What do you think?
Rate this book
A Young People's History of the United States
A Young People's History of the United States brings to US history the viewpoints of workers, slaves, immigrants, women, Native Americans, and others whose stories, and their impact, are rarely included in books for young people. A Young People's History of the United States is also a companion volume to The People Speak, the film adapted from A People's History of the United States and Voices of a People’s History of the United States.
Beginning with a look at Christopher Columbus’s arrival through the eyes of the Arawak Indians, then leading the reader through the struggles for workers’ rights, women’s rights, and civil rights during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and ending with the current protests against continued American imperialism, Zinn in the volumes of A Young People’s History of the United States presents a radical new way of understanding America’s history. In so doing, he reminds readers that America’s true greatness is shaped by our dissident voices, not our military generals.
Beginning with a look at Christopher Columbus’s arrival through the eyes of the Arawak Indians, then leading the reader through the struggles for workers’ rights, women’s rights, and civil rights during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and ending with the current protests against continued American imperialism, Zinn in the volumes of A Young People’s History of the United States presents a radical new way of understanding America’s history. In so doing, he reminds readers that America’s true greatness is shaped by our dissident voices, not our military generals.
464 pages, Paperback
Published June 2, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews
July 31, 2014
Somehow I never got around to reading Zinn's original work, and I've mentioned in another review how my U.S. history education was lacking in some respects. So when I was browsing through the kids' section of the bookstore for books to donate and spied this, I picked it up. (I didn't donate it because they were seeking books like The Hungry Caterpillar. Kids that young probably aren't ready for Zinn, no matter how much they've adjusted the reading level.) I knew about Zinn's book by reputation, and was curious how it had been adapted.
I suspect some of the most graphic details may have been excised, but the book still offers descriptions of conditions aboard slave ships, and doesn't pull punches when it comes to debunking the myth that the U.S. has been covered in nothing but glory since inception. For example:
Unfortunately, you'll probably need a basic grounding in U.S. history before you read this, and if you get that education in the U.S., you'll likely absorb the accompanying propaganda. (Which I have to admit is sensible. Countries do have a vested interest in promoting patriotism.) Zinn will do a pretty thorough job of scrubbing away any starry-eyed perceptions, though. My main concern in not using him as a initial reading is that because his chapters are so thematic ("The Other Civil War" and "Surprises," for example), he doesn't always present events in chronological order. (Not a prerequisite for history, but it offers the potential for confusion, I think.)
The edition I read made it all the way to Gore v. Bush, which might be able to bring home some of Zinn's lessons to young folks in a way they can associate with current events. Of course, I can see some people wanting to keep Zinn's liberal ideas out of impressionable minds, but I have to admire not only the content itself, but the way Zinn manages to prove so thoroughly that history can vary wildly depending upon who writes it, and it's worth picking up just for that, I think.
As a final note, I am amused by the person who hid their review of this book because of spoilers.
I suspect some of the most graphic details may have been excised, but the book still offers descriptions of conditions aboard slave ships, and doesn't pull punches when it comes to debunking the myth that the U.S. has been covered in nothing but glory since inception. For example:
Andrew Jackson, who was elected president in 1828, said he spoke for "the humble members of society"--for workers and farmers. He certainly did not speak for the Indians being pushed off their lands or for enslaved African-Americans. But the government needed a large base of support among white people, and the myth of "Jacksonian Democracy" was designed to win that support.Social, racial, and gender inequalities are highlighted throughout. The brutal treatment of Native Americans and Blacks is not only mentioned, but put at the forefront, while presidents I've been taught to admire have their motives excoriated. Sprinkled through the text are hard-hitting quotes from primary sources, and perhaps due to the intended audience, the writing is simple yet direct, never bothering to beat about the bush.
That myth led ordinary people to believe that they had a voice in government and that government looked out for their interests. It was a way of speaking for the lower and middle classes to get their support when the government needed it. Giving people a choice between two political parties, and letting them choose the slightly more democratic one, was a good way to control them. The leaders of both parties understood that they could keep control of society by making reforms that gave people some of what they wanted--but not too much.
Unfortunately, you'll probably need a basic grounding in U.S. history before you read this, and if you get that education in the U.S., you'll likely absorb the accompanying propaganda. (Which I have to admit is sensible. Countries do have a vested interest in promoting patriotism.) Zinn will do a pretty thorough job of scrubbing away any starry-eyed perceptions, though. My main concern in not using him as a initial reading is that because his chapters are so thematic ("The Other Civil War" and "Surprises," for example), he doesn't always present events in chronological order. (Not a prerequisite for history, but it offers the potential for confusion, I think.)
The edition I read made it all the way to Gore v. Bush, which might be able to bring home some of Zinn's lessons to young folks in a way they can associate with current events. Of course, I can see some people wanting to keep Zinn's liberal ideas out of impressionable minds, but I have to admire not only the content itself, but the way Zinn manages to prove so thoroughly that history can vary wildly depending upon who writes it, and it's worth picking up just for that, I think.
As a final note, I am amused by the person who hid their review of this book because of spoilers.
December 24, 2023
Howard Zinn's "A Young People's History of the United States" offers a unique perspective on American history, making an effort to include voices often marginalized in mainstream narratives, but focusing on the youth. However, as with any book, there are aspects that warrant critique, particularly concerning Ed Morales' contributions and the integration of the "Latinx" movement.
While the book aims to be inclusive, Morales' treatment of the "Latinx" movement may be viewed as overly idealistic and lacking common sense. For example, he puts Ocasio-Cortez as part of this movement while she wasn't born nor raised in Latin America, and when the majority of Democrats are on the Right or at the Center of the political compass at best!
The term "Latinx" itself has sparked debates within the Latin American community, as it can be seen as imposing a specific linguistic shift that not everyone embraces. I also believe that Morales' contributions do not acknowledge the diversity of opinions within the Latin American community regarding such terminologies. He actually seems to be very racist since he only focused in Puerto Rico's history and excluded other narratives. Specially if we take into account that Morales himself uses the term "Latino" in earlier chapters, rather than "Latinx", which he only uses in the last chapter.
Furthermore, Zinn and Morales sometimes oversimplify complex historical events related to the Latin American experience in the United States. This oversimplification risks reinforcing stereotypes and missing opportunities for a more comprehensive exploration of the challenges faced by these communities throughout American history. Also, the book lacks any professional or proper form of citation, as it doesn't include sources or quotations for many of the chapters, which made me doubt the authenticity of the book. I encourage everyone to look for the book's footnotes to find out where Zinn is getting his information. If he doesn't give any footnote, then it might mean that he is making it stuff up.
In the pursuit of social justice, it is essential to present accurate and honest portrayals of historical movements (specially through footnotes and imparcial sources). The "Latinx" movement has its merits, but the book could benefit from a more critical examination of its evolution, acknowledging both its strengths and limitations.
In conclusion, "A Young People's History of the United States" is a commendable attempt to offer a more inclusive perspective on American history. However, a critical lens on Morales' contributions, particularly in the context of the "Latinx" movement, is necessary for a more well-rounded understanding of the complexities inherent in the Latin American experience in the United States.
While the book aims to be inclusive, Morales' treatment of the "Latinx" movement may be viewed as overly idealistic and lacking common sense. For example, he puts Ocasio-Cortez as part of this movement while she wasn't born nor raised in Latin America, and when the majority of Democrats are on the Right or at the Center of the political compass at best!
The term "Latinx" itself has sparked debates within the Latin American community, as it can be seen as imposing a specific linguistic shift that not everyone embraces. I also believe that Morales' contributions do not acknowledge the diversity of opinions within the Latin American community regarding such terminologies. He actually seems to be very racist since he only focused in Puerto Rico's history and excluded other narratives. Specially if we take into account that Morales himself uses the term "Latino" in earlier chapters, rather than "Latinx", which he only uses in the last chapter.
Furthermore, Zinn and Morales sometimes oversimplify complex historical events related to the Latin American experience in the United States. This oversimplification risks reinforcing stereotypes and missing opportunities for a more comprehensive exploration of the challenges faced by these communities throughout American history. Also, the book lacks any professional or proper form of citation, as it doesn't include sources or quotations for many of the chapters, which made me doubt the authenticity of the book. I encourage everyone to look for the book's footnotes to find out where Zinn is getting his information. If he doesn't give any footnote, then it might mean that he is making it stuff up.
In the pursuit of social justice, it is essential to present accurate and honest portrayals of historical movements (specially through footnotes and imparcial sources). The "Latinx" movement has its merits, but the book could benefit from a more critical examination of its evolution, acknowledging both its strengths and limitations.
In conclusion, "A Young People's History of the United States" is a commendable attempt to offer a more inclusive perspective on American history. However, a critical lens on Morales' contributions, particularly in the context of the "Latinx" movement, is necessary for a more well-rounded understanding of the complexities inherent in the Latin American experience in the United States.
August 29, 2016
I am teaching US History for the first time this fall. I have been given a class set of very expensive glossy new textbooks by my district which are best described as soporifics. If I want to bore my students to death or put them all to sleep so I can answer my emails, I will assign a chapter and its uninspiring questions at the end. Howard Zinn's masterpiece is too much for my 8th graders, but this adaptation by Rebecca Stefoff is a treasure. It captures all the important themes from A People's History and simplifies them for younger readers without glossing over anything. Unlike the textbook which nearly broke my nose one night when I fell asleep after half a page, I read this in one sitting. This is the kind of history that captures the hearts and minds and imaginations of students, the kind of history that inspires them to dig deeper and think more critically. This should be the textbook.
August 1, 2016
Well, VF, since you asked for my opinion, here it is.
First of all, the audience for this book is "young people," but I would suggest that "young people" is closer to upper middle school/YA readers. Younger readers would most likely lack the background knowledge to make much sense of the more modern history and since this is a somewhat reactive history, I think it would be good for your reader to know what exactly Zinn is reacting to IYKWIM.
The Columbus chapter is a good one to consider, but bear in mind that even though it has been cleaned up considerably from its original version, it's still pretty harsh. Determining what is developmentally appropriate for your child is a very personal choice. You know her best. I would advise pre-reading, though, because I think the brutality described (though 100% TRUE and documented and supported) might be a bit hard for a sensitive, younger reader to take in.
(FWIW, I struggled for years trying to figure out when it was OK for my kids to watch the news. Images and reports of violence from local rapes and murders to civil wars and international conflict are important for all citizens to know about, but how and when do you open that door to your children? Zinn's history is a bit more intense than, say, Jr. Scholastic coverage of current events. Still, he offers a perspective that MS age kids should be able to wrestle with. I just wish it weren't quite so... brutal? I wish I'd flagged passages as I was reading it to support my vibe on this, but I didn't, so perhaps if you read it you'll come across some and see what I mean.)
And, actually, any history your child is already familiar with would be interesting for her to read about through Zinn's lens. So the colonial period is solid. As is the revolutionary period. He also adds important dimensions to the practice and legal issues of slavery that don't find their way into the standard telling of US history. So if your reader has covered US history up to the Civil War, she'd be well served to see this take on those events. But when it gets to the post Civil War part, I don't know that many kids under high school age have a fighting chance at that. (Probably most HS age kids would struggle with it, too. Even back in the 90s when we had 30 years less history to cover, I don't think we got past Kennedy. I can only imagine how they're cramming this stuff into HS classes now with all this additional time to include.)
Anyway, having just re-read the original version of this history, I was curious to see what changes made this a better fit for "young people." Pictures are included. (Yay! Older readers like those, too.) Content is shortened. (Nice, b/c the other version has a lot to take in.) Some words are defined in context (but that was inconsistent and not always all that useful, IMO).
I respect Zinn's goal with this revision of history, but I guess we are now in a "post revisionist" phase. My take on this is that in the beginning, histories were all about politicians, wars and a white, male, Euro-centric perspective. That changed in the 90s, I think largely due to writers like Howard Zinn. Zinn's objective was to include the other voices of history, but he does this to the point of completely ignoring the other side. Hence: revisionist. Why waste time telling a story we're all familiar with? Zinn sought to write the un-voiced side.
At this stage (twenty years later), though, while we are definitely more familiar with the "traditional" history, we are not solid enough with it that we can only rely on the revised view. Which is why we need a balance of both perspectives. Zinn's history doesn't meet that need. Before a reader can really digest this history, she'd need to know the history of the US at least in a basic way from the exploration period to the War in Iraq. Not too many curricula cover all that ground by 5th grade.
What I do appreciate about this history is that it includes the economic perspective. He explains that there are alternatives to capitalism and that those alternatives have had brief expression even in the history of the US. He also convincingly argues that the system is rigged (to use a completely exhausted phrase) to favor big business through international free trade--trade that is made possible through active military interventions not for justice and liberty, but to protect economic access. That's sobering. Zinn presents this information in a straightforward, hard-to-argue manner. That economic imperialism thing is very hard to shake off. The fact that lives are lost to guarantee access to those goods/markets is something to give anyone pause. You can't help but wonder, isn't there some other way? And perhaps these are things that our Young People should think about, the sooner, the better.
I guess this history (particularly the more modern stuff) reminds me too much of the "conversations" that we are having now, in 2016 about political matters. It would be nice if we could of recognize both sides' legitimate perspectives, and build on those while acknowledging that both sides have members that abuse ideology and have selfish motives. If we could find the good stuff and fix it when it starts to go bad, I think we'd make far more progress than simply attacking the end result and going to a polar opposite solution.
Example: Waco, TX. In the Zinn telling, it looks as if the Feds simply went on a rampage and killed children, women and men indiscriminately. While it is clear that the Feds made a lot of lethal mistakes, Zinn loses the part of the story where those mistakes are acknowledged and how recognizing those fatal errors would reshape how authorities responded to this type of sitution to avoid a massacre like that in the future. In the book, though, it plays out as if the system whole heartedly embraced the outcome of Waco and is designed to solve problems using excessive violence against citizens. (Also, after doing some--admittedly shallow--research, it appears that many of the children were killed by adults in the compound in an effort to prevent them from suffering in the fire and gassing of the place, so it wasn't the Feds busting in willy nilly and shooting up a bunch of little kids, though that is distinctly how it came across when I read it.)
I appreciate Zinn's intro, though. He believes that children should not be spoon-fed sanitized versions of history. He maintains that instead of worshipping the generals and politicians that make decisions for the people (or do they? Zinn thinks not-so-much.) we should pay more attention to the actual people who fight against injustice and work to make a better life for themselves through cooperation and shared values.
What Zinn fails to take into account is that while some people come together and collaborate to create communities of generosity, decency and fairness, others come together for the same purpose but generosity, decency and fairness look different when the community defines those terms differently. All I can think of is the whole Trump v. Clinton thing right now. People in both parties firmly believe that their view of the nation is fair and decent.
Also, Zinn is pretty pessimistic about the whole voting thing. His take is that the ballot box is used to distract citizens from real issues. The only way to really achieve change is through activism, protest, and even (at times) violence. That's a conclusion I'd like my kid to reach on her own after participating in the existing system and deciding how she wants to change it. I'd rather not have that be her first take on the democratic process.
But that only points out my own bias that yes, change can come through democracy as practiced in the US. It's not just a sham with surface changes. This change is slow and certainly has a long way to go, but in my idealistic (? who thought I'd fall into that category) point of view, as MLK said, "the arc of moral history is long, but it bends toward justice." I don't believe that that is a platitude to keep the masses quiet. I believe it is a goal that we must all strive toward and we simply can't expect quick fixes to problems of this magnitude, especially if we want the fixes to last.
But then, I guess I'm more conservative than I'd thought. It took a book for Young People to drive that point home, which makes me think, again, that perhaps an older audience is a better fit for this kind of writing.
This review could probably stand some extensive revision. I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about this book. I just wanted to throw them out there for you, VF, and to some extent to try and make sense of my thoughts for myself. Not sure I accomplished that, though. :-/
First of all, the audience for this book is "young people," but I would suggest that "young people" is closer to upper middle school/YA readers. Younger readers would most likely lack the background knowledge to make much sense of the more modern history and since this is a somewhat reactive history, I think it would be good for your reader to know what exactly Zinn is reacting to IYKWIM.
The Columbus chapter is a good one to consider, but bear in mind that even though it has been cleaned up considerably from its original version, it's still pretty harsh. Determining what is developmentally appropriate for your child is a very personal choice. You know her best. I would advise pre-reading, though, because I think the brutality described (though 100% TRUE and documented and supported) might be a bit hard for a sensitive, younger reader to take in.
(FWIW, I struggled for years trying to figure out when it was OK for my kids to watch the news. Images and reports of violence from local rapes and murders to civil wars and international conflict are important for all citizens to know about, but how and when do you open that door to your children? Zinn's history is a bit more intense than, say, Jr. Scholastic coverage of current events. Still, he offers a perspective that MS age kids should be able to wrestle with. I just wish it weren't quite so... brutal? I wish I'd flagged passages as I was reading it to support my vibe on this, but I didn't, so perhaps if you read it you'll come across some and see what I mean.)
And, actually, any history your child is already familiar with would be interesting for her to read about through Zinn's lens. So the colonial period is solid. As is the revolutionary period. He also adds important dimensions to the practice and legal issues of slavery that don't find their way into the standard telling of US history. So if your reader has covered US history up to the Civil War, she'd be well served to see this take on those events. But when it gets to the post Civil War part, I don't know that many kids under high school age have a fighting chance at that. (Probably most HS age kids would struggle with it, too. Even back in the 90s when we had 30 years less history to cover, I don't think we got past Kennedy. I can only imagine how they're cramming this stuff into HS classes now with all this additional time to include.)
Anyway, having just re-read the original version of this history, I was curious to see what changes made this a better fit for "young people." Pictures are included. (Yay! Older readers like those, too.) Content is shortened. (Nice, b/c the other version has a lot to take in.) Some words are defined in context (but that was inconsistent and not always all that useful, IMO).
I respect Zinn's goal with this revision of history, but I guess we are now in a "post revisionist" phase. My take on this is that in the beginning, histories were all about politicians, wars and a white, male, Euro-centric perspective. That changed in the 90s, I think largely due to writers like Howard Zinn. Zinn's objective was to include the other voices of history, but he does this to the point of completely ignoring the other side. Hence: revisionist. Why waste time telling a story we're all familiar with? Zinn sought to write the un-voiced side.
At this stage (twenty years later), though, while we are definitely more familiar with the "traditional" history, we are not solid enough with it that we can only rely on the revised view. Which is why we need a balance of both perspectives. Zinn's history doesn't meet that need. Before a reader can really digest this history, she'd need to know the history of the US at least in a basic way from the exploration period to the War in Iraq. Not too many curricula cover all that ground by 5th grade.
What I do appreciate about this history is that it includes the economic perspective. He explains that there are alternatives to capitalism and that those alternatives have had brief expression even in the history of the US. He also convincingly argues that the system is rigged (to use a completely exhausted phrase) to favor big business through international free trade--trade that is made possible through active military interventions not for justice and liberty, but to protect economic access. That's sobering. Zinn presents this information in a straightforward, hard-to-argue manner. That economic imperialism thing is very hard to shake off. The fact that lives are lost to guarantee access to those goods/markets is something to give anyone pause. You can't help but wonder, isn't there some other way? And perhaps these are things that our Young People should think about, the sooner, the better.
I guess this history (particularly the more modern stuff) reminds me too much of the "conversations" that we are having now, in 2016 about political matters. It would be nice if we could of recognize both sides' legitimate perspectives, and build on those while acknowledging that both sides have members that abuse ideology and have selfish motives. If we could find the good stuff and fix it when it starts to go bad, I think we'd make far more progress than simply attacking the end result and going to a polar opposite solution.
Example: Waco, TX. In the Zinn telling, it looks as if the Feds simply went on a rampage and killed children, women and men indiscriminately. While it is clear that the Feds made a lot of lethal mistakes, Zinn loses the part of the story where those mistakes are acknowledged and how recognizing those fatal errors would reshape how authorities responded to this type of sitution to avoid a massacre like that in the future. In the book, though, it plays out as if the system whole heartedly embraced the outcome of Waco and is designed to solve problems using excessive violence against citizens. (Also, after doing some--admittedly shallow--research, it appears that many of the children were killed by adults in the compound in an effort to prevent them from suffering in the fire and gassing of the place, so it wasn't the Feds busting in willy nilly and shooting up a bunch of little kids, though that is distinctly how it came across when I read it.)
I appreciate Zinn's intro, though. He believes that children should not be spoon-fed sanitized versions of history. He maintains that instead of worshipping the generals and politicians that make decisions for the people (or do they? Zinn thinks not-so-much.) we should pay more attention to the actual people who fight against injustice and work to make a better life for themselves through cooperation and shared values.
What Zinn fails to take into account is that while some people come together and collaborate to create communities of generosity, decency and fairness, others come together for the same purpose but generosity, decency and fairness look different when the community defines those terms differently. All I can think of is the whole Trump v. Clinton thing right now. People in both parties firmly believe that their view of the nation is fair and decent.
Also, Zinn is pretty pessimistic about the whole voting thing. His take is that the ballot box is used to distract citizens from real issues. The only way to really achieve change is through activism, protest, and even (at times) violence. That's a conclusion I'd like my kid to reach on her own after participating in the existing system and deciding how she wants to change it. I'd rather not have that be her first take on the democratic process.
But that only points out my own bias that yes, change can come through democracy as practiced in the US. It's not just a sham with surface changes. This change is slow and certainly has a long way to go, but in my idealistic (? who thought I'd fall into that category) point of view, as MLK said, "the arc of moral history is long, but it bends toward justice." I don't believe that that is a platitude to keep the masses quiet. I believe it is a goal that we must all strive toward and we simply can't expect quick fixes to problems of this magnitude, especially if we want the fixes to last.
But then, I guess I'm more conservative than I'd thought. It took a book for Young People to drive that point home, which makes me think, again, that perhaps an older audience is a better fit for this kind of writing.
This review could probably stand some extensive revision. I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about this book. I just wanted to throw them out there for you, VF, and to some extent to try and make sense of my thoughts for myself. Not sure I accomplished that, though. :-/
October 22, 2019
If you are looking for an up-lifting history of America full of heroes and accomplishments look elsewhere. This book is much different and can be kind of an eye-opening downer if you are a fan of most history books taught in schools today. Much like the adult version only a little more plainly spoken, this book gives you a look at the lives of the Indians, women, African Americans and the poor in the making of America through the 20th century and most often their lives were devastatingly cruel and unfair and much to the benefit of wealthy European white males.
It seems some readers find this truth offensive or disheartening. I find it Interesting, honest and necessary as it is in fact just as much America's history as are the heroes we still celebrate today. It is a book I will pass on to my grandchildren.
“Writing history is always a matter of taking sides. For example, I choose to tell the story of the discovery of America from the point of view of the Arawaks. I will tell the story of the U.S. Constitution from the point of view of the slaves, and the story of the Civil War from the point of view of the Irish in New York City”.
It seems some readers find this truth offensive or disheartening. I find it Interesting, honest and necessary as it is in fact just as much America's history as are the heroes we still celebrate today. It is a book I will pass on to my grandchildren.
“Writing history is always a matter of taking sides. For example, I choose to tell the story of the discovery of America from the point of view of the Arawaks. I will tell the story of the U.S. Constitution from the point of view of the slaves, and the story of the Civil War from the point of view of the Irish in New York City”.
November 28, 2014
هوارد زین همون الیور استون تاریخ آمریکاست. نگاه زین به تاریخ آمریکا از دریچهی مبارزههای طبقاتی و نژادی هست. کتابش به قول خودش جایی هست برای نوشتن از همهی اون چیزهایی که هیچوقت توی کتابهای رسمی تاریخ اثری ازش نمیبینیم. کتاب همیشه با قوای حاکم سر ستیز داره و تنها جیمی کارتر هست که کمی از نواخته شدن جون سالم به در میبره. این نسخه، نسخهی خلاصه شدهی کتاب مخصوص جوانان هست. نسخهی اصلی و مفصل رو چون میدونستم که هیچوقت نخواهم خوند کنار گذاشتم و چسبیدم به این. کتاب ترجمهی افتضاح بدون ویرایشی داره که البته به مرور از شدت فاجعهش کم میشه. اگه رو حساب ترجمه به کتاب نمره میدادم چیزی در حد دو باید میگرفت. اما جذبهی کتاب بیشتر از اینهاست
.
راجعبه تاریخ آمریکا هیچ چیز نخونده بودم و طبیعتا کلی چیز یاد گرفتم ازش. اگر شما هم مثل من هستید تو خوندنش شک نکنید. اگر هم که قبلا مطالعه داشتید نسخهی مفصل و اصلی در انتظار شماست
راستی حیفه که از طرح جلد عالی کتاب چیزی نگم. اجرای این طرح کار مجید زارع بوده که نمیشناسمش. اگه ایدهی کار هم مال خودش بوده باشه که دیگه یه دستمریزاد اساسی داره
.
.
راجعبه تاریخ آمریکا هیچ چیز نخونده بودم و طبیعتا کلی چیز یاد گرفتم ازش. اگر شما هم مثل من هستید تو خوندنش شک نکنید. اگر هم که قبلا مطالعه داشتید نسخهی مفصل و اصلی در انتظار شماست
راستی حیفه که از طرح جلد عالی کتاب چیزی نگم. اجرای این طرح کار مجید زارع بوده که نمیشناسمش. اگه ایدهی کار هم مال خودش بوده باشه که دیگه یه دستمریزاد اساسی داره
.
August 16, 2015
Howard Zinn lived a left of center life. This is a left of center book. It's adapted from the adult version “A People’s History of the United States.” Let me say at the outset that this book would be best suited for kids from liberal families. This book would also be best suited for kids who have already studied the basics of American history because, I suspect as part of the adaptation, bits and pieces of events are left out so a neophyte in American history might become confused.
Zinn is interested in the power equation between conquerors and those conquered, between those with wealth in this country and those without, between the rich and powerful in this country and everyone else, between this country and the countries with which we engage in war.
Instead of celebrating Christopher Columbus as the person who discovered the New World, Zinn vilifies him for his treatment of the Indians he encountered. Zinn paints a terribly grim picture of the way the US treated Indians who were here before us. His view of those who wrote the Constitution is that they were trying to preserve the position of the wealthy and powerful.
This quote sums up the book quite well: "The greatest March of economic growth in human history took place in the United States in the late nineteenth century. The wealth it produced was like a pyramid. The supporting layers, those who built the pyramid and held it up, where the workers: blacks, whites, Chinese and European immigrants, women. At the top where the new American multimillionaires." (p171).
I was incredulous as I read about the American Revolution. According to Zinn the rich and powerful Americans redirected lower-class anger about inequality aimed at them towards the British so that they could maintain their position of power. This goes against my “We the People” view of the American Revolution. However, as I continued reading and moved into the period of time I've lived through, I found his telling of the story to be exactly right. I will re-examine my views about the American Revolution.
The book is fascinating and very readable. It has full page black and white photos and drawings throughout. There’s a glossary and a thorough index at the back. I wish there had been footnotes. A bibliography of books for further reading would also have been helpful.
As a testament to the power of the book, let me say that I have been reading it for a week (I read slowly), and I'm ready to go out and work to change our society so that wealth is better distributed, and so that everyone will have access to an excellent education and excellent healthcare and nourishing food and shelter that maintains their privacy.
Zinn is interested in the power equation between conquerors and those conquered, between those with wealth in this country and those without, between the rich and powerful in this country and everyone else, between this country and the countries with which we engage in war.
Instead of celebrating Christopher Columbus as the person who discovered the New World, Zinn vilifies him for his treatment of the Indians he encountered. Zinn paints a terribly grim picture of the way the US treated Indians who were here before us. His view of those who wrote the Constitution is that they were trying to preserve the position of the wealthy and powerful.
This quote sums up the book quite well: "The greatest March of economic growth in human history took place in the United States in the late nineteenth century. The wealth it produced was like a pyramid. The supporting layers, those who built the pyramid and held it up, where the workers: blacks, whites, Chinese and European immigrants, women. At the top where the new American multimillionaires." (p171).
I was incredulous as I read about the American Revolution. According to Zinn the rich and powerful Americans redirected lower-class anger about inequality aimed at them towards the British so that they could maintain their position of power. This goes against my “We the People” view of the American Revolution. However, as I continued reading and moved into the period of time I've lived through, I found his telling of the story to be exactly right. I will re-examine my views about the American Revolution.
The book is fascinating and very readable. It has full page black and white photos and drawings throughout. There’s a glossary and a thorough index at the back. I wish there had been footnotes. A bibliography of books for further reading would also have been helpful.
As a testament to the power of the book, let me say that I have been reading it for a week (I read slowly), and I'm ready to go out and work to change our society so that wealth is better distributed, and so that everyone will have access to an excellent education and excellent healthcare and nourishing food and shelter that maintains their privacy.
December 17, 2010
I LOVED THIS BOOK!. I am read it for school and it is a bit harsh sometimes, but its true. Howard Zinn tells it from the point of view of the slaves. It goes from, Columbus and the Indians to The war in Iraq. in 422 Pages and 26 chapters. Very well written and a MUST READ BOOK!
Hope You Read This Book.
Hope You Read This Book.
February 7, 2013
I have to say, I was quite shocked to learn that there are people who accuse this book of supporting a communist agenda, and being extreme-leftist. Howard Zinn (the author) expresses that his point of view is criticizing to 'war, racism, and economic injustice', and I think that a description of this book along those lines seems accurate enough. It's a great young-adult version of A People's History of the United States, and serves as a good companion piece for younger readers.
There are certain things in history that I didn't know until I read this novel. It (rightfully so) paints a bad portrait of Christopher Columbus, who was quoted to have once written the following about Native Americans in a letter: "They would make fine servants....with fifty men we could subjugate them and make them do whatever we want." It also states that Arawak Indian tribe members who didn't give gold to the Spaniards had their hands severed and often bled to death.
Other things that I consider 'glossed over' in schools now that I've read this novel include: The United States violated the UN charter and entered a war that was undeclared by Congress, Iraqi casualties in the Iraq war were much greater than US casualties, Congress approved the building of a fence that stopped Mexicans from illegally entering US territory that was seized from Mexico, and more. Overall, I'd say that it doesn't paint a negative portrait of the United States, but mostly just a group of people that Zinn calls 'The Establishment': business leaders, generals, and politicians. It's leftist, but not extreme-leftist. It's pro-democracy, but not pro-communism.
There are certain things in history that I didn't know until I read this novel. It (rightfully so) paints a bad portrait of Christopher Columbus, who was quoted to have once written the following about Native Americans in a letter: "They would make fine servants....with fifty men we could subjugate them and make them do whatever we want." It also states that Arawak Indian tribe members who didn't give gold to the Spaniards had their hands severed and often bled to death.
Other things that I consider 'glossed over' in schools now that I've read this novel include: The United States violated the UN charter and entered a war that was undeclared by Congress, Iraqi casualties in the Iraq war were much greater than US casualties, Congress approved the building of a fence that stopped Mexicans from illegally entering US territory that was seized from Mexico, and more. Overall, I'd say that it doesn't paint a negative portrait of the United States, but mostly just a group of people that Zinn calls 'The Establishment': business leaders, generals, and politicians. It's leftist, but not extreme-leftist. It's pro-democracy, but not pro-communism.
July 12, 2016
Zinn tells history from the point of view of the powerless. This is a very important perspective and exercise. However, his famous lack of neutrality leads to facile and perverse political conclusions.
Zinn's anti-establishment instincts frequently lead him to overshoot in a dangerously utopian direction. For example, while lamenting the conditions of the disenfranchised poor in early 20th century America, he lionizes the Russian Revolution as some kind of moral achievement - of course, "the people" fared a lot more poorly in the latter case. A historian should know better.
He shows how historical figures fall short by contemporary ethical standards, but never gives them much credit for the progress they did bring. He stops short of "exposing" Lincoln, but almost every other US President, from Washington to Dubya, are only cynical patrician hypocrites in Zinn's estimation.
It's a bit sad that America's most famous anti-establishment historian falls into these regressive leftist traps.
Zinn's anti-establishment instincts frequently lead him to overshoot in a dangerously utopian direction. For example, while lamenting the conditions of the disenfranchised poor in early 20th century America, he lionizes the Russian Revolution as some kind of moral achievement - of course, "the people" fared a lot more poorly in the latter case. A historian should know better.
He shows how historical figures fall short by contemporary ethical standards, but never gives them much credit for the progress they did bring. He stops short of "exposing" Lincoln, but almost every other US President, from Washington to Dubya, are only cynical patrician hypocrites in Zinn's estimation.
It's a bit sad that America's most famous anti-establishment historian falls into these regressive leftist traps.
May 25, 2021
If it was possible to give zero stars to a book and still have it show as a rating, then this book would be zero. I expect a school U.S. history book to be objective and factual. This was the most negative, biased, liberal propaganda I’ve ever encountered. It encouraged and emphasized protests, rioting, and striking as the best way to show your voice. George Washington was barely mentioned, Lincoln was weak, and George Bush was evil to go after Osama Bin Ladan, an innocent man.
It scared me that impressionable teenagers are getting fed this crap, and schools are promoting it. Parents, review the textbooks your children are studying from, even if it’s just so you can show both sides of a story. Then your child can decide where his/her viewpoints and opinions lie.
It scared me that impressionable teenagers are getting fed this crap, and schools are promoting it. Parents, review the textbooks your children are studying from, even if it’s just so you can show both sides of a story. Then your child can decide where his/her viewpoints and opinions lie.
July 3, 2023
روایتی از تاریخ آمریکا بر اساس تحولات اجتماعی و سیاسی
August 24, 2020
With recent events around the world involving the Black Lives Matter movement, I thought it was about time I read this book. I’m really glad I did because it is a great book for the younger (and older) generation to get a different perspective on events in history. Usually we only hear one side of the story, the side of whites, the winners, the Americans, etc. Not much information is taught or shared about those that have been oppressed.
I learned so much from this book and found it to be an interesting read. I liked how this book discussed the reality of Columbus’ journey and his murder of Native Americans. Children started the first mill strike in Paterson, New Jersey when the company changed their meal hour from noon to 1. The Japanese in America, Alaska, and Hawaii were also put into concentration camps back in 1942. Claudette Colvin, a 15 year old girl, was really the first person to assert her constitutional right to her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She did this 9 months before Rosa Parks. Chapter 18 about Vietnam was also really informative. The CIA and FBI also have there own dirty secrets (pg. 344). The reason for America Invading Iraq back in 2002 and declaring war on them lay underground, as many found out later. Not in “weapons of mass destruction”. There is so much to learn from this book! I would highly recommend social studies and history teachers include this book in their teachings!
I learned so much from this book and found it to be an interesting read. I liked how this book discussed the reality of Columbus’ journey and his murder of Native Americans. Children started the first mill strike in Paterson, New Jersey when the company changed their meal hour from noon to 1. The Japanese in America, Alaska, and Hawaii were also put into concentration camps back in 1942. Claudette Colvin, a 15 year old girl, was really the first person to assert her constitutional right to her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She did this 9 months before Rosa Parks. Chapter 18 about Vietnam was also really informative. The CIA and FBI also have there own dirty secrets (pg. 344). The reason for America Invading Iraq back in 2002 and declaring war on them lay underground, as many found out later. Not in “weapons of mass destruction”. There is so much to learn from this book! I would highly recommend social studies and history teachers include this book in their teachings!
August 11, 2018
خيلي زياد شنيديم كه مقصر اصلي توي مشکلات خودمونيم، درست، ولي نظرم اينه كه قسمت زيادي از بدبختياي نوع بشر از بيش از اندازه خواهي يه عده از هم نوعاشونه
از من ميپرسند چرا اتحاديه كارگران صنعتي جهان نسبت ب ايالت متحده وطن دوست نيست؟ اگر شما هم ولگردي بوديد ك حتي يك پتو نداشتيد، اگر همسر و كودكانتان را رها كرده باشيد تا براي كار ب غرب برويد و از آن زمان ب بعد ديگر نتوانسته بوديد آنها را بيابيد، اگر شغلتان هيچوقت آنقدر دوام نياورده بود تا واجد شرايط براي راي دادن شويد، اگر تك تك كساني ك نماينده قانون قانون و نظم كشور هستند ب شما ضربه ميزدند، چطور ميتوانستيد انتظار داشته باشيد ك وطن دوست باشم؟ اين جنگ ، جنگ تجار است.
اين حرفارو ي معترض ب جنگ از صنف كارگران زده بود، توو ي برهه از زمان فعاليت ضد جنگ توو آمريكا جرم بود. توو فيلم Killing Theme Softly يجايي برد پيت ميگه آمريكا فقط يجاييِ واسه پول درآوردن، بنظرم خيلي از جاها الان همينطوره
از من ميپرسند چرا اتحاديه كارگران صنعتي جهان نسبت ب ايالت متحده وطن دوست نيست؟ اگر شما هم ولگردي بوديد ك حتي يك پتو نداشتيد، اگر همسر و كودكانتان را رها كرده باشيد تا براي كار ب غرب برويد و از آن زمان ب بعد ديگر نتوانسته بوديد آنها را بيابيد، اگر شغلتان هيچوقت آنقدر دوام نياورده بود تا واجد شرايط براي راي دادن شويد، اگر تك تك كساني ك نماينده قانون قانون و نظم كشور هستند ب شما ضربه ميزدند، چطور ميتوانستيد انتظار داشته باشيد ك وطن دوست باشم؟ اين جنگ ، جنگ تجار است.
اين حرفارو ي معترض ب جنگ از صنف كارگران زده بود، توو ي برهه از زمان فعاليت ضد جنگ توو آمريكا جرم بود. توو فيلم Killing Theme Softly يجايي برد پيت ميگه آمريكا فقط يجاييِ واسه پول درآوردن، بنظرم خيلي از جاها الان همينطوره
April 3, 2017
A Young People's History of the United States: Columbus to the War on Terror left no stone unturned when teaching actual American History.
A few things I learned
1) Christopher Columbus was a mass murdered, a slave trader, a slaver and a sadist
2) Whites believed blacks were not their equals
3) Children started the first mill strike in Paterson, New Jersey
4) Rockefeller made secret deals with railroad companies to ship his oil at lower rates
5) President Grover Cleveland sold out the American people to corporations
6) President Grover Cleveland bought back government bonds held by wealthy people at more than their face value-a gift of $45 million to the rich
a young people’s history of the united states would make a great gift for children learning about American History.
A few things I learned
1) Christopher Columbus was a mass murdered, a slave trader, a slaver and a sadist
2) Whites believed blacks were not their equals
3) Children started the first mill strike in Paterson, New Jersey
4) Rockefeller made secret deals with railroad companies to ship his oil at lower rates
5) President Grover Cleveland sold out the American people to corporations
6) President Grover Cleveland bought back government bonds held by wealthy people at more than their face value-a gift of $45 million to the rich
a young people’s history of the united states would make a great gift for children learning about American History.
August 27, 2012
five pages in and feeling "YESSSSS!!" this is exactly what I want to facilitate discussion while teaching US history with my kids. I want to talk about different view points and perspectives and while I might personally not love the light in which certain events in history are detailed here, I certainly believe we all should be able to look at them with different eyes. I think this will be great tool. A fantastic addition to our home school arsenal.
November 2, 2020
For the younger ones this book is what I recommend for history. It is more age appropriate for middle schoolers than the adult book which is fine for high school students and up. Great book for actually learning what has happened in our history without being sugar coated and twisted around.
May 20, 2018
This is a book that should be required reading for all students in American schools and those studying United States history. This version is a young reader edition, catered to middle grade students, which makes for an easier understanding of the number of events, starting from the 'founding' of America and ending with the war on terror.
Even though this is a history book, so many events and incidences are completely relevant to today's America; if you changed the names, dates and locations, one would think the events mentioned in the book are about current events. I found this book difficult to digest because of the honest content; this book does not sugar coat American history and show a completely whitewashed, biased view of the country. Such views are why so many people long for and believe there was a time that America was "great"— the reality is quite different, and the author provides numerous events to support his arguments. Having said that, though the facts are difficult to digest, it is necessary for Americans to understand and acknowledge all of their history, not just the glorious, heroic chapters.
Reading this book helps explain the cultural, socio-economic and political tensions that are still quite vibrant in the United States today. If you are interested in American history— or the many ways the United States has shaped the trajectories of other countries' histories— this book is a great starting point for you.
Even though this is a history book, so many events and incidences are completely relevant to today's America; if you changed the names, dates and locations, one would think the events mentioned in the book are about current events. I found this book difficult to digest because of the honest content; this book does not sugar coat American history and show a completely whitewashed, biased view of the country. Such views are why so many people long for and believe there was a time that America was "great"— the reality is quite different, and the author provides numerous events to support his arguments. Having said that, though the facts are difficult to digest, it is necessary for Americans to understand and acknowledge all of their history, not just the glorious, heroic chapters.
Reading this book helps explain the cultural, socio-economic and political tensions that are still quite vibrant in the United States today. If you are interested in American history— or the many ways the United States has shaped the trajectories of other countries' histories— this book is a great starting point for you.
October 25, 2014
I picked this book up at Barnes and Noble because I love history and I wanted to learn more about it.
By the time I got home, I had read all about Columbus and despised the man.
This book is so far from mainstream it is out of the stream entirely and is now starting it's own city.
I have always loved the idea of MORE. MORE sides to the story. One MORE puzzle piece.
This book has made it's own puzzle.
It truly exposes everything that happens and shows how we reacted. History books leave this all out. The suffrage of the poor is never spoken of. No one knows what Bacon's Rebellion was.
We the people... We all know that. We admire the men who wrote it for speaking up against the piracy of the British, right?
NO! The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other such documents were written by privileged white men who could afford politics.
It hasn't changed.
Ever heard of Tinker vs. Des Moines? A HIGH SCHOOL BOY and his sibling and friend went up to the Supreme Court for the right to protest the Vietnam War with armbands.
They won.
But oh! Curiosity killed the cat!
That's not the full phrase.
It's "Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back."
This book taught me the true meaning of protest. It spoke little of the people who get entire chapters in textbooks because we know it all! It's done! Some of them were lucky to get a page and I am proud to say I admire millions of others more than I do some of the people who are praised in the history textbook sitting under my Social Studies desk.
I now know protest. I know genocide.
It is October 25th. Columbus Day was a mere twelve days ago. I would rather go to school than celebrate that man. Genocide. We celebrate genocide.
It is not that different from praising Hitler.
This book taught me that! It has changed my life.
I have my own opinion in politics and it's a professional opinion, not just who will give us Pizza Fridays.
Howard Zinn died in 2010.
This book goes up to about 2006. It does not know Obama. It does not know Isis. It does not know Ebola.
But I don't think it needs to. It tells that while we are a far, FAR from perfect country who's flag is tainted with blood of innocent people and bombs, and we may be young, not even three hundred,
We will not be taken over.
We bomb if that happens.
We kill innocent lives, like civilians. Women. Children.
We are eager to be the world's nuclear bomb.
On that happy note,
Get out of this country.
It's terrible.
By the time I got home, I had read all about Columbus and despised the man.
This book is so far from mainstream it is out of the stream entirely and is now starting it's own city.
I have always loved the idea of MORE. MORE sides to the story. One MORE puzzle piece.
This book has made it's own puzzle.
It truly exposes everything that happens and shows how we reacted. History books leave this all out. The suffrage of the poor is never spoken of. No one knows what Bacon's Rebellion was.
We the people... We all know that. We admire the men who wrote it for speaking up against the piracy of the British, right?
NO! The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other such documents were written by privileged white men who could afford politics.
It hasn't changed.
Ever heard of Tinker vs. Des Moines? A HIGH SCHOOL BOY and his sibling and friend went up to the Supreme Court for the right to protest the Vietnam War with armbands.
They won.
But oh! Curiosity killed the cat!
That's not the full phrase.
It's "Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back."
This book taught me the true meaning of protest. It spoke little of the people who get entire chapters in textbooks because we know it all! It's done! Some of them were lucky to get a page and I am proud to say I admire millions of others more than I do some of the people who are praised in the history textbook sitting under my Social Studies desk.
I now know protest. I know genocide.
It is October 25th. Columbus Day was a mere twelve days ago. I would rather go to school than celebrate that man. Genocide. We celebrate genocide.
It is not that different from praising Hitler.
This book taught me that! It has changed my life.
I have my own opinion in politics and it's a professional opinion, not just who will give us Pizza Fridays.
Howard Zinn died in 2010.
This book goes up to about 2006. It does not know Obama. It does not know Isis. It does not know Ebola.
But I don't think it needs to. It tells that while we are a far, FAR from perfect country who's flag is tainted with blood of innocent people and bombs, and we may be young, not even three hundred,
We will not be taken over.
We bomb if that happens.
We kill innocent lives, like civilians. Women. Children.
We are eager to be the world's nuclear bomb.
On that happy note,
Get out of this country.
It's terrible.
June 9, 2022
Historians have to choose between two possible forms of historiography: first, you can try to remain objective, tell the story, and stick closely to the facts, letting the reader decide for themselves what to think about what happened. Or, you can present the history through your own lens, give your opinion, interpret people's motives, and hopefully at least be honest about the fact that this is your approach. Most historians try for the first approach (although, of course, we all have our bias). Zinn famously opts for the second approach, and often falls into the traps that demonstrate why this is not very honest, even when you're trying to be.
Of course, this is Stefoff's adaptation of Zinn's work, and one might assume she agrees with his approach, but the nuts and bolts here are all Zinn's. I actually think that the first 300 pages or so are pretty well presented - some bias, but not too egregious. I found some points with which I would contend, but nothing that really ruined the overall lesson, and I appreciated the ways that Zinn gives attention to underrepresented groups that are often ignored in historical texts. Then, the final 130 pages, when we get closer to our present history, there is almost more of Zinn's philosophy then there is history itself, and the book becomes an exercise in trying to find truth through the cloud of Zinn's self-interested slants and delusions. And, I say this as someone who probably agrees with Zinn more than I don't - the book is still frustrating, because it's just bad history. It's presumptuous of Zinn's own abilities of analysis and insulting to the reader in the way that it takes interpretation completely out of the reader's hands.
Here are a few of the most glaring problems:
1. Although Zinn does well to tell the story of underrepresented groups, he still focuses only on conflict and trial and calls this "history." The book is loaded with everything that went wrong, but has essentially nothing to say about the things that went well in people's lives, despite the fact that most people are, when all is said and done, happier than not. One might think reading this book that no one in history ever had a good time, that nothing in the United States ever went well, that no one ever did a good thing. Life can be hard, but most people get on ok. If an alien had to rely on this book to see how people lived, they would certainly assume all people in U.S. history only suffered.
2. Although Zinn presents the history of underrepresented groups, he still ONLY does so in the context of power and class. He ignores completely all other aspects of American history. The book offers nothing about art and culture, says nothing about America's thriving industries, says nothing about its food culture, love of baseball, revolutionizing of cinema, building of cities, writing of great novels and poems, or history of invention and scientific discovery. He says little about the role of religion, and nothing about its struggle with infamous criminals. The book doesn't mention the moon landing. This book isn't "A History," it's merely a history of power and struggle, and even then, a very incomplete, slanted, and revisionist one. At the end, the book says that rather than a normal history book focused on the wealthy and powerful it's a book for "the people," focused on resistance, civil disobedience, and anger against endless wars (pg. 425). The problem, here, of course, is that this also isn't a "people's history." Most people don't riot and protest, they go to the movies, eat at restaurants, enjoy their families, listen to good music, get excited about the school dance, travel - you know, they live ordinary lives. This book says nothing whatsoever about people living ordinary lives.
3. These last two points then lead to Zinn's particular slants and revisions. All history books must be selective, but I would say most writers genuinely try to include major ideas and events, even if those are slanted towards certain people groups. Zinn did a fine job, at points, of including important events that usually get ignored, such as the activist murders in Mississippi in 1964. These events are important. However, many other decisions by Zinn make zero sense. For example, he goes on for several chapters about workers strikes, but hardly mentions the Japanese internment camps. He mentions them, but says nothing at all of substance about them. He says nothing about how long they lasted, when they ended, what it did to the people involved. Zinn was a socialist, so workers strikes are important to his narrative. Japanese people, apparently, were not.
4. The book is an adaptation for young people, but was also supposed to include more history ABOUT young people. Some bones were thrown young peoples' way a few times, but this aspect of the adaptation was ignored for very long chunks of the book, to the degree that I would say it was entirely a failure in this regard.
5. Some of Zinn's personal philosophizing simply went too far. He took the most cynical perspective on everything that ever happened. Everyone's motives were corrupt, everyone is a tyrant and wrong doer. Every "official" reason was a lie, and everyone had some subversively evil reason for everything that ever happened. Much of this is true, sure, but for Zinn it's always true. Furthermore, everything good that ever happened wasn't REALLY all that good. It only seemed that way. Every moment of progress really only helped the rich, and therefore was just another bad thing. Zinn seemed to be able to perfectly detect what was really going on in every situation, and in the heart of everyone involved. He trusts his own judgment, and his own judgment tells him that no one but his own judgment is worth trusting. It must of been very dark to be Zinn. I also think some of his judgments were morally reprehensible, such as his subtle suggestion that doing what terrorists want is better than fighting them. He goes so far as to imply Americans deserve to be murdered by terrorists. There is something quite repugnant about this section late in the book.
6. Zinn presents opposing views only through the most cynical and reductionist approach possible. For example, Zinn was a socialist, and when he defines capitalism, he does not merely disagree with it, but his very definition defines it in negative terms. This is intellectually dishonest. The most effective way to approach such a thing is to define capitalism the way a capitalist would define it themselves, and be fair about that definition, and THEN argue why you think it's a flawed system. Zinn's definitions for things he does not like would never pass academic standards.
Some of the early chapters make interesting observations, and Zinn tells some important stories, often ignored, that deserve to be told. But, in the end, too many of his judgments were off base, too often, and his own enchantment with workers strikes and class struggles replaced so many other important aspects of history that needed to be told. Interesting in some ways, but needs to be read with caution, and only as a supplement to other, more thorough histories.
Of course, this is Stefoff's adaptation of Zinn's work, and one might assume she agrees with his approach, but the nuts and bolts here are all Zinn's. I actually think that the first 300 pages or so are pretty well presented - some bias, but not too egregious. I found some points with which I would contend, but nothing that really ruined the overall lesson, and I appreciated the ways that Zinn gives attention to underrepresented groups that are often ignored in historical texts. Then, the final 130 pages, when we get closer to our present history, there is almost more of Zinn's philosophy then there is history itself, and the book becomes an exercise in trying to find truth through the cloud of Zinn's self-interested slants and delusions. And, I say this as someone who probably agrees with Zinn more than I don't - the book is still frustrating, because it's just bad history. It's presumptuous of Zinn's own abilities of analysis and insulting to the reader in the way that it takes interpretation completely out of the reader's hands.
Here are a few of the most glaring problems:
1. Although Zinn does well to tell the story of underrepresented groups, he still focuses only on conflict and trial and calls this "history." The book is loaded with everything that went wrong, but has essentially nothing to say about the things that went well in people's lives, despite the fact that most people are, when all is said and done, happier than not. One might think reading this book that no one in history ever had a good time, that nothing in the United States ever went well, that no one ever did a good thing. Life can be hard, but most people get on ok. If an alien had to rely on this book to see how people lived, they would certainly assume all people in U.S. history only suffered.
2. Although Zinn presents the history of underrepresented groups, he still ONLY does so in the context of power and class. He ignores completely all other aspects of American history. The book offers nothing about art and culture, says nothing about America's thriving industries, says nothing about its food culture, love of baseball, revolutionizing of cinema, building of cities, writing of great novels and poems, or history of invention and scientific discovery. He says little about the role of religion, and nothing about its struggle with infamous criminals. The book doesn't mention the moon landing. This book isn't "A History," it's merely a history of power and struggle, and even then, a very incomplete, slanted, and revisionist one. At the end, the book says that rather than a normal history book focused on the wealthy and powerful it's a book for "the people," focused on resistance, civil disobedience, and anger against endless wars (pg. 425). The problem, here, of course, is that this also isn't a "people's history." Most people don't riot and protest, they go to the movies, eat at restaurants, enjoy their families, listen to good music, get excited about the school dance, travel - you know, they live ordinary lives. This book says nothing whatsoever about people living ordinary lives.
3. These last two points then lead to Zinn's particular slants and revisions. All history books must be selective, but I would say most writers genuinely try to include major ideas and events, even if those are slanted towards certain people groups. Zinn did a fine job, at points, of including important events that usually get ignored, such as the activist murders in Mississippi in 1964. These events are important. However, many other decisions by Zinn make zero sense. For example, he goes on for several chapters about workers strikes, but hardly mentions the Japanese internment camps. He mentions them, but says nothing at all of substance about them. He says nothing about how long they lasted, when they ended, what it did to the people involved. Zinn was a socialist, so workers strikes are important to his narrative. Japanese people, apparently, were not.
4. The book is an adaptation for young people, but was also supposed to include more history ABOUT young people. Some bones were thrown young peoples' way a few times, but this aspect of the adaptation was ignored for very long chunks of the book, to the degree that I would say it was entirely a failure in this regard.
5. Some of Zinn's personal philosophizing simply went too far. He took the most cynical perspective on everything that ever happened. Everyone's motives were corrupt, everyone is a tyrant and wrong doer. Every "official" reason was a lie, and everyone had some subversively evil reason for everything that ever happened. Much of this is true, sure, but for Zinn it's always true. Furthermore, everything good that ever happened wasn't REALLY all that good. It only seemed that way. Every moment of progress really only helped the rich, and therefore was just another bad thing. Zinn seemed to be able to perfectly detect what was really going on in every situation, and in the heart of everyone involved. He trusts his own judgment, and his own judgment tells him that no one but his own judgment is worth trusting. It must of been very dark to be Zinn. I also think some of his judgments were morally reprehensible, such as his subtle suggestion that doing what terrorists want is better than fighting them. He goes so far as to imply Americans deserve to be murdered by terrorists. There is something quite repugnant about this section late in the book.
6. Zinn presents opposing views only through the most cynical and reductionist approach possible. For example, Zinn was a socialist, and when he defines capitalism, he does not merely disagree with it, but his very definition defines it in negative terms. This is intellectually dishonest. The most effective way to approach such a thing is to define capitalism the way a capitalist would define it themselves, and be fair about that definition, and THEN argue why you think it's a flawed system. Zinn's definitions for things he does not like would never pass academic standards.
Some of the early chapters make interesting observations, and Zinn tells some important stories, often ignored, that deserve to be told. But, in the end, too many of his judgments were off base, too often, and his own enchantment with workers strikes and class struggles replaced so many other important aspects of history that needed to be told. Interesting in some ways, but needs to be read with caution, and only as a supplement to other, more thorough histories.
December 31, 2020
I really enjoyed this! Though obviously a simplified and abbreviated version of the adult book, it ambitiously gives an outline of American history from Columbus in 1492 to 2005, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. In doing so, Zinn dispels the myths of inherent American greatness, the classless society or the land of the free.
I am more knowledgeable about 20th and 21st century US history so found the first part of the book particularly interesting because it was relatively new to me.
I hadn’t read the first-hand accounts about Columbus before and Zinn’s take on the founding fathers and the background to the writing of the constitution was fascinating. I need to re-read parts of this. It really helps to explain so much about the American system of government which seems even more flawed than ours. I loved the way that Zinn critically examined the motives of all those with power from Columbus to Bush.
The other great aspect of the book is the fact that it really is a ’People’s history’ and focuses on the impact of events on people themselves as far as it is able to in such a short book especially native Americans, black Americans and women, (all of whom were implicitly excluded from the Declaration of Independence!)
I’m retired now but, as a history teacher in UK secondary schools, I saw history textbooks here evolve as the syllabuses broadened for the better. Students have long been expected to examine sources critically and consider who wrote / produced Source A? When? Why? Is it corroborated or not? etc. However, our syllabuses cover a relatively narrow range of topics and do not always focus on Britain’s more sensitive and questionable past at secondary school level apart from the slave trade. We have myths to de-bunk too! There is a far wider colonial legacy that I would like to find out more about myself as well as see taught in schools. Any suggestions would be appreciated!
I am more knowledgeable about 20th and 21st century US history so found the first part of the book particularly interesting because it was relatively new to me.
I hadn’t read the first-hand accounts about Columbus before and Zinn’s take on the founding fathers and the background to the writing of the constitution was fascinating. I need to re-read parts of this. It really helps to explain so much about the American system of government which seems even more flawed than ours. I loved the way that Zinn critically examined the motives of all those with power from Columbus to Bush.
The other great aspect of the book is the fact that it really is a ’People’s history’ and focuses on the impact of events on people themselves as far as it is able to in such a short book especially native Americans, black Americans and women, (all of whom were implicitly excluded from the Declaration of Independence!)
I’m retired now but, as a history teacher in UK secondary schools, I saw history textbooks here evolve as the syllabuses broadened for the better. Students have long been expected to examine sources critically and consider who wrote / produced Source A? When? Why? Is it corroborated or not? etc. However, our syllabuses cover a relatively narrow range of topics and do not always focus on Britain’s more sensitive and questionable past at secondary school level apart from the slave trade. We have myths to de-bunk too! There is a far wider colonial legacy that I would like to find out more about myself as well as see taught in schools. Any suggestions would be appreciated!
December 25, 2015
This book reminds me a lot of familiar teachings in my school in China. Every historical event was analyzed based on economic change and class conflict. We were taught that the world history is a continuous struggle against oppression, and every revolution was applauded. I appreciate the author bravely present this idea to the Americans. However, coming from China and having been in the US for years, I probably prefer a more peaceful and progressive way to address social injustice. Eventual, all the rebels and riots hurt poor people and working classes more than the rich. The rich may lose money and status in the revolution, but way more ordinary people lost their lives in violence. I doubt whether it worths the lives of so many people to fight for future imaginary justice, and have deeper doubt whether those "social justice" is truly fair. More often I think revolutions only brought a different type of dictatorship .
I don't agree with the author to picture capitalism as totally evil and disastrous. Look at the development in China in the last 30 years. With economic growth, China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and significantly improved life quality of a billion people, after the government practically abandoned communism and embraced capitalism. It is true that there is increasing gap between the rich and the poor in China, but I believe most Chinese would not like to go back to the era of "equally poor".
I like the book because the author provides a different view than most main stream ideas. It provokes discussions and reflections. A society that tolerates various views is healthy, and I believe some balance between capitalism and socialism may be the best.
I don't agree with the author to picture capitalism as totally evil and disastrous. Look at the development in China in the last 30 years. With economic growth, China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and significantly improved life quality of a billion people, after the government practically abandoned communism and embraced capitalism. It is true that there is increasing gap between the rich and the poor in China, but I believe most Chinese would not like to go back to the era of "equally poor".
I like the book because the author provides a different view than most main stream ideas. It provokes discussions and reflections. A society that tolerates various views is healthy, and I believe some balance between capitalism and socialism may be the best.
February 28, 2014
We did it.
This is the young version of the full book that I read earlier. It had the same information (although his edition was newer than the one I read, so it came closer to the current time at the end than mine did) but trimmed down a bit with fewer examples and details. It mostly left out the most violent descriptions from the adult volume, although there was one segment when I stopped reading and just said "I'm not going to read you that description" and skipped on.
Still, even trimmed down it's a sizable book and covers from Columbus to George W. Bush, and Ian and I have been reading this for a long time. We took a break for a bit but then did come back to it. He found it interesting, inspiring, but also very depressing at times and expressed how hard it was to hear the bad side of people and events he admired. As we got to the section on the civil rights movement he groaned, "I hope I don't learn anything I don't know about Martin Luther King!" He didn't.
But in the end he was triumphant to finish it and said he was very glad to have read it. He talked about peace tonight and wanting to work for peaceful solutions to problems when he is president. If he takes some Zinn with him in his presidential dreams, it will certainly be a good thing.
This is the young version of the full book that I read earlier. It had the same information (although his edition was newer than the one I read, so it came closer to the current time at the end than mine did) but trimmed down a bit with fewer examples and details. It mostly left out the most violent descriptions from the adult volume, although there was one segment when I stopped reading and just said "I'm not going to read you that description" and skipped on.
Still, even trimmed down it's a sizable book and covers from Columbus to George W. Bush, and Ian and I have been reading this for a long time. We took a break for a bit but then did come back to it. He found it interesting, inspiring, but also very depressing at times and expressed how hard it was to hear the bad side of people and events he admired. As we got to the section on the civil rights movement he groaned, "I hope I don't learn anything I don't know about Martin Luther King!" He didn't.
But in the end he was triumphant to finish it and said he was very glad to have read it. He talked about peace tonight and wanting to work for peaceful solutions to problems when he is president. If he takes some Zinn with him in his presidential dreams, it will certainly be a good thing.
May 16, 2021
Howard Zinn's history for young people adds to (and corrects) mainstream history by also using the lenses of those not in power. It shows U.S. history from the view of those who are poor, female, Black, immigrants, Latinx, Indigenous, children, victims of wars, and the workers. It also highlights movements of resistance and fundamental social change.
Excerpts about how this varies from other histories:
"[Most histories] place the emphasis on the acts of leaders, not the actions of ordinary citizens."
"Most history books suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us. In the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers saved us. In the Civil War, Lincoln saved us. In the Depression, FDR saved us. Our role is just to go to the voting booths every four years. But from time to time, Americans reject the idea of a savior. They feel their own strength, and they rebel."
Excerpts about how this varies from other histories:
"[Most histories] place the emphasis on the acts of leaders, not the actions of ordinary citizens."
"Most history books suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us. In the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers saved us. In the Civil War, Lincoln saved us. In the Depression, FDR saved us. Our role is just to go to the voting booths every four years. But from time to time, Americans reject the idea of a savior. They feel their own strength, and they rebel."
August 3, 2010
A must read for children and adults.
December 29, 2020
This title is rather simplistic. I don’t think it is merely that it has been adapted for children by Steffof. She’s a talented writer and well aware of how to present ambiguity to youth. Not everything is simply rich White guys against all non rich White guys. As we have seen this past summer, many White people simply had no idea how different and harsh Black male lives can be. We are also seeing that Hispanic, Blacks, and Native Americans’s lives are much disadvantaged in dealing with the Covid Pandemic than many have realized. I don’t necessarily disagree with much that was presented here. I simply feel that much has been reduced to a simplistic us vs. them storyline. However, this book and its original edition for adults deserve kudos for bringing up the subject and helping many realize that a lot of brain washing has taken place over history and that we need to make sure we know a wider version of facts rather than only what the American elite class want us to know. Recommended. One of these days I’ll try the adult edition and see how the author originally presented the material.
November 25, 2023
While I appreciate how this book was laid out and the light it brought to issues throughout history, the bias was VERY heavy. The author was trying to illuminate issues not typically written about in most history books and in the epilogue mentioned that many history books are biased based on the person writing it- I feel like they did the exact same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum. They had absolutely nothing positive to say about the USA as a whole and while I recognize that there have been many dark moments in our nations history, this author highlighted those and nothing else. It just made it a very depressing history to read, needless to say…
December 29, 2018
It has been a while since I read Zinn's A People's History but this really does seem like a shortened and slightly simplified version. This reminds me how thing change but remain the same, bouncing slightly back and forth over the years. It is saddening that I feel we are going less in the direction of a more fair economy and treatment of people than when I read the original.
August 6, 2019
If history is the stories we tell ourselves about the past, Howard Zinn will give you a whole new set of stories.
December 31, 2020
As a 5th grade history teacher and buff, this book is a great guide to understanding all sides of America’s tumultuous history. While the book itself is too advanced for my students, the information is necessary to educating our youth with unbiased views of the past.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews