Sorry, Jason, but I must disagree.

Zinn's dopey screed was one of the few books in my life that I threw away in disgust.  Zinn is just Chomsky redux.

For example: Zinn claims that George Washington was the richest man in America.  He was not.  He had heavy debts to British lenders and had to borrow money to travel to New York to be inaugurated to the presidency.

Instead of reviewing the ingenuity of great Americans such as Jonas Salk, the Wright Brothers, or Thomas Edison, we are given Joan Baez and the Berrigan Brothers.  Valley Forge gets a mere mention, but Gettysburg and Normandy are completely omitted.  We are treated, however, with lengthy paragraphs on the My Lai massacre.

In the conclusion of the book Zinn readily admits that his "work" is a biased account.  His ideas, the politicization of everything - including the truth - is the handiwork of a totalitarian mind.  Such thinking creates a hermetically sealed world in which nothing exists outside the dialectic at work in the mind of an "intellectual". 

MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me.  As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

Ian Anderson "Wind up"

Jason the fact Zinn was in WWII as a bomber has no bearing on what he wrote except it is where he formed his anti-war views.  There were millions sevring in the military during WWII.  The book POV does not come from the common man as you state but from a Marxist view.  The common man used to know the facts of history but now they are innudated with crap.

And as far as his creds, Im sure he is well revered in the socialist/communist circles and has lots of cred but the common man could care less.

Basically its the facts he did not put in his book or the credit he attributes to minor things.

Through Zinn's looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history's bloodiest state-sponsored killings, transforms into "the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people's government, independent of outside control." The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were "welcomed" by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a "terrorist group" that "seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua." Castro's Cuba, readers learn, "had no bloody record of suppression."

Thumb through A People's History of the United States and one finds greed motivating every major event. According to Zinn, the separation from Great Britain, the Civil War, and World Wars I and II - to name but a few examples - all stem from base motives involving rich men seeking to get richer at the expense of other men.

 In an effort to bolster his arguments against putting criminals in jail, aggressive law enforcement tactics, and President Clinton's crime bill, Zinn contends that in spite of all this "violent crime continues to increase." It doesn't. Like much of Zinn's rhetoric, if you believe the opposite of what he says in this instance you would be correct. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993.

 Predictably, Zinn draws a moral equivalence between America and the 9/11 terrorists. He writes, "It seemed that the United States was reacting to the horrors perpetrated by the terrorists against innocent people in New York by killing other innocent people in Afghanistan." Scare quotes adorn Bush's "war on terrorism," post-9/11 "patriotism," and other words and phrases Zinn dislikes.

Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate all fail to merit a mention. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are entirely absent. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers. While Zinn sees fit to mention that immigrants often went into professions like ditch-digging and prostitution, American success stories like those of Alexander Hamilton, John Jacob Astor, and Louis B. Mayer-to name but a few-are excluded. Valley Forge rates a single fleeting reference, while D-Day's Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles are left out. In their place, we get several pages on the My Lai massacre and colorful descriptions of U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

Zinn judges the totally of American history by late 20th century standards; there is no attempt to understand the mental processes of people in earlier times, admittedly a difficult thing to do. But the good historian must attempt it. Otherwise, the writing becomes prejudicial, unfair, and unhistorical; we are not going to want people 200 years from now judging us by their standards.

But every standard history text today used on college campuses discusses in some detail the "negatives" of American history; there are no Washington Irving histories out there now, at least not used in college courses. I know, because I'm a college history professor. My suggestion is not to even waste time reading Zinn, because any good, balanced history of the U.S. will tell you the same story--but also the WHOLE story. If Zinn wants to write a history of oppression and racism, then there is a place, and a need, for that. But don't call it a "People's History of the United States," don't try to pass it off as a survey of the history of this country, because that is deceitful and dishonest, at best. The historian who is an ideologue, the historian with a "cause"--and believe me, plenty such exist today--is a bad historian.

This is nothing more or less than an exercise in airing the dirty laundry of a nation that everyone is aware of, then casting it in the worst possible light so that people can feel superior for knowing how shabby human beings can be to each other. Every nation's beginning is bloody, horrible and disgraceful. The only difference is we have fully documented ours. Ask Professor Zinn which other utopia he'd like to immigrate to. To get the whole picture, read this and Paul Johnson's History of the American People. For intelligent leftist reading, consult Christopher Hitchens.

Oh I give up. This is enough. To counter JasonC, to counter any book JasonC recommends. Simply go to Amazon.com and read the 1 star reviews.

Balboa,

What a warped statements from you Balboa!

It's still history. Just a

December 9, 2009 - 15:56 ET by balboa

It's still history. Just a certain view -- however flawed -- of history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History doesn't have certain views. History is history. Using your statement, Balboa one would have to say that Stalin's, Hitler's, Mao Tsung's etc views of history and how they forced their schools to teach it was legitimate too, eh?

History doesn't have different point of views. This is one of the biggest lies Leftists teachers and later Leftist professors push on their students.

Howard Zinn is a radical, Left winger who enjoys distorting history.

Let us see if Zinn and his mindles minions in Hollywood, Damon, et al. praise the Tea party movement which is grassroots and it questions authority.

It should tell you a lot that the clip says that he considers anarchists individuals who have shaped American history. EH?! what "history" is this fool reading?

History is all about the facts. The facts do not have different point of views or change with time. History is history.

Depending on what they show, it is time to boycott the History Channel.

Anyone know the numbers, emails to contact the History Channel?

-Dave

Either impeach Obama, or prepare to watch your country die. It's your choice, America.