The American Pageant Chapter 2 Summary

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.

What is Gordon S. Wood’s argument and what is Howard Zinn’s argument on the nature of the American War for Independence and what evidence do the two historians present to support their interpretations? Who do you think presents the better case?

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

never reach the kind of equality that Zinn is looking for even if our society

After reading both view points of John P. Roche and Howard Zinn, I felt like there were more things to back up the arguments made by Zinn, which is one of the reasons why I think that the founding fathers were not in fact democratic reformers. The founding fathers were wealthy statesmen who worked for the best of their interests to preserve their wealth.

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

If we read deep into Zinn's A Peoples history of the United States, we may find details into our American DNA. Where and what we originally come from, what it took to get here, and how far we have progressed. While uncovering many chapters in the book, I found myself going back for more of Chapter 10: The Other Civil War. As for myself, I was never aware of another Civil War, only familiarizing myself with one. As I was reading these historical pages and awing at my founders and leaders before me, I found myself as engaged I have ever been in a historical novel. Zinn opened my eyes as a non-historical junky. Reading Zinn I found myself remembering one of the greatest quotes by George Santayana, "Those who do not

Zinn’s critique on the inequality of wealth and the American war effort during the American revolution is correct, while his idea of injustice in the American Constitution during this time is not completely accurate. Zinn states that the wealthy primarily benefitted from the revolution and that the American war effort took its biggest toll on the lower class which is true. However, his claims that the Constitution also benefited the wealthy class more than the lower class are not supported by sufficient evidence.

The impact of the unknow is only holding us back from our greatest potential. Zinn goes in great depths describing the true American History and the impact it has made for the future. The America that is displayed in the book has a more realistic viewpoint of many of our tragic events, that occurred and made an impact to change our history. Overall through our good and bad as a nation we need to grown to ecapt all as it is, for it makes who we are and what our history is. Applying the truth now only opens the door of the positive possibilities to come from learning from our worst disasters, to greatest victories. This shows the highs and lows, the reality of what actually occurred to make natural Americans. Zinn describes in his Afterword that

Historians analyze facts and sources to discover and understand the mysteries of the past. Based on the sources, a historian’s perspective is influenced a great deal. They also include their own points of view from their own research, influencing their thinking. With different sources and different perspectives, disagreement is bound to rise. Variation in history results in multiple ideological frameworks. Howard Zinn was a historian, author, and social activist who grew up in a poor Russian family in Jewish Brooklyn. He was an industrial worker and labor activist who was incredibly politically involved resulting in trouble with the law. Zinn’s experiences have influenced his views in history as shown in one of his famous works, A People’s

In Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History” he tells history from the point of the view of the common people instead of from the political elites and government officials. He believes that there is always more than one side to every story. He wrote this book so that he could tell the truths about what happened behind the scenes of historical events and to share his own opinion as well. In chapter 16 Zinn talks about World War II and the oppositions with the war.

Johnson and Zinn differ in the way they deliver information about history. Johnson focus was primality on the conquests of the Europeans in order to create what we know now as the United States of America. Zinn on the other hand, a focus was geared towards the perspective of the indigenous people. Zinn wanted to shed a different light on how history was told. The “Old” world for Johnson talks about Europe basically trying to find riches predominately gold and to obtain riches. The Spaniards ‘discovered’ the “new” world and they conquered the territory as told by Johnson. His portrayal of the new and old world, based on my opinion, he focused mainly on the Europeans point of view to gain dominance over this new world. However, Zinn focuses this