A Peoples History of the United States : 1492-Present

The book isnt a direct history in that it doesnt chronicle events directly. Rather, it is clearly intended to form a supplement to orthodox views of history. Every historical event, especially those shrouded in patriotic pride in the orthodox view, is here presented in an often completely different light.

The book does have one flaw: cynicism. Nearly every achievement in US history, including the Bill of Rights, the abolition of slavery, and the New Deal, is dismissed as a reluctant and often empty concession rather than a genuine step forward. Repeatedly Zinn argues that electoral politics is totally ineffective in achieving social justice, advocating instead a not-totally-defined "direct struggle" (although most of the direct struggles he writes about were brutally put down). When discussing the 1960s civil rights movement, his sympathies are clearly more with Malcolm Xs more militant approach than Martin Luther Kings nonviolence. (Interestingly, he doesnt mention how Malcolm X moved towards Kings position after his pilgrimage to Mecca, nor does he have much to say on Xs assassination.)

It would also have been nice to see a longer two-volume work, providing more room to the long series of wars and betrayals against aboriginals, and elaborating more on the darker side of U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century. Nonetheless, this is a definitive and comprehensive alternative view of history that should be required reading for every nationalist.

I recommend the book with some reservations. Agree or disagree, perspectives like Zinns keep us from becoming ignorant victims of ideological propaganda.

I recommend it because it is a great, well-informed, honest and self-conscious dissenting opinion. Anyone who wants to consider themselves educated needs to consider dissenting opinions frequently. But I have reservations. Most importantly, Zinns purpose is not to introduce someone to American history. He assumes his readers already know the basics. Of course, many people do not. Its not a history of the US; its a series of contentious corrections to the history traditionally taught in American classrooms. (Why did the Colonies defeat the British? What caused the depression? Why did Nixon visit China? Unless you know this much, this book isnt yet for you.)

Some reviewers complained about Zinns tone. Zinn is an average writer; better than many academics but worse than any good writer.

Other reviewers seemed to assume that either communists or far-right conservatives arent "students of history." But of course some are. Zinn and Newt Gingrich are both well-informed scholars.

(If it matters to you, I am neither communist nor right-wing; Im just not a political thinker. Im American, and I think Americans--all of us--can be proud and thankful; but we should recognize that our government and politicians have never been perfect. Ideologies often serve to control people, so dissenting opinions are vital for freedoms perseverance. But democracy and moderated capitalism have often succeeded in blessing their people, while communism has evidently failed everywhere, with more gruesome histories even than capitalism.)