Rating: 
Summary: A Refreshingly Honest Look
Review: The Rhode Island reader was incensed that Zinn would admit his bias. Frankly, I find it refreshing that Zinn admits that his history focuses on the people as opposed to leaders. This history is an attempt to help readers form a more complete view of American history in their minds. This is why Zinn does not push it as definitive, he recognizes that it isn't. However, it does one amazing job of reminding Americans to get off their high horse. Also, Zinn is an amazing writer, especially for non-fiction. It enthralled me.
Rating: 
Summary: One-sided and not very reliable
Review: This book apparently takes Zinn's popular People's History of the US as its starting point, but focuses primarily on the 20th Century. When I get history books like this, I like to look up specific episodes of which I have several references and see how they are treated. With this book, I chose to look up the Northern Securities antitrust case, and immediately found that Zinn's treatment was superficial, at best, but surely misleading and inaccurate.In that case, JP Morgan controlled the Burlington RR and the Northern Pacific (which Hill rescued from bankruptcy), and JJ Hill was the primary controller of the Great Northern RR. Hill's rival for control of the Burlington was Harriman, the executive of the Union Pacific. Harriman made several attempts at wresting the Burlington away, in one case leading to a stock market panic in 1901 as short-sellers sold more shares than they actually owned. To counter these wasteful diversions, Hill and Morgan decided to put their interests under a single holding company, the Northern Securities Trust. The Supreme Court ruled against it, but they still retained control of the individual companies. Zinn's synopsis: "there was no prosecution of the men who had planned the monopoly - Morgan, Harriman, Hill." That is bizarre in the first case because two of those men were bitter enemies of the third so they were hardly planning together as Zinn insinuates, and in the second case because the Trust wasn't an attempt to plan a monopoly - they already owned the property, and were locked in competition with both CanPac to the north and the Union Pacific to the south. Strangely enough, Zinn references socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's excellent work a few pages before, but either he didn't actually read Kolko, didn't understand him, or intentionally ignores his implications. In his treatment of the Great Depression, Zinn thrashes about with inexplicable discussions of "those responsible for organizing the [capitalist] economy". Last time I checked, capitalism - the Laissez Faire capitalism that he seems to believe existed at the time - does not have organizers. If an economy is centrally planned, it is not capitalism *by definition*. And he makes this statement: "It was to stabilize the system ... that the Wagner Act of 1935 ... had been passed. The wave of strikes in 1936, 1937, 1938 made the need even more pressing." So, strikes in the future make the need for legislation in the past more pressing? How does that work? Besides the illogical conclusion Zinn draws, don't his "facts" imply that the legislation had either a neutral or possibly even a negative effect? Zinn raves about the TVA, saying that this **federal** program provided "local instead of national control". Perhaps he should review the Carter Administration's actions vis-a-vis the Tellico Dam (a TVA project) and the snail darter (an endagered species). He also gushes over the various New Deal giveaways to artists, saying that they enabled people to hear "a symphony for the first time." Really!?!? Has Zinn never heard of radio? Zinn's grasp of mathematics is tenuous, though he does understand the principles of misleading by (in)appropriately switching between percentages and dollar amounts. His gift for subtlety is nonexistent. Basic economics and constitutional law are beyond his grasp. Sometimes he insists that the Constitution be upheld, sometimes he advocates positions that are clearly unconstitutional. At one point he notes the undemocratic nature of the army by citing the fact that officers lines were short and the enlisted lines were long (like, duh! there are more enlisted men than officers). Throughout the book, it is hard to tell whether Zinn is in favor of violent revolution (he applauds people who steal, even at gunpoint, during the Depression) or against it. However, as the book progresses, he implies that the situation gets closer and closer to an explosion (a chapter is titled "...Or Does It Explode?"). From Zinn's standpoint, the 20th century has been one long war waged by the United States against enemies of opportunity. He dismisses Hitler as a foil of imperialist America (apparently FDR was a tool of the right wing), and only mentions Stalin once, so that an alien (or someone born since 1989) would never understand America's foreign policy as part of a Cold War strategy if this was their only resource. Someone who read only this book would suppose that the United States is the worst nation on earth, that there are many better places to live, and that all businessmen are criminals. In fact, the only "history" in this book appears to be the collection of populist and folk song lyrics. Like so many other socialists, Zinn alternately believes in and doubts the ability of the common person to understand what is going on in the world. When it comes to decision-making, everything should be put to the vote. Yet, somehow "the man" is able to dupe "the people" at every turn. When the people vote for the wrong thing (in Zinn's view), he expresses dissatisfaction with the entire notion of democracy (making him even more undemocratic than the Army). I would not recommend this book unless you (A) already have many other reliable sources to reference, and (B) are intending to find out why Hollywood intellectuals like Matt Damon are such Zinn fanatics.
Rating:
Summary: One-sided and not very reliable
Review: This book apparently takes Zinn's popular People's History of the US as its starting point, but focuses primarily on the 20th Century. When I get history books like this, I like to look up specific episodes of which I have several references and see how they are treated. With this book, I chose to look up the Northern Securities antitrust case, and immediately found that Zinn's treatment was superficial, at best, but surely misleading and inaccurate. In that case, JP Morgan controlled the Burlington RR and the Northern Pacific (which Hill rescued from bankruptcy), and JJ Hill was the primary controller of the Great Northern RR. Hill's rival for control of the Burlington was Harriman, the executive of the Union Pacific. Harriman made several attempts at wresting the Burlington away, in one case leading to a stock market panic in 1901 as short-sellers sold more shares than they actually owned. To counter these wasteful diversions, Hill and Morgan decided to put their interests under a single holding company, the Northern Securities Trust. The Supreme Court ruled against it, but they still retained control of the individual companies. Zinn's synopsis: "there was no prosecution of the men who had planned the monopoly - Morgan, Harriman, Hill." That is bizarre in the first case because two of those men were bitter enemies of the third so they were hardly planning together as Zinn insinuates, and in the second case because the Trust wasn't an attempt to plan a monopoly - they already owned the property, and were locked in competition with both CanPac to the north and the Union Pacific to the south. Strangely enough, Zinn references socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's excellent work a few pages before, but either he didn't actually read Kolko, didn't understand him, or intentionally ignores his implications. In his treatment of the Great Depression, Zinn thrashes about with inexplicable discussions of "those responsible for organizing the [capitalist] economy". Last time I checked, capitalism - the Laissez Faire capitalism that he seems to believe existed at the time - does not have organizers. If an economy is centrally planned, it is not capitalism *by definition*. And he makes this statement: "It was to stabilize the system ... that the Wagner Act of 1935 ... had been passed. The wave of strikes in 1936, 1937, 1938 made the need even more pressing." So, strikes in the future make the need for legislation in the past more pressing? How does that work? Besides the illogical conclusion Zinn draws, don't his "facts" imply that the legislation had either a neutral or possibly even a negative effect? Zinn raves about the TVA, saying that this **federal** program provided "local instead of national control". Perhaps he should review the Carter Administration's actions vis-a-vis the Tellico Dam (a TVA project) and the snail darter (an endagered species). He also gushes over the various New Deal giveaways to artists, saying that they enabled people to hear "a symphony for the first time." Really!?!? Has Zinn never heard of radio? Zinn's grasp of mathematics is tenuous, though he does understand the principles of misleading by (in)appropriately switching between percentages and dollar amounts. His gift for subtlety is nonexistent. Basic economics and constitutional law are beyond his grasp. Sometimes he insists that the Constitution be upheld, sometimes he advocates positions that are clearly unconstitutional. At one point he notes the undemocratic nature of the army by citing the fact that officers lines were short and the enlisted lines were long (like, duh! there are more enlisted men than officers). Throughout the book, it is hard to tell whether Zinn is in favor of violent revolution (he applauds people who steal, even at gunpoint, during the Depression) or against it. However, as the book progresses, he implies that the situation gets closer and closer to an explosion (a chapter is titled "...Or Does It Explode?"). From Zinn's standpoint, the 20th century has been one long war waged by the United States against enemies of opportunity. He dismisses Hitler as a foil of imperialist America (apparently FDR was a tool of the right wing), and only mentions Stalin once, so that an alien (or someone born since 1989) would never understand America's foreign policy as part of a Cold War strategy if this was their only resource. Someone who read only this book would suppose that the United States is the worst nation on earth, that there are many better places to live, and that all businessmen are criminals. In fact, the only "history" in this book appears to be the collection of populist and folk song lyrics. Like so many other socialists, Zinn alternately believes in and doubts the ability of the common person to understand what is going on in the world. When it comes to decision-making, everything should be put to the vote. Yet, somehow "the man" is able to dupe "the people" at every turn. When the people vote for the wrong thing (in Zinn's view), he expresses dissatisfaction with the entire notion of democracy (making him even more undemocratic than the Army). I would not recommend this book unless you (A) already have many other reliable sources to reference, and (B) are intending to find out why Hollywood intellectuals like Matt Damon are such Zinn fanatics.
Rating:
Summary: biased revisions of history, mostly just angry opinions
Review: This is one of those "Columbus was really a jerk" books. It's probably the best of that type of book, but the book is clearly slanted. The author even admits this, saying something along the lines of how all history is biased, so someone ought to write something biased this particular way. Sheesh, things like this make me believe we're at the end of civilization.
Rating:
Summary: A tract, not a history
Review: Unless you are looking for a socialist tract (some reviewers probably were) you should avoid this book. I suppose that all histories have a point of view, and that a non-traditional point of view would be refreshing. But an America-sucks diatribe isn't refreshing at all. This history is made up almost entirely of quotations from primary sources. That's not an objection in itself, but it is clear that the sources were carefully selected only to present labor-movement and socialist orthodoxy. The admitted bias of the author, a "radical historian" whose opinions are featured on the Pacifica network among other places, leads to egregious oversimplifications, outright historical errors and laughable internal contradictions. This is not a "people's history" but a labor-organizer's history. As another reviewer suggested, if you use this book at all, you should have a decently fair and scholarly history nearby to help you distinguish fact from propoganda.
Rating:
Summary: The intolerable will not be tolerated
Review: What must be remembered while reading this book is that while Zinn may have an opinionated history, the facts are the facts. Regardless of what some narrow minded patriot may think, the facts cannot be denied. And, yes, Columbus was a very bad man. America was not discovered, it was stolen. I am still amazed at the apathy displayed in America when a correct history is published. I think the question that has troubled me for the past years is,"Since when has supporting America become the right thing to do?" We all know that is was stolen, and that it has been kept up in just as dishonorable a fashion.
Rating:
Summary: The REAL History Of The American People!
Review: When it comes to smashing social shibboleths into smithereens, no one is more expert than noted historian Howard Zinn, who has made a career of retelling the story of American history in ways that debunk the comfortable old saws that focus almost exclusively on leaders and large organizations, leaving the central story of the actual history of the American people largely misrepresented, unfocused and untold. Here he remedies the overall treatment of more populist aspects of the American experience for ordinary people in the twentieth century, correcting the oversight by more conventional historians that exclude any serious discussion of organized labor or groups seeking rights and extensions of social privileges to the common working man.
The book is written (as are all Zinn's efforts to date) in a wonderfully approachable prose that is both easy to read and yet eminently entertaining. One walks away from the reading experience with a profound new respect for the consistent efforts of the common American man and woman to secure a better, brighter, and more abundant future for themselves and their children against what often seems to be the insuperable odds represented in entrenched resistance of organized business and government forces. One element that is obvious in all of Zinn's representations is that, as H. L Mencken once put it, America may have the best government that money can buy, but unfortunately, the people do not own it; the corporations do.
I would consider this book as an essential ingredient in any history student's broad education in the sense that it helps one to gain some critical perspective of just how often and how consistently most of the active forces within our social orbit serve to intentionally deceive the common man by accentuating certain aspects of phenomena and excluding or misrepresenting certain other information in order to better manipulate and control public opinion. Whether, for example, it be the federal government forwarding the public argument that the reasons we attacked Iraq was to secure freedom for Iraqis rather than admitting it was due to interests of global corporate forces to control the indigenous Iraqi oil production and distribution, or misrepresenting the corporate or governmental reasons for wanting to change the way in which shortfalls in social security funding will be addressed, Zinn returns the reader to a more critical view of the subject matter in view; thus one begins to see more systematically how the entrenched interests of the power elite continually are engaged in an unfair and unprincipled and ruthlessly relentless one-way class warfare, that it purposefully manipulates and propagandizes the general public through manipulation of the content and context of information via its ownership of the several avenues of the mass media in order, thereby serving its own social, economic, and political interests while deliberately keeping the common man unwittingly compliant in maintaining his own servitude. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Completely unreliable
Review: While it is difficult to improve on Mr. Vanden's very even-handed review, a few additional comments: Zinn does such a good job on presenting the underside of American history that his book gained textbook status in the Soviet Union. And, we must thank him for bringing to light many of those facts. However, his views are so colored by his particular prejudices that he cannot see the forest for the few trees that surround him--and his admission of bias is no defense to bad history. In short, his book is utterly unreliable on numerous issues, economics and foreign policy being the two most notable of a large host. He ignores facts that contradict his positions and on some occasions can't even get the facts right that might arguably support him (the Christmas bombing was in 1972, not 1973). He relies on dated and obsolete sources--the hack journalist Josephson being one of many. That is bad history. On his inability to acknowledge the vast sins of his socialist allies, see Mr. Vanden's review. For example, if you're interested in reading about the North Vietnamese massacre of 4,000 unarmed civilians at Hue during the Tet offensive (which is part of U.S. history, so the event merits discussion) look elsewhere, although there is plenty on Lt. Calley. Read this with a very large shaker of salt and a competent, intellectually honest U.S. history text at your side.
Rating: 
Summary: get a late version of people's history of the U.S. in stead
Review: With this book, I was expecting Zinn to go into more detail about America in the 20th century, but it is essentially the 20th century chapters of People's History of the United States taken out and labeled as a new and different book. If you have an older version of Pepole History of the United States by Howard Zinn, the Twentieth Century might be good because of the chapters relating to the elder Bush and Clinton administrations. The rest of the chapters are in people's history. However, recent version the people history of the united states do contain the extra chapters so if it would be better to just get a later version of People's History of the United States instead if you don't have a copy yet.
Rating: 
Summary: Zinn has caught you, Brett Treible
Review: Zinn's revisionism is doubtless a salutary thing. But it carries with it a certain danger, which is demonstrated perfectly by our friend Brett Treible below, who says, "Your judgments cannot be wrong as long as you consider all things." I see. So what you would have me believe is there is some sort of positivistic TRUTH out there accessible to all who are brave enough to "consider all things". I think you might be listening to NPR a little too much. "All things" is at best an abstraction (and a metaphor) and at worst an ideological tool of the left. Don't get me wrong: I think Zinn's work is a welcome antidote to the generally sugar-coated literature on American history (although I should add that we're not alone in our taste for sugar -- it's a product of the nation-state and its voracious need for legitimacy), but the problem is that his work suggests, along with the rest of the left, that the truth is out there and it's just being hidden from you by greedy corporate titans and venal government bureaucrats. This conceit is really just a continuation of Marxist superstructure theories and the naive positivism of the Enlightenment, itself the endlessly replenishing source of all variants of Marxism. So I'm glad, Brett, that you feel enlightened by Mr. Zinn -- there's no doubt he has a lot to teach us all. But please don't let him convince you that history can be reduced to a good vs. evil paradigm that is there for anyone with eyes to see. Don't let him convince you that all you need to look for is "all things" and then the truth will be clear. All things cannot be comprehended, so there is inevitably some degree of CHOICE in what you present. This choice is in turn determined by a political agenda. In other words, deconstruction applies to the left, too.
|
