Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I just discovered that Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is available free online at the following URL:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

In light of the fact that the Governor of Indiana is trying to have the book banned from schools in his state, this is great. They can never really remove it from libraries because interest in the book has increased enormously. This is one of the great books about American history. If any Republican conservatives can find factual fault with it, bring it on. They won't be able to because it is meticulously researched and annotated.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Interesting article regarding the book:

Lies the Debunkers Told Me: How Bad History Books Win Us Over (07/24/12)

Politicians quote them. Movie stars revere them. But these authors are so busy spinning good yarns that they don't have time to research the facts.

Earlier this month, George Mason University's History News Network asked readers to vote for the least credible history book in print. The top pick was David Barton's right-wing reimagining of our third president, Jefferson's Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson. But just nine votes behind was the late Howard Zinn's left-wing epic, A People's History of the United States. Bad history, it turns out, transcends political divides.

Above excerpt from: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/lies-the-debunkers-told-me-how-bad-history-books-win-us-over/260251/

Enjoy 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I am enjoying your post very much. As someone who has read the book, and who has been involved in school classes teaching it, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it is very well documented. I would not expect any right-winger, Republican or conservative to see the incredible scholarship behind this book. I am sure the poll was comprised of people whose ideological point of view made it impossible to evaluate the book ON THE BASIS OF ITS ACCURACY. It was certainly evaluated on the basis of the poll takers' political agendas.

If you find things in Zinn's book that you believe to be inaccurate and if you can disprove Zinn's statements, then I would love to have you tell why Zinn's statements are wrong, and SHOW US SOURCE INFORMATION THAT PROVES YOU RIGHT.

I am confident you cannot do the above.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Mike Pence is trying to ban the book from schools in Indiana? Would you have a reference to support that? Thanks 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

I read it last night and should have copied the reference. But I will do a search later today and post the URL.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Here is the reference. There is lots of other material there, too.

http://zinnedproject.org/2013/07/indianas-anti-howard-zinn-witch-hunt/

The most amusing thing about this situation is that the more certain people try to get the book banned, the better publicity it gets and the greater the sales. A public library that had only 1 copy, almost unread, on its shelf now has 19 copies in active circulation and a waiting list of ten other people. Great publicity !

I'm hoping more governors and ex-governors will try to get the book banned !

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana now, not Mitch Daniels, who is president of Purdue. I suppose you realize that now, thanks for the link. 8-)

"Hence the deranged quality of this fairy tale, in which the incidents are made to fit the legend, no matter how intractable the evidence of American history. It may be unfair to expose to critical scrutiny a work patched together from secondary sources, many used uncritically (Jennings, Williams), others ravaged for material torn out of context (Young, Pike). Any careful reader will perceive that Zinn is a stranger to evidence bearing upon the people about whom he purports to write. But only critics who know the sources will recognize the complex array of devices that pervert his pages... On the other hand, the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely Anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book... He lavishes indiscriminate condemnation upon all the works of man — that is, upon civilization, a word he usually encloses in quotation marks. "

Handlin, Oscar, "Arawaks", review of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, The American Scholar, Vol. 49, Issue 4 (Autumn 1980), pp. 546-550.

Oscar Handlin (September 29, 1915 in Brooklyn, New York – September 20, 2011 in Cambridge, Massachusetts) was an American historian. As a professor of history at Harvard University for over 50 years, he directed 80 PhD dissertations and helped promote social and ethnic history. Handlin won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1952 with The Uprooted. Handlin's 1965 testimony before Congress was said to "have played an important role" in abolishing a discriminatory immigration quota system in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Handlin

I have no desire to read an anti-American history book by socialist Howard Zinn, but I do thank you for the link to it as others may wish to read it. :D

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

"Spy Catcher" became a best seller in the UK after it was banned. Ignoring the facts don't make them any less true.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

Zinn's book is definitely NOT anti-American, but those who disagree with what he is doing -- who want the truth suppressed -- often resort to calling it that. It is profoundly PRO American, and details many facts about how progress has been made in this country. It also does not hide the terrible atrocities committed by the powers-that-be throughout our history. That is why so many "established" historians are so critical of the book -- it tells things they have omitted from their own studies, and in doing this shows them to be biased and/or superficial.

Oner of my criticisms of your source's statement that you chose to repeat is that it really consists of generalizations with specific demonstrations of what it claims.

Let me get specific about this, since I am criticizing your source for not going deeply enough into facts. Where have you heard about the opposition to the Spanish-American War in the pages of conventional history books. You find descriptions of this in Zinn's chapter 12, pp 306 - and on. Have you ever seen Mark Twain's comment on the Phillipine War ?

"We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them, destroyed their fields, burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultun of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag.

"And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the Government's, not mine -- we are a World Power."

You are obviously afraid to read the book itself. Don't. Better for you to continue to get your sense of history from some of those dated elementary school movies they used to show in the 1950's, where the United States was one big "melting pot" and everything was hunky dory.


Of course, yyuou don't want to read the book. You accept someone else's say-so and don't want to think for yourself.

If you can read sections pof this book and then tell us what things Zinn says are incorrect, then we can believe you. But I can find any number of fools on the Internet (and in The American Scholar) who believe all kinds of nonsense. Actually, I have some personal; experience in seeing at least one "scholar" who knew next to nothing about what he was writing about in that publication. I spent ten years of my life studying Samoan culture, and did a transcultural psychiatric study of certain things in the Samoan way of life. Margaret Mead wrote a book (Coming of Age in Samoa) which Samoans dislike because it is filled with nonsense. Derek Freeman and I and a few other people found Mead to be absolutely wrong. Yet the gentleman writing about Samoa in The American Scholar accepted her version of life there.

You would do best to go to the original source -- Zinn's book itself -- read it, and do your own research about whether what he states is true or not. Don't let some learned gentleman historian do your thinking for you. You do not need a license (a Ph.D.) to think.

As for this last remark, I would bet that most people in this forum, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, right-wing, left-wing accept that fact. Think for yourself. And if the subject matters to you, do a little homework.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

So anyone who disagrees with Zinn wants the truth suppressed? Quite a straw man argument. Why on earth would Oscar Handlin, a Pulitzer Prize historian and professor at Harvard University for over 50 years wish to suppress the truth?


Afraid to read a book? Come on Richard, you should be able to do better than that. As for where I get my sense of history you have absolutely no idea and it is more likely, considering your age, that you watched those movies in the 50's.


Again, I have no interest in wasting my time reading an anti-American book written by a socialist, so you are correct, I don't wish to read it. All of us make choices on which books to read simply because we can not read them all.


I am not sure who the "we" is nor what you do not believe regarding what I have said.


Sorry Richard, but this anti-American book written by this socialist does not matter to me at all. 8-)

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

You have taken some one else's opinion that this book is "anti-American," which it is not. Your sense of history is one-sided, from biased sources. And your assumption that socialists don't know anything and cannot tell the truth is absurd, too. You have not read the book. You do not know anything about what you are disagreeing with. Think for yourself. Obviously you are in your comfort zone thinking these things, which amounts to being afraid to challenge yourself, stretch your mind, and give an opposing point of view a try. In the academic world, not going to the primary source before commenting on the specifics about it (both of which you have not done) is considered ignorant.

CharlieR Loc: Seattle

Zinn's book isn't a scholarly history textbook and isn't intended to be. It's a critical commentary. The issue isn't whether you agree with him or not. The issue is whether you agree that Mitch Daniels has the right to censor views that oppose his own. Nobody has the authority to say that one American author or another is guilty of anti-Americanism. There's no such thing as "Americanism." "ism's" are ideologies. Our country isn't based on an ideology. It's based on Liberty.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Actually I have read many reviews, both pro and con, regarding this 1980 book. So I have considered several opinions.


This is a silly assumption with absolutely no basis.


Except I never contended nor assumed that. Perhaps you are replying to someone else's post?


Richard, I think you like going around and around just for arguments sake. No, I have not read the book, nor will I, as I have stated. Sorry if your entire point of creating this topic, to have folks read this book, has failed with me.

You opened this thread lauding over a 1980 book and announcing that it is one of the "great books about American History" and how it was "meticulously researched." I referenced opposing views, one from George Mason University finding the book to be one of the "least credible history books in print," and another opinion from a Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard history professor. It's that simple.


As you stated, I have not commented regarding the specifics of the book, therefore, I am not ignorant according to your statement, nor in actuality.

By the way, in case you wish to read "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic," by Mark R. Levin, I have included the Amazon link. You can read the book, or not read it, I will attempt no absurd arguments as to why you should or must read it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451606273/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=28517138237&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10535677971772532083&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=t&ref=pd_sl_890q650cip_b

Enjoy 8-)

bvm Loc: Glendale, Arizona

1.) the winners write history

2.) then the revisionists come in and put their interpretation in the public forum.

3.) the pro and con battle continues for ages.

4.) the revisionists are for ever telling the world how bad and evil the anti-revisionists are.

5.) revisionists form a clique of " we said, therefor it's true".

6.) revisionists cleverly omit what doesn't fit their agenda as do all historians .

7.) revisionism is usually negative.

8.) revisionists love to blow things apart but never build.

bemused_bystander Loc: Orkney Islands, UK

I've read four chapters already, it's fascinating. Thanks