To those who claim that this book is "one-sided" or "doesn’t paint the full picture...." Uh, yeah, dude. I thought that was kind of the point. He says right at the very beginning that the book is heavily biased in on direction because most of American history is so heavily biaesd in the other direction. I see it as supplementary material to traditional American history that is taught in schools; one that focuses on the people that the decisions made by those in power affected rather than hyper-fixating on the decisions and powerful figures. To my knowledge (which is flawed), we're the only country that has an entire section of history dedicated to "Titans of Industry." What does that tell you?
Why do people say things are the "politicization" of history when history is inherently political? I mean... It's literally just a detailed account of politics over time. I'll have to read it, though, before I can properly disagree with this specific use of the phrase. I just hear people throw around "you're politicizing this!" about things that are already political.... I would also say it's probably good to have a history book that doesn't hold up too many individual figures. I'm not saying we should never celebrate individuals, but exclusively or excessively doing so kind of masks the fact that it actually takes LOTS of people working together to make anything significant happen.
Zinn's observations on Columbus was specifically taken from people of his time period, he literally references them and tells you who they are. So why are you trying to so hard to hate this book, and your contentions are subjective. Also if you have not read anything written by Columbus or about him during his time, why are you jumping to conclusions already? I think you might be a little indoctrinated and have a hard time understanding that History is about as malleable as clay. It doesn't serve the public to understand and make connections about history which would only lead them to undermine current political systems. They don't want us to have a good idea about how these countries were shaped. Those intentions are clear within the shallow, soulless curriculums across all public school systems. Given those facts, why are we actively trying to disown alternative perspectives like Zinn? I don't see any of your contentions being relevant here, it seems you drank too much punch and are too comfortable with the "narratives" you have already adopted for yourself. Just come to the conclusion that the revolution was more internal than it was about defending our state from Britain. That's Howards perspective and he has resources to back that, and you read them. If you really think History cannot be shaped and doctored, you are probably not the best person to represent historical ideas, or digest them in any context.
Good read man, I am majoring in History, specifically the history of California but this book was one book I had to read in one of my college courses and let me tell you, i love this book. I have read it 3 times in the past 2 years.
Congratulations, you have successfully been brainwashed by a confirmed piece of propaganda that paints all the west as uniquely evil and all others as saints. If you want to know real history and not something that just confirms what you would like history to be, then throw out this fictional book and read primary sources and other secondary that are objective in their research
"He seems to view a socialist uprising as a fundamentally positive force, though he seem to acknowledge socialist uprisings in the US have largely failed, and he would blame those failures on the wealthy elites in the United States" YES YES That is true. What do you think socialism is? Division of labor? Wage slavery? Yeah dude owning the means of the labor you commit is a good thing, it speaks to the humanity of the people doing the work. That's good for us. What else are you attaching to the word socialism that is bringing YOU to think that socialist uprising are BAD?????? Yes, elite power system that control the way society functions and progresses have a hand in undermining those systems. Is that too far fetched for you?
Which of the 90 definitions of socialism are you leaning on? Defunk systems like to trash other forms of organization, when those forms attack and undermine current economic environments.
@@blightedpinebooks You need to go back to learn marxist theory and why is applies to China in addition to Mckarthysim in the UNITED States so you understand his points and why and how things happened in China. Living in China doesn't mean much if you don't understand the whole society and history in addition the visions of Mao in depth and not just what you see in western media. Many have spent years in China and learned little
It’s not history, it’s a political propaganda piece. History books are not supposed to be biased but objective and give you only facts, no ideologically driven opinions and interpretations. Read primary sources and verified historians who give references and are objective
People are saying that this is a good counter-narrative to our current education system, the only problem being that this IS the current education system. Everything else I've learned in school compliments the ideas in this book rather than countering them. Zinn shares the same bias as the rest of the education system regarding American History.
I felt the same way. The critical lens is ubiquitous in education. It’s no longer a useful counter-narrative, but rather the accepted framework through which most educators view American history.
@@Orteguh Noam Chomsky if you're into a critical perspective. I find his critiques of the West to be more productive. If you're into something more neutral, 1776 is a a fantastic retelling of the Revolutionary War.
This book was require for my American History I course at community college. I was always self aware of the politicizing of history, so this book was easy to call out for what it is. It has a LOT of truth to it but it does fall flat in terms of the narrative it was trying to go for imo. I think it deserves a 7/10
Hey I like books that debunk reality and promote propaganda as well. Is the disagreement with the claims made in Zinn's book based on the fact that you were taught differently? Or is there actual substance you can give to how you can debunk an honest review of our history, because public education and whatever they are jamming into your minds at university, is not it.
Yes! I watched that video on Christopher columbus when I was taking history in college and couldn't for the life of me find it again, until now (almost 2 years later), thanks to you!!! Much appreciated!!
Mary Grabar is an incompetent buffoon whose rhetoric only aims to radicalize right-wingers. I would read the blogpost "The Pseudo-Intellectualism of the Alexander Hamilton Institute's Dr. Mary Grabar"
Thank you for this intelligent and critical review. I should read the book myself but I took a Public History course in college that seemed to follow the exact line of thinking in this book. But while Zinn actually states his bias, we would never look critically at the theories of the field and just accept this as objective truth. Not that there isn't a lot of factual truth here, but it does look at history a certain way.
I read it years ago and I credit this book for being a big part of my political understanding. So often, It's US rah rah rah, Freedom!!! As if freedom doesn't exist anywhere else. I get a little queasy when July 4th comes around. The hyper nationalism that takes place...especially when you consider our bloody history. The genocide of American Indians an the enslavement of African Americans. Not to mention all of the other violent episodes of American history. It's just mind blowing when you truly understand the real history of our country. Excellent book.
The only part of your summary that bothered me was that you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the difference between communism and socialism. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. Mr. Zinn was, as are Bernie Sanders, AOC, and myself for that matter, Democratic Socialists. Such is a perfect example of the nature of US history education that Howard Zinn addresses.
The people collectively control the means of production through the organization of democratic bodies that oversee everything or as people like to say a state. The ownership over things by the state is not mutually exclusive with the ownership over things by the people unless the state is not controlled by the people and instead other entities like corporations or a few extremely wealthy people, cough cough america. Democratic socialism is indeed different and is just a half measure that is basically capitalism with some bread crumbs. exploitation of the third world and imperialism still thrives (look at Ikea). Democratic socialism is not socialism and until capitalism is ended the people can not truly have democratic control of the state as there will always be consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of the few who's interests directly conflict with the many. Not saying trying to move towards capitalism with breadcrumbs is bad as it's still a step in the right direction but it shouldn't be an end goal if the goal is to have true equality, democracy and freedom
Admittedly I have a limited understanding of the economics of socialism and communism - though my experiences reading about the devastating effects of socialist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cambodia have made me a little more than queasy - but at the same time the impacts of capitalism unbounded by humanitarian ethics are distressing. Thank you for your comment.
To those who claim that this book is "one-sided" or "doesn’t paint the full picture...." Uh, yeah, dude. I thought that was kind of the point. He says right at the very beginning that the book is heavily biased in on direction because most of American history is so heavily biaesd in the other direction. I see it as supplementary material to traditional American history that is taught in schools; one that focuses on the people that the decisions made by those in power affected rather than hyper-fixating on the decisions and powerful figures. To my knowledge (which is flawed), we're the only country that has an entire section of history dedicated to "Titans of Industry." What does that tell you?
I don’t disagree. Thank you for your comment.
yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssswwwwwwsssss
Why do people say things are the "politicization" of history when history is inherently political? I mean... It's literally just a detailed account of politics over time. I'll have to read it, though, before I can properly disagree with this specific use of the phrase. I just hear people throw around "you're politicizing this!" about things that are already political....
I would also say it's probably good to have a history book that doesn't hold up too many individual figures. I'm not saying we should never celebrate individuals, but exclusively or excessively doing so kind of masks the fact that it actually takes LOTS of people working together to make anything significant happen.
Yes, I’d recommend reading the book.
Zinn's observations on Columbus was specifically taken from people of his time period, he literally references them and tells you who they are. So why are you trying to so hard to hate this book, and your contentions are subjective. Also if you have not read anything written by Columbus or about him during his time, why are you jumping to conclusions already?
I think you might be a little indoctrinated and have a hard time understanding that History is about as malleable as clay. It doesn't serve the public to understand and make connections about history which would only lead them to undermine current political systems. They don't want us to have a good idea about how these countries were shaped. Those intentions are clear within the shallow, soulless curriculums across all public school systems.
Given those facts, why are we actively trying to disown alternative perspectives like Zinn? I don't see any of your contentions being relevant here, it seems you drank too much punch and are too comfortable with the "narratives" you have already adopted for yourself.
Just come to the conclusion that the revolution was more internal than it was about defending our state from Britain. That's Howards perspective and he has resources to back that, and you read them. If you really think History cannot be shaped and doctored, you are probably not the best person to represent historical ideas, or digest them in any context.
Thank you for your comment!
He went into the book without understanding theory and many other things as well but swallowed a huge amount amount of western narratives
I read this book and it gave the impression that Mr Zinn doesn't like America
Good read man, I am majoring in History, specifically the history of California but this book was one book I had to read in one of my college courses and let me tell you, i love this book. I have read it 3 times in the past 2 years.
Congratulations, you have successfully been brainwashed by a confirmed piece of propaganda that paints all the west as uniquely evil and all others as saints.
If you want to know real history and not something that just confirms what you would like history to be, then throw out this fictional book and read primary sources and other secondary that are objective in their research
Thanks for your comment!
"He seems to view a socialist uprising as a fundamentally positive force, though he seem to acknowledge socialist uprisings in the US have largely failed, and he would blame those failures on the wealthy elites in the United States"
YES
YES
That is true.
What do you think socialism is? Division of labor? Wage slavery? Yeah dude owning the means of the labor you commit is a good thing, it speaks to the humanity of the people doing the work. That's good for us. What else are you attaching to the word socialism that is bringing YOU to think that socialist uprising are BAD??????
Yes, elite power system that control the way society functions and progresses have a hand in undermining those systems. Is that too far fetched for you?
Which of the 90 definitions of socialism are you leaning on? Defunk systems like to trash other forms of organization, when those forms attack and undermine current economic environments.
I lived in China for five years and learned of the atrocities committed in the name of Marxism-Leninism.
@@blightedpinebooks You need to go back to learn marxist theory and why is applies to China in addition to Mckarthysim in the UNITED States so you understand his points and why and how things happened in China. Living in China doesn't mean much if you don't understand the whole society and history in addition the visions of Mao in depth and not just what you see in western media. Many have spent years in China and learned little
Thank you for your comment.
I like the book from the view point from oppressed people and something other than American exceptionalism
It’s not history, it’s a political propaganda piece.
History books are not supposed to be biased but objective and give you only facts, no ideologically driven opinions and interpretations.
Read primary sources and verified historians who give references and are objective
Thanks for your comment!
People are saying that this is a good counter-narrative to our current education system, the only problem being that this IS the current education system. Everything else I've learned in school compliments the ideas in this book rather than countering them. Zinn shares the same bias as the rest of the education system regarding American History.
I felt the same way. The critical lens is ubiquitous in education. It’s no longer a useful counter-narrative, but rather the accepted framework through which most educators view American history.
What book would you recommend then?
@@Orteguh I started with "Death of the West" by Pat Buchanan.
@@Orteguh Noam Chomsky if you're into a critical perspective. I find his critiques of the West to be more productive. If you're into something more neutral, 1776 is a a fantastic retelling of the Revolutionary War.
This book was require for my American History I course at community college. I was always self aware of the politicizing of history, so this book was easy to call out for what it is. It has a LOT of truth to it but it does fall flat in terms of the narrative it was trying to go for imo. I think it deserves a 7/10
Thanks for your thoughts! Looking back, 5 is probably a bit too critical.
There is no "narratives" lol, unless you mean the debunking of modern propaganda within public education and the intellectual class regarding history.
Great review, I think you were very fair. I'm a substitute teacher and I've seen this text in classrooms.
Thank you! It’s a classic and deserves to be read, but with skepticism.
Yes this book should definitely be a read for all junior high kids Not that water down version
Agreed. Students should be exposed to as many perspectives as possible, even if, and especially when, you as a teacher disagree.
There’s a great vid called “we might owe Christopher Columbus an apology”. I also like Mary Grabar’s “Debunking Howard Zin”.
Thank you!
Hey I like books that debunk reality and promote propaganda as well.
Is the disagreement with the claims made in Zinn's book based on the fact that you were taught differently? Or is there actual substance you can give to how you can debunk an honest review of our history, because public education and whatever they are jamming into your minds at university, is not it.
Yes! I watched that video on Christopher columbus when I was taking history in college and couldn't for the life of me find it again, until now (almost 2 years later), thanks to you!!! Much appreciated!!
Mary Grabar is an incompetent buffoon whose rhetoric only aims to radicalize right-wingers. I would read the blogpost "The Pseudo-Intellectualism of the Alexander Hamilton Institute's Dr. Mary Grabar"
Thank you for this intelligent and critical review. I should read the book myself but I took a Public History course in college that seemed to follow the exact line of thinking in this book. But while Zinn actually states his bias, we would never look critically at the theories of the field and just accept this as objective truth. Not that there isn't a lot of factual truth here, but it does look at history a certain way.
Appreciate the comment!
I read it years ago and I credit this book for being a big part of my political understanding. So often, It's US rah rah rah, Freedom!!! As if freedom doesn't exist anywhere else. I get a little queasy when July 4th comes around. The hyper nationalism that takes place...especially when you consider our bloody history. The genocide of American Indians an the enslavement of African Americans. Not to mention all of the other violent episodes of American history. It's just mind blowing when you truly understand the real history of our country. Excellent book.
Zinn's perspective is certainly necessary to capture the totality of America. Thanks for your comment.
The only part of your summary that bothered me was that you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the difference between communism and socialism. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. Mr. Zinn was, as are Bernie Sanders, AOC, and myself for that matter, Democratic Socialists.
Such is a perfect example of the nature of US history education that Howard Zinn addresses.
The people collectively control the means of production through the organization of democratic bodies that oversee everything or as people like to say a state. The ownership over things by the state is not mutually exclusive with the ownership over things by the people unless the state is not controlled by the people and instead other entities like corporations or a few extremely wealthy people, cough cough america. Democratic socialism is indeed different and is just a half measure that is basically capitalism with some bread crumbs. exploitation of the third world and imperialism still thrives (look at Ikea). Democratic socialism is not socialism and until capitalism is ended the people can not truly have democratic control of the state as there will always be consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of the few who's interests directly conflict with the many. Not saying trying to move towards capitalism with breadcrumbs is bad as it's still a step in the right direction but it shouldn't be an end goal if the goal is to have true equality, democracy and freedom
Admittedly I have a limited understanding of the economics of socialism and communism - though my experiences reading about the devastating effects of socialist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cambodia have made me a little more than queasy - but at the same time the impacts of capitalism unbounded by humanitarian ethics are distressing.
Thank you for your comment.
youre wrong about communism. the state doesnt exist under communism
@@tyler4108 huh?? What are you talking about?
@@tyler4108 The state will always exist, and communism is a fairytale.