Zinn's Corruption

Howard Zinn defines American exceptionalism as the belief “...that the United States alone has the right, whether it be divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary.” The American exceptionalist ideology has domestic implications found in political rhetoric and within the founding of the United States. External implications of exceptionalism are evident in American foreign policy and militaristic interventions such as Vietnam and Iraq. A new definition of has arisen, highlighting the negative implications of exceptionalism, “Roast beef and apple pie explained exceptionalism but now we are back to moldy rye bread and water.”

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

of America. In writing this book, the major aim, for Zinn, was to set a quiet revolution. This

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,

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

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 A People 's History of the United States has been highly influential since its initial publication in 1980. It spawned adaptations for young readers (a two-volume adaptation by Rebecca Stefoff: A Young People 's History of the United States) and The People Speak, a History Channel documentary based on Zinn 's work. Zinn himself was until his death in 2010 a heroic figure to many, especially for this book and for his ongoing teaching and social activism, which were directly related.

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

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,

In looking at more contemporary issues, Zinn utilizes interview records and other hard documentation to show us the real stories. For example, the government moved slowly to end segregation, fearful of a change of the face of American power. We see how two of America’s favorite presidents, Eisenhower and Kennedy, did little to change the system during their administrations. Lyndon Johnson pushed for passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. This was viewed

He begins more abstractly and then applies these principles to America. Specifically he says that power leads to a sense of superiority and is confused with virtue. Fulbright defines the “arrogance of power” as the “psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better or stronger than other nations”. Clearly, these statements provide the premise of the book. As such, it explains Americas actions in all the situations exemplified in the book. After Fulbright analyzes patriotism in America, specifically when relating to the citizen, universities and the senate. For example, he describes the political climate at the time as opposed to descent and criticism. Despite this, he mentions the anti-war movement and describes both it being conducted and accepted as a sign of maturity and patriotism. That is to say, criticism is vital to democracy and consensus is a threat to freedom. Similarly, he describes how senate is in decline because of its unquestioning acceptance of the president’s request for war and as a result the decline in its Importance in the area of international relations and war. On account of this, Fulbright denounces the diminished importance of debate and dissent in the senate. In part two of the book, Fulbright analyzes revolutions and America’s perspective on them. According to Fulbright, America is an un-revolutionary society with