Should Historians Take Sides?

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

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,

No two accounts of any event are ever exactly the same, as different people have unique experiences that impact their views. Historical accounts and history books are the same way, as an examination of A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, and Give Me Liberty, by Eric Foner demonstrates. Both accounts of early American history cover the important colonies, such as Jamestown and the influential Puritans and the immigration of different peoples to America. They differ however, not only on the depth they choose to go into these events, but also on interactions between the natives and the colonists. A People’s History, by Howard Zinn, tells history in a biased way that excludes information that Eric Foner, of Give Me Liberty, does not. Zinn’s bias is in favor of the Indians, while Foner lacks a bias, telling history from all views. This difference can be noted in the telling of the Pueblo

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

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.

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.

As the hostility grows between both parties, historians must consider the factual disposition of their writings. Empiricist J.B. Bury stated that history is a “science, nothing more, nothing less”. The accurate connotations that science brings highlights the academics arguments. Although not completely a science, history integrates different forms of science, such as geology, in order to reach the objective truth (Evans). It is the assertion of history as a science to which academics believe their history is presented. To which, academic’s believe their rival’s representation of history is inaccurate, and therefore invalid. Academic historians insistence to their own superiority may contend to their tension between

America is a nation that is often glorified in textbooks as a nation of freedom, yet history shows a different, more radical viewpoint. In Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States, we take a look at American history through a different lens, one that is not focused on over glorifying our history, but giving us history through the eyes of the people. “This is a nation of inconsistencies”, as so eloquently put by Mary Elizabeth Lease highlights a nation of people who exploited and sought to keep down those who they saw as inferior, reminding us of more than just one view on a nation’s history, especially from people and a gender who have not had an easy ride.

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

Writing a book with an uncommonly taught perspective, Zinn tried to verify his take on U.S history. There are inserts from various documents, such as diaries, ledgers, and newspapers used as supporting documents to his claim,

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.

“One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.”