Zinn And Johnson View History

The most obvious contrast is the point of view in which each story is told. Hughes’s story is written in first person while Zinn’s essay is written in third person. The reader can feel what Hughes experienced personally while reading the story whereas the anger Zinn is conveying in his article is about an issue he had no stake in. This difference is important because Hughes didn’t just choose to make up a story and tell it in first person. He went through what he wrote about, but Zinn wrote about something that happened over two hundred years ago. The bullies in Salvation were people who knew each other personally in contrast to the large groups of people in Untold Truths About the American Revolution. Hughes’s bullies were his aunt, the preacher, and other grownups, people he had been raised to trust. He wrote, “I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know” (7). Zinn stereotypes all of the Founding Fathers and rich men as bullies. The victims in both stories also differ. Langston and the other children in his church were victims, so they had even less power than the poor men, slaves, and Indians who Zinn believes were the victims in Untold Truths About the American Revolution. The end results also vary from each other. On one hand Hughes did not believe in Jesus anymore, and he felt disappointed in himself; another result in Salvation could be that Langston might have become distrustful of religion and/or authority figures. While on the other hand Zinn thinks not everyone benefited from war, and we might have fought a war that did not need to be fought. Zinn even has several sections on how each group did not benefit from the war. A result of the Revolution that Zinn did not highlight was that the colonists definitely won their independence. Finally the blame in both stories is different. Even though the bullies made

In the first source, the author, Howard Zinn discusses how Europeans were aware of their mistreatment towards the Native Americans and how Native Americans were innocent. As well as how Christopher Columbus is portrayed, how he is not a hero, and how he shouldn't be celebrated. Zinn uses direct sources and evidence to support his argument by using journals and logs. Zinn says that the mistreatment of Native Americans is first seen to begin with Columbus. Zinn shows evidence to support this statement by using a direct source from Columbus. "They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword,

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

Paul Johnson (A History of the American People) and Howard Zinn’s (A People's History of

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.

As always, Schweikart chooses to focus on the positive aspects of colonial life- expansion, government, religion, and even an extensive tolerance for others. Zinn, on the other hand, chooses to focus on only one element of American colonial life-slavery. While both believe that harsh slavery and some class distinctions did exist, drastically different stories are told.

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?

Columbus has always been portrayed as an enlightened, peaceful explorer who “discovered” a new world, and became friends with the native people. Howard Zinn’s view on Columbus’s encounter with the natives is an entirely different perspective. Zinn describes Columbus as a man who is willing to torture and kill others to be able to accomplish what he wants; in this case he wanted to obtain gold and other resources to take back with him to Spain.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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