Rating: 
Summary: US History Not-Lite
Review: I often use this book in one of my university history classes, "US History Since 1877." It's biased. All history writing it biased. (George W. Bush's problems with "revisonist history" aside.) I tell the students about Howard Zinn and his biases. And I tell them to try and be as upfront and aware of biases as they are of Zinn's, and as Zinn is of his own. People are bombarded with so much yahoo, rah-rah, raise-the-flag, my-coumntry-right-or-wrong (the next part of that toast is usually---and very conveniently---ignored; check it out some time) that Zinn is as refreshing as a tequila mojito on a hot summer day. He may rant, but unlike many on the other sides he can be checked out for veracity and found to be correct. You have to be when you're taking shots from folks who prefer using cant, rhetoric and arrant nonsense to propel their own agendas. Highly recommended. But, if you use this book in a class, watch out; the Thought Police are watching.
Rating: 
Summary: Not recommended.
Review: I suppose I could have returned this book to the dealer and received a full refund, but I didn't want it to end up in the hands of some other poor schnook.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth
Review: It is very important to know the background of any history writer because that will color the perspective of the work of the author. Further, the positive review of Zinn by the New York Times tells you more about the Times than it does about Zinn's book.Howard Zinn is the featured historian for thr Revolutionary Worker, Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA. The book is very much written from the Communist point of view and is required reading in many college history classes. Students, though, are not really aware of this writers background when they read the book. I also would say that this is also a very common point of view in many grade and high schools.
Rating: 
Summary: Has Plusses and Minuses
Review: On the plus side, the author's heart is in the right (or left) place. There is much to be gained in looking at our recent history from the victim's point of view. It is good to be reminded that the U.S. committed genocide in the Philippines; that the Ludlow Massacre almost grew into an armed national labor insurrection; that the war heroes MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton evicted the Bonus Army in 1932; that the U.S. supported establishment of a military dictatorship in Greece; that corporations played a role in creating Watergate, etc. On the minus side, so eager is the author to paint everything as a Manichean struggle between the forces of good and evil that there is no doubt, no contingency, no issues or possibility of compromise in an imperfect world, no shades of grey, no choices between evils, no mixed motives, no incommensurate goods, no issues of means and ends. In this way he dodges the hard issues of historical judgment and becomes an unreliable narrator. The U.S. should have stayed out of World War II and the Russian civil war. There is nothing but approval for Mao's revolution (no mention of the ensuing 43 million deaths, according to The Black Book of Communism) and disapproval for our support of Chaing Kai- Chek. He asserts that deaths from cancer have multiplied "out of control" and that "more and more of these deaths were coming from an environment poisoned by military experimentation and industrial greed." (If the former judgments at the very least need some qualification and debate, the latter is simply false.) Good scholarship can be born from righteous anger, but it needs to be the result of an open-minded search for truth, as the historian Heiko Oberman has observed-- and this author's mind is schematically ideological and closed. I should add that the title is an obvious misrepresentation of the book's contents. This is not a "history of the twentieth century" but only of the American people during that period. One must suppose this was the publisher's idea, because the author would hardly agree that the American story is the only one in the world that matters. One hopes that no purchasers are misled by this false labeling.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for students of modern American history
Review: Professor Zinn is a brilliant teacher. His view of American history is hardly mainstream. To that end, he offers a focus that probes beyond the accepted norms. Zinn writes with courage, honesty and a powerful intellectual intensity. Ultimately, Zinn pragmatically explains that it is our duty to examine political events with an open mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Simplistic but sometimes very rewarding
Review: The 20th century was a violent, disturbing time but one with many amazing developments. Zinn focuses only on the dark aspects and primarily on the U.S. role in international politics. I have enjoyed and been informed by Zinn's work in the past but I found this book overly simplistic. While my politics are left leaning, i find that many historians on the left write about the world as if everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy- human psychology, sociological trends, even religion never enter Zinn's mind as reasons for the march of history. The 'America is bad' view of life is irratatingly simplistic. That said, Zinn is an expert on Vietnam and his work is an antidote to the skewed history textbooks we were forced to read in high school. I recommend this but also think it is necessary to not accpet everything in the book as a rock solid truth.
Rating:
Summary: Simplistic but sometimes very rewarding
Review: The 20th century was a violent, disturbing time but one with many amazing developments. Zinn focuses only on the dark aspects and primarily on the U.S. role in international politics. I have enjoyed and been informed by Zinn's work in the past but I found this book overly simplistic. While my politics are left leaning, i find that many historians on the left write about the world as if everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy- human psychology, sociological trends, even religion never enter Zinn's mind as reasons for the march of history. The 'America is bad' view of life is irratatingly simplistic. That said, Zinn is an expert on Vietnam and his work is an antidote to the skewed history textbooks we were forced to read in high school. I recommend this but also think it is necessary to not accpet everything in the book as a rock solid truth.
Rating: 
Summary: A Different View of History
Review: The author James Baldwin once said, "No one can possibly know what is about to happen. It is happening each time, for the first time, for the only time." However, I strongly disagree with his statement, for history repeats itself and works in cycles. Howard Zinn explains the Twentieth Century in his book, The Twentieth Century: A People's History. His views are very left wing and Marxist. While reading this book, his tone and style seemed oddly familiar. It seemed generally similar to feelings of discontent, present in the Nineteenth Century. Zinn's sentiments that government's role in America are very parallel to those put forth by the New England Transcendentalists. Then, I came across the quote by Henry David Thoreau, from his book Civil Disobedience: "The government which governs best, is that which governs not at all." When I started reading this book, I had no background on Zinn. I wasn't ready for his self-proclaimed "biased accounts" of history. I had expected a more traditional textbook approach, where no opinion is offered. I found it very refreshing, at first, to read his style of writing. I enjoyed much of his book, especially his citation of other historians, his references to literature of the time or that was set in the time. However, towards the end of the book, I found his negativity overwhelming. He omitted or downplayed the importance of many figures who seem to be noteworthy in America. I thought that the mention of Franklin Roosevelt was somewhat lacking. After coming into office in the Depression, Roosevelt began many innovative programs, such as the WPA and the CCC, to put Americans back to work and to try to relieve some of the hardships of the Depression. Zinn seemed to minimized Roosevelt's importance and his accomplishments. I really liked the way that Zinn included another historian's thoughts on a particular topic. On page 54, he devotes almost a page to the noted historian Richard Hofstadter, whose views are often similar to mine, which made the book that much more enjoyable. Another thing I enjoyed was the fairly frequent citing of literary works written during that time or in later years, but set in the period of discussion. On page 85, Zinn states, "F. Scott Fitzgerald, in an article, Echoes of the Jazz Age,' said: It was a borrowed time anyway the whole upper tenth of the nation living with the insouciance of a grand duc and the casualness of chorus girls.'" Having read Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, this statement really had an effect on me. I could understand exactly what the quote was intended to mean. Zinn also quotes John Steinbeck's book, The Grapes of Wrath (pp.90-91). "And the dispossessed, the migrants, flowed into California, two hundred and fifty thousand, and three hundred thousand...And in the south he saw the golden oranges hanging on the trees, the little golden oranges on the dark green trees; and guards with shotguns patrolling the lines so a man might not pick an orange for a thin child, oranges to be dumped if the price was low..." Being familiar with Steinbeck, I had another personal insight, as I did with Fitzgerald. The last line was especially introspective. It made me stop and think about what was really going on during the Depression and how bad the poverty was in America at that time. Zinn often reminds us of countless things that America has done that he views as wrong. Among the many, many countries and people that America has wronged, he pointed out a few examples that really made an impact on me. First, that the United States was very guilty of genocide in the Philippines; and second, that the military dictatorship that was established in Greece after the war was supported by the U.S. However, the statement that I found to be the most significant, was Zinn's impression of why America went to war with Japan. "It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II....Japan's attack on China in 1937, her bombing of civilians at Nanking, had not provoked the United States to War. It was the Japanese attack on a link in the American Pacific Empire that did it." (pg. 112) There are many things that Zinn reminds the reader of, as if to keep reminding us that America is an evil giant intent on afflicting the world with problems due to its lack of common sense. Often Zinn is just trying to be a sensationalist. There isn't always a whole lot going on, but he makes it seem like a major event is around the corner. I did like the overall tone of the book. It was well written and kept my interest for the most part. Although Zinn's critical view of America is new and different at first, it became old after reading this book. I wouldn't mind an occasional reference to a mistake on America's part, but the constant discussion of it made the book hard to read at some points. Towards the end of the book, Zinn included this quote, which I would actually have recommended to put at the beginning so that the reader has some idea of what to expect. "As for the title of this book [The Twentieth Century: A People's History], it is not quite accurate; a "people's history" promises more than any one person can fulfill, and it is the most difficult kind of history to recapture. I call it that anyway, because, with all its limitations, it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance." p.281 I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a refreshingly different take on the Twentieth Century and doesn't mind hearing about America's faults and shortcomings. Overall, a good book.
Rating:
Summary: A Different View of History
Review: The author James Baldwin once said, "No one can possibly know what is about to happen. It is happening each time, for the first time, for the only time." However, I strongly disagree with his statement, for history repeats itself and works in cycles. Howard Zinn explains the Twentieth Century in his book, The Twentieth Century: A People's History. His views are very left wing and Marxist. While reading this book, his tone and style seemed oddly familiar. It seemed generally similar to feelings of discontent, present in the Nineteenth Century. Zinn's sentiments that government's role in America are very parallel to those put forth by the New England Transcendentalists. Then, I came across the quote by Henry David Thoreau, from his book Civil Disobedience: "The government which governs best, is that which governs not at all." When I started reading this book, I had no background on Zinn. I wasn't ready for his self-proclaimed "biased accounts" of history. I had expected a more traditional textbook approach, where no opinion is offered. I found it very refreshing, at first, to read his style of writing. I enjoyed much of his book, especially his citation of other historians, his references to literature of the time or that was set in the time. However, towards the end of the book, I found his negativity overwhelming. He omitted or downplayed the importance of many figures who seem to be noteworthy in America. I thought that the mention of Franklin Roosevelt was somewhat lacking. After coming into office in the Depression, Roosevelt began many innovative programs, such as the WPA and the CCC, to put Americans back to work and to try to relieve some of the hardships of the Depression. Zinn seemed to minimized Roosevelt's importance and his accomplishments. I really liked the way that Zinn included another historian's thoughts on a particular topic. On page 54, he devotes almost a page to the noted historian Richard Hofstadter, whose views are often similar to mine, which made the book that much more enjoyable. Another thing I enjoyed was the fairly frequent citing of literary works written during that time or in later years, but set in the period of discussion. On page 85, Zinn states, "F. Scott Fitzgerald, in an article, Echoes of the Jazz Age,' said: It was a borrowed time anyway the whole upper tenth of the nation living with the insouciance of a grand duc and the casualness of chorus girls.'" Having read Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, this statement really had an effect on me. I could understand exactly what the quote was intended to mean. Zinn also quotes John Steinbeck's book, The Grapes of Wrath (pp.90-91). "And the dispossessed, the migrants, flowed into California, two hundred and fifty thousand, and three hundred thousand...And in the south he saw the golden oranges hanging on the trees, the little golden oranges on the dark green trees; and guards with shotguns patrolling the lines so a man might not pick an orange for a thin child, oranges to be dumped if the price was low..." Being familiar with Steinbeck, I had another personal insight, as I did with Fitzgerald. The last line was especially introspective. It made me stop and think about what was really going on during the Depression and how bad the poverty was in America at that time. Zinn often reminds us of countless things that America has done that he views as wrong. Among the many, many countries and people that America has wronged, he pointed out a few examples that really made an impact on me. First, that the United States was very guilty of genocide in the Philippines; and second, that the military dictatorship that was established in Greece after the war was supported by the U.S. However, the statement that I found to be the most significant, was Zinn's impression of why America went to war with Japan. "It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II....Japan's attack on China in 1937, her bombing of civilians at Nanking, had not provoked the United States to War. It was the Japanese attack on a link in the American Pacific Empire that did it." (pg. 112) There are many things that Zinn reminds the reader of, as if to keep reminding us that America is an evil giant intent on afflicting the world with problems due to its lack of common sense. Often Zinn is just trying to be a sensationalist. There isn't always a whole lot going on, but he makes it seem like a major event is around the corner. I did like the overall tone of the book. It was well written and kept my interest for the most part. Although Zinn's critical view of America is new and different at first, it became old after reading this book. I wouldn't mind an occasional reference to a mistake on America's part, but the constant discussion of it made the book hard to read at some points. Towards the end of the book, Zinn included this quote, which I would actually have recommended to put at the beginning so that the reader has some idea of what to expect. "As for the title of this book [The Twentieth Century: A People's History], it is not quite accurate; a "people's history" promises more than any one person can fulfill, and it is the most difficult kind of history to recapture. I call it that anyway, because, with all its limitations, it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance." p.281 I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a refreshingly different take on the Twentieth Century and doesn't mind hearing about America's faults and shortcomings. Overall, a good book.
Rating:
Summary: Zinn Humanizes History with another Viewpoint
Review: The reader from Rhode Island entirely misses the point of Zinn's books. Zinn has attempted something that doesn't exist in traditional history books (especially those provided in American primary and secondary schools); he examines our history by looking at what ordinary people thought, experienced, and did instead of writing it as if there is only a single point of view as is represented in many American history books. Zinn is an admitted liberal (and because of his obvious bias I give 4 instead of 5 stars to this book). The reader from Rhode Island is incensed that Zinn's book is biased because s/he obviously doesn't share Zinn's biases. Doesn't Rhode Island realize that all human beings have biases (some of which Rhode Island probably agrees with)? Therefore, to one extent or another, all history books are biased. At least Zinn admits to his biases! Becuase Zinn has much greater sympathy for Native Americans than for European immigrants; for poor than for wealthy citizens; and for the powerless than for those with power doesn't mean that he hasn't conducted research (from original sources of the day) to provide information regarding events in our history. If his research results in discovering facts that show past actions of some Americans is less than laudatory, this doesn't negate the truth or accuracy of the research. Many American history books (as well as those from other countries) are written to promote a general love of country while trying to inculcate, in young students, the idea that their country is right and never wrong. While this may make young citizens loyal to the USA, it does not encourage them to think critically, to admit that some choices made by Americans are not admirable, and most importantly, does not represent the point of view of many American citizens. Reading Zinn for the first time was like a breath of fresh air for me. When I was in college and later, I became very interested in and started to read, more extensively, books on American history and politics. I learned that what I thought I knew was, for the most part, a highly censored and untruthful version of our history. Though this made me angry, I still believed that our country was great because the ideals and principals we espoused were something that we constantly were striving towards. Zinn brought the richness, the variety, and the multi-culturism of America to me in a way that was vivid and exciting! It amazes me that many people recoil from unpleasant information about our past as if Americans are so weak, they will crumble if they hear anything negative about our country. In our country, American citizens are the most multicultural in the world; our citizens hold different viewpoints and beliefs on religion, customs, politics, and mores. And most Americans are incredibly tolerant of the right of other Americans to practice different beliefs than their own. This is the basis of our strength at a nation. Therefore, the truth (pleasant or otherwise) regarding our past (and present actions), can only make us better informed, more questioning of what is right or wrong, and more likely to insist that we achieve a better and more equitable Democracy for all. There are enough history books that extoll the virtues of American history and are, at the worst, blatant lies about America's past actions, and at best, omit any information that might make America look less than perfect. It is a pleasure to know that other history books exist that provide a more accurate version of what actually happened in our past. So I say to any reader, who genuinely wants to find out about American history, and to see it from a more vital and humane viewpoint, buy and read Zinn books. You will not be disappointed!
|
