

In 1932, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, the citizens of the United States had possessed sufficient time to realize that they could no longer be proud, but they must take anything they could get. Therefore, the programs set up by FDR’s New Deal program were perfect for the country at the time. These programs helped the people directly, providing relief, recovery, and reform. FDR based his plans on the philosophy of Keynesian economics, where the government spends money to make money. The government gave money and jobs to those in need, who in turn, had money to spend in the marketplace. The demand for products increased, and businesses were able to hire more workers and produce more products, as well as pay more money in taxes. FDR’s plans worked because they gave money not to those who would take advantage of the government, but to those who would use it in the way the government intended it to be used. During FDR’s first term in office alone, the unemployment rate dropped 4%. Because of FDR’s success in bringing the country out of the Depression, I give him an A.

They write, “In response to the massive unemployment of the 1930’s, Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1933 introduced the first federal relief programs targeted at the poor and unemployed… he anticipated that the work relief jobs would boost consumer spending and thus increase demand for labor, which would then raise private employment and earnings.” (Neuman, Fishback, Kanton, pg 4) This quotes illustrates that programs such as these relief jobs, would not only be able to get the people back to work, but also get the economy up and running again.

The New Deal provided countless of actions that helped Americans in the time being, but it did not end the Great Depression. Many Americans were still suffering with hunger, unemployment and a stable place to live or no place at all. It was believed by many politicians and economist that when the U.S entered World War Two, the New Deal could have been more of a success if Roosevelt put in more money in the