"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."

Does this book have any relevance to a discussion of Zinn's?

I don't think one can disagree with the beginning of your post. That's how you see things.

But to claim that how rapidly a work "catches on" shows its quality is faulty reasoning. Many examples prove it. I haven't researched the original reception this book met, but you can see the sort of non-thinking reception a few otherwise intelligent people are giving it in this forum. They haven't read it, but they're against it.

Then there is the label "revisionist" that many established historians have slapped it with. They are using it in a pejorative way, but there is nothing wrong with revising a version of history by incorporating more material in it to tell a fuller, more accurate story.

And as someone here pointed out, the book was not intended to be the definitive history of the United States. It tells what happened in American history from the point of view of people we almost never hear about -- the common citizens.

We all need to be careful with labels. The phrase "card carrying" was demonized by the right-wingers of McCarthy's time so successfully that it still has strong pejorative connotations. Even if I were to call someone a "card-carrying member of the local Better Business Bureau" it would still elicit a faint suspicion. The term "revisionist" affects people similarly.

There are times when stories need to be revised to incorporate more of the truth.

Just a comment on your general intellectual outlook. You are certainly an intelligent person, but you are so entrenched in your point of view that you refuse to look at evidence that disagrees with your beliefs.

For instance:

If one believes that Blacks are intellectually equal to whites, then you owe it to yourself to read The Bell Curve, just to see what the opposition is saying.

If you believe in evolution, then you owe it to yourself to read a book advocating creationism.

If you believe the reassuring, right-wing version of American history that has characterized much of American historical thought, then YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF to read Zinn's book. You don't owe it to anyone else.

I find it very well documented. While most of the historical material used in teaching in a school where I was this past school year comes from copies of the original (and often in pairs of conflicting) documents, I am very pleased that it is the main text.

Amazon.com has almost 1,000 customer reviews, and more than half of these are highly favorable.

What I find most revealing about the comments regarding this book, both in this forum and on Amazon, is that those who denigrate often either have not read the book or do not note specifics in the text they disagree with. Those who write favorable reviews tend to be far more specific. This isn't always true, but it is usually true. That in itself should tell you that the critics are basing their criticisms more on their own beliefs than on the actual text of the book.

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.

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.

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 !

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

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.

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.

Yes, Croce, it is done regularly. However, if you do it on Yahoo your access to Yahoo ends. I know this as a fact.

While I am not certain of this because I have not looked specifically as regards this forum, I think it is against the terms of service agreement to start posting personal information about people such as their name and address. It is in many forums.

I will see what I can find. I know I have a reference to the bill in question in the book The New New Deal. I need to hunt, and right now after a day of strenuous activity I am too tired to do that. I will save it for tomorrow.

What is most interesting here is that you have tried to shift the discussion to whether or not the jobs were "shovel ready," rather than about the impact the bill would have had sooner or later on the economy. By now, those jobs would certainly be in effect, generating tax dollars to offset some or all of their costs and making the infrastructure of this country ready for this century.

Shoivel ready or not, the jobs bill was blocked by Republicans. And I repeat, I think they were close to committing treason in looking after their own interests instead of the interests of the country. Our economy would be in better shape now if that bill had been passed.