Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The common response to reviewers who argue Howard Zinn is omitting events in American history is because they are well-covered in mainstream standard textbooks. They say his book is designed to highlight events ignored or understated, to shine a light on stories rarely told in America. THIS is a fair response, and there is nothing sinister, or dishonest, about the stated purpose of A People's History of the United States. HOWEVER, there is something terribly wrong about how Howard Zinn crafted the events he re-tells, the total absence of reliable third party sources and instead preferring to provide his own commentary without attribution to other research. As Michael C. Moynihan correctly noted in his Reason article, Zinn is unable to escape his own bias when wring about events well understood to be historical fact and not debatable. FOR EXAMPLE, Zinn claims Muammar Gaddafi had no role in the bombing of American marines at a Berlin nightclub. Zinn describes the Khmer Rouge in Camabodia as a "revolutionary regime" that was a victim to American foreign policy. He makes no mention of the fact that the Khmer Rouge government slaughtered over 1 million of its own citizens. He expresses gushing approval of virtually every government opposite of America and capitalism during the Cold War, but that is secondary to his analysis of the United States alone. It is understandable and fair to evaluate America's wars and domestic problems, but Zinn strives to be a moral authority in his book and feels confident to write about historic enemies of the United States. THIS IS FINE, but in order to be an historian one must accept and incorporate facts widely known and not debated. It is simply indefensible, if not criminal, to rewrite history to a narrative solely based on political philosophy. Sacrificing facts and reality because it doesn't fit a pre-determined political belief system is something no historian should be part of. HOWEVER, no one should have a problem with Zinn's personal politics. But people should have a problem if his personal politics forces him to write bold face lies and call it history. The fact that Zinn leaves out and ignores WHOLE events in American history is NOT a problem. But to write about specific events, while omitting facts that relate directly to the "history" involving them IS a problem. Revealing hidden truths is Zinn's agenda, and is something Americans should pay attention to and embrace. But Zinn isn't writing hidden truths, he is passing off political commentary as historical fact and this is unacceptable behavior. I would have no problem if this book was placed on the same level as a work by any popular political activist. BUT A People's History is used as a singular source in American public schools, it is presented to be an accurate re-telling of American history. BUT IT ISN'T. It trivializes American history, exploits it to serve a superficial need in winning the hearts of uncorrupted learners for a cause they have no business joining. I am not surprised to see so many glowing reviews. Who doesn't question history told in their childhood? Education is very personal and having an open-mind after spending months relying on a textbook said to be a record of history is close to impossible. But we must SEPARATE ourselves from emotion and look at this book objectively. Any author that claims to be an historian must be automatically held to a higher standard. And for those who respond and say I am libeling Zinn, that I don't understand his work, or I'm a right-wing Christian fundamentalist Fox News watcher...do you agree with this: Do you agree America provoked Japan and forced the country to bomb Pearl Harbor? Because Howard Zinn says so. And some facts that can be demolished with simple statistics. Zinn claims unemployment grew overall during the Reagan administration, when in fact unemployment decreased at an exponential well into his last year in office. For third party sources, Zinn frequently cites copies of himself - ideologically speaking - such as self-described Marxit historians Herbet Aptheker and I.F Stone. He also uses Eric Foner on occasion. Foner is a decent Civil War historian, but his research is frequently cherry-picked and misrepresented in a Norman Finkelstein-fashion that is almost criminal. According to Flynn, Zinn cites David Irving in one part of his book but in the edition that I own I could not find it. ULTIMATELY, the real problem with this book, the real issue, is that it is a Communist telling of history. IT should be renamed A Communist History of the United States, because many of chapter themes are close to verbatim Soviet rhetoric, supported by analysis of real history but inverted with Zinn's pedestrian and elementary understanding of world affairs. Before the internet and scholarly university databases, it might have been more difficult to argue against Zinn's long, thoughtful writing. He is so confident, so certain, so focused how could he be remotely wrong? The facts, unfortunately, speak for themselves. One does not have to be a conservative of liberal to call a spade a spade, and see through Zinn's willful ignorance, or perhaps deliberate obfuscation of history. I will assume good faith and believe Zinn was sincere in his writing and wrote this book with an open mind and heart. But we still must recognize the historical inaccuracies that are rampant, and not justify Zinn's behavior because it is alternative to the mainstream. That is not good enough. Americans should welcome alternative views. Particularly minority views supported by historical fact. But passing off false tales as real stories in history cannot and should not be tolerated.