People's History of the United States

Howard Zinn reframes the history of the United States by focusing his perspective on the activities and events of the common people, rather than on the 'Great Men of History.' By doing this Zinn gives us an account of the United States that shows that, rather than the grand narrative of a country lead by ideals and common consensus with perhaps a few blemishes here and there, the United States has always been in different states of conflict with itself. As shown by Zinn, the United States has been a long history of the very rich and very powerful consolidating power and influence, and the very poor and the downtrodden fighting for their freedom and safety.

Rather than an exhaustive list of dates and great men, the book is divided into chapters that cover 10 to 15 year chunks at a time focused around the main social issues or conflicts of the period. Zinn will usually follow one trend or event at a time before jumping backwards to describe a different related event that was happening at the same time. This does make it a bit difficult to read for long periods of time despite the fascinating subject matter, as there will be 40 page chapters that have back to back lists of statistics for pages at a time, but I think Zinn was right to present it this way as it's the only way to really cover the sheer size of the country and the populations at hand.

Zinn shows the development of the tools that the powerful use to consolidate power in the United States, which is mainly through three tactics: Focus on social issues rather than political ones, create disparities between groups to stop coalition building, and promise reforms that are either not enforced or are eventually retracted. And when none of these work or when it appears to be the quicker route, use excessive and indiscriminate violence against dissenters.

The People's History also shows how the underclasses and the exploited have developed over this period, and how their tactics have changed. Originally disparate groups who, because of the tactics discussed above, have been put at odds with each other, the exploited have gradually been politicized and radicalized over the history of this country. They have grown into organized groups and have built powerful coalitions at various points in US history and have been able to get concessions and forced the system to listen to their demands.

I've seen a scholar mentioned somewhere who mentions that the book is ultimately pessimistic because of how none of the revolutionary, labor, gender or racial equality groups have been able to actually overthrow the systems of oppression that this country is steeped in, but I disagree. I think that Zinn's book shows a gradual progression in the force and abilities that the exploited are able to bring to bear, and how tactics and organization have developed and become stronger. It also shows us how reform, electoralism, and promises from the powerful are ultimately fruitless and the importance of fighting for what we know is right.

I still think this is an important work, and I believe if you really want a good overview of the history of the United States it's instrumental. It gets a bit dense at times, and I had to put it down for about a month as it got a bit overwhelming, but if you go in knowing that and allow yourself to really absorb everything I think its a fascinating read.

7 out of 10

“There is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world - by a teacher, a writer, anyone - is a judgement. The judgement that has been made is that this fact is important, and that other facts, omitted, are not important.” - Howard Zinn

Indeed, Howard Zinn focuses on the facts of United States History that outline the labor movement and class exploitation, and to a lesser extent the black, Native American, and women's rights movements. I feel like the result is a somewhat limited economic and political history devoid of much of the social and cultural context. Of course, I have a lot of issues with the standard nationalistic and capitalist-centered narrative of the United States that is often presented, so I still would highly suggest reading this an addendum to the History of the United States.

Had to DNF this. It's not that the material is bad or not interesting. I think maybe the writing is just too....disengaging for me, and the subject matter is a little too broad. Not a bad book. Just not for me.

disclaimer: it's been a very long time since I've read this.

I normally like this sort of book, as I am happy to read about the dark side of history that often gets covered up, but I found it just awful, honestly. It had a very negative take on America in World War II that, frankly, just does not strike me as deserved, and I actually remember I gave it up in sheer disgust at around that point. America has committed many atrocities, but (reluctantly!) going into the war against Hitler who was literately committing genocide is definitely not one of them, and certainly not an act of imperialism when we were attacked by Japan first and decided to defend ourselves!
The bomb was regrettable, but very understandable why people would worry Japan wanted to fight to the last and be motivated to drop it: if you've ever read ANY shonen work of fiction from Japan, you kinda get the vibe that fighting to the very last is a huge fucking part of their culture. There is some confusion over whether Japan might have really wanted to surrender, but only a very biased author would prevent this as a sure thing.

This book is just completely determined to present America as imperialistic - which it often is - even in scenarios where this presentation makes no fucking sense.

Books that talk about the truths behind historical events away from the sanitization of the status quo are wonderful. Using that concept to push outright lies and twisted facts so you can sell a book is NOT.

I don't care what narrative an author is trying to push: writing falsehood as actual history just to sell books with the wave of interest over an interesting topic isn't ethical. It erodes the entire fact that we love to study and discuss history not just for entertainment but preservation. Zinn is not preservation but a rewriter of truth for money.

I wouldn't accept this kind of shady misdirection and lack of proper citation from anyone, whether Zinn, Cambridge or Sesame Street and neither should anyone else.

"Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth, like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you—
Ye are many; they are few!"
-Shelly

"You. Must. Learn."
-KRS-One

A very interesting look into a side of this country's history that isn't often talked about in school, etc.

This book is filled with info and everyone should read it. But I will not lie. It packs so much in that it gets a bit tedious at the end.

I think it is silly to say that this is a people's history, since the people he is talking about don't write history, rather communist professors do. There is some interesting stuff in here, but it is overall quite tiresome; in summary, poor people, or ethnic minorities, or working class people, take it in the shorts.