"His basic thesis is that America was built on the blood and suffering of the poor." Well, that is because it was and is. Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean we should live in denial.

Oh man I had a long and hearty lol at this.

Actually, I think his basic thesis is that the greatest moments in American history were built by common people, be they of color or just plain old white folk like Mother Jones. It's not that white man equals bad so much as those who have power and abuse it are bad--its just that in American history, that group has been disproportionately white.

Well, not so much the poor as the minority or majority turned minority by disease, slavery, persecution, suicide, on and on. Truth? Yes. Negative portrayal of America? Yes. Are we still heading in this direction? Not as much, but yes. I hate bitching as much as the next guy but this is bitching about the truth that soooooo many have no clue about. Should we just bith? No. It's kind of sad that Liberals conveying historical truths are evil and Conservatives ignoring them are . . . well, evil. We should certainly look at the truth but without panning those who do so as lunatics because it makes our country look bad. This is a great country, but like great people who have overcome a terrible past and prospered so shall this country.

America WAS built on the blood and suffering of the poor (and disenfranchised). The fact that you don't like that doesn't make Zinn a liar. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it," etc.-- if we understand what we've done wrong in the past, we can start fixing our old mistakes in the futures. Zinn is a brilliant man who has done the world (and American citizens, especially) a massive favor in putting this wonderful book together.

I have a bit of a retort on my "review" of A Power Governments Cannot Suppress. To suggest we should never read this book because it's pessimistic is appalling. Also, he himself doesn't suggest this should be the primary/only means of interpretation. In fact he states quite clearly from the beginning that his focus is on such content because it is so immensely overlooked by virtually every other standard view of history.

history is always biased. there's no such thing as impartial history. who ever tells the story can only see it through one persepective. i think the book is telling an untold history (or a lesser told). many times history is sugarcoated and watered down. you always learn that the heros and geniuses are very specific people (usually white christian men in power). but there are heroes, geniuses, villians, killers, movers, shakers that exist in other identities.

i mean it's ok if you don't like the book, but no one's perspective of history should be discounted. it's not like there's some ULTIMATE DIVINE history that is the only, most righteous and most accurate history. that just doesn't make sense. but that is approach in institutional settings. and this tends to discount the perspective of POC, women, queerfolk, etc.

I think you're absolutely right in saying that this book isn't suitable as the only textbook for a 10th grade history class. However, it could be useful as complementary material. Many folks get only the other p.o.v. in their classes, which is just as bad.

I'm not sure that attacking Zinn personally is merited, so let's disregard that as a pointless outburst to attract attention. (It worked! But, if you live in America and watch television, you probably think that's what grown-ups do.)

You've used the term "propaganda" I think rather too loosly. The use of a single book with a single perspective in a classroom may make it "propaganda" on the part of the teacher, but that does not extend to the historian. A historian has no obligation to tell everything that can be told and Zinn is upfront about his p.o.v. from the outset.

Gosh, anyway, I'm sorry you had such a rotten sophomore year history class.

fuck history its a lier

Compelling input and top-notch spelling- you should definitely smoke more.

Extremely narrow (and frankly, sophmoric) review of a fairly major work. Just because the work doesn't fit within your reference of history doesn't make it false... I think this book is a critical read for everyone, as it gives a reference to a history that is seldom told, in stark contrast to the romanticized version that most "high-school" history courses cover..

billy, you need to pull your head out of the sand. face it, this country was built on slavery, genocide and oppression, like all empires. maybe you should join the military so you can continue the tradition.

zinn's book does not atempt to account for all history of this country- only the history that your textbooks don't talk about. and if bitching and moaning means bringing awareness to the history of exploitation in this country- then i would consider bitching and moaning a good thing. your review was that of a complete ignoramus

"Well, that is because it was and is. Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean we should live in denial."

Every country was "built" on the "blood and suffering of the poor." The difference is that America progressed. Why doesn't he tell that side of the story? How the American system of government allowed for progress, while other non-democratic systems of government did not, and still do not. And these countries are socialist, and communist, and Marxist, like Mr. Zinn. He defends the Chinese totalitarian state and other repulsive states, amongst them the Cuban state. He claims that there was no bloody oppression in Cuba! My family would tell you otherwise. Zinn is a zealot as foolish as those zealots of equal intensity on the right. They're both full of crap. Whether it's on the left, or the right, there's always an audience willing to be fed the crap. Zealots with a purely political agenda do not belong in any classroom, regardless of what their point of view is, or what you think of their point of view, and Mr. Zinn is a zealot without objectivity. Perhaps some of you have never heard of "political spin". Spin-doctoring should not be a part of history, period. The disenfranchised must be heard, but that does not mean that those who were not disenfranchised were evil and plotting to keep the disenfranchised that way.

Billy, how old are you? Four? Your review is immature and quite honestly biased. It is obvious that you lack the ability to read and comprehend the fact that rich white men have basically held everyone else, including poorer whites, blacks and Indians in thrall for a long time. Unfortunately, this isn't only true of America. You should check out the History of Inida and how the upper castes treat the Untouchables or how the Japanese treated the Chinese o Koreans, especially during WWII. Those in power tend to do whatever they think necessary to hold on to power, to include brutalizing and dehumanizing others.

What makes the United States somewhat different is that we espouse a different belief. We sometimes live up to that belief, but not always. I hope that we do in the future.

Howard Zinn died today. Like you, he is an American. Unlike you, he does not blindly follow along the path of national self destruction.

Billy, if the last time you read Mr Zinn's book was as a sophomore in high school perhaps it deserves revisiting. I was forced to read many books in high school which I did not appreciate at the time, but upon reaching adulthood I had a much different understanding of the world and why these books were assigned in the first place. Rereading them with a different and more mature perspective made for an entirely different reading experience than the one I had at fifteen.

Of course, maybe you're still in high school. In which case---give it ten years and then get back to us.

:)

RIP Howard Zinn!

Never say to burn a book on a book sharing website. Seriously...

I think Zinn did a tremendous job of not "bitching" or whining. I question if Billy finished reading the first chapter. He clearly warns that this is not his intention. In fact, his warning is what drew me into the book. I like to be informed and aware of the truth behind history. However, as I sought this book out for recreation I worried that the tone and Gorey details of America's past would depress me(silly,I
know).However, Zinn lets the reader know that he does not intend to enrage the reader. He is simply disseminating information that has been held from us, so that we may have the truth in mind to move forward into the future and progress. Information like this is important. Even the well educated are indoctrinated. Opinions like the original post above are a prime example of why histories like the ones presented in this book are important. It's cliche, but if we don't know our history we are doomed to repeat it. I read the post and couldn't help but think "Hitler much!?"

Sara wrote: "Never say to burn a book on a book sharing website. Seriously..."

Agreed. This guy needs a mandatory 3 days to stand and stare at the book burning memorial in Berlin.

I think you found something to bitch and moan about as well. Howard Zinn is gone now, so maybe you are a happier person.

Alex, I couldn't agree with you more!

I'm glad to see that Ann Coulter opened a sock-puppet account and decided to write reviews at Goodreads.

Lance wrote: ""His basic thesis is that America was built on the blood and suffering of the poor." Well, that is because it was and is. Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean we should live in den..."

THANK you.

Tenderfoot wrote: "I'm glad to see that Ann Coulter opened a sock-puppet account and decided to write reviews at Goodreads."

Um, ouch.
He's just a kid! ):

Sorry, had to see this-
"Someone who hates America?"
How about for someone who can grow a spine and face the facts, brother? America is wonderful in many ways and it is not wonderful in many ways. Face it nobody is perfect, not even Lady Liberty or Uncle Sam. Don't blanket those that enjoy this book as anti-Americans. Not cool.

Mado wrote: "Sara wrote: "Never say to burn a book on a book sharing website. Seriously..."

Agreed. This guy needs a mandatory 3 days to stand and stare at the book burning memorial in Berlin."

Whoops! Does that mean I should be censured for recommending the burning of the "Twilight" books? :-)

Tenderfoot wrote: "I'm glad to see that Ann Coulter opened a sock-puppet account and decided to write reviews at Goodreads."

Laugh my fucking arse off! Well said! :-)

Group_Captain_Lionel_Mandrake wrote: "Billy, how old are you? Four? Your review is immature and quite honestly biased. It is obvious that you lack the ability to read and comprehend the fact that rich white men have basically held ev..."

Word.
Whoever write this thing is clearly ignorant. Holla.

"My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all)--that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth."

You're right, reviewer! Let's just keep focussing on rich white men because if you pay any attention to the poor, or people of any other ethnicity, or women, American history is SUPER DEPRESSING. Howard Zinn's such a downer all the time, he was probably a liberal and hated America for no good reason!

Geoff wrote: "You're right, reviewer! Let's just keep focussing on rich white men because if you pay any attention to the poor, or people of any other ethnicity, or women, American history is SUPER DEPRESSING. ..."

Very nice

First of all...Burn it? Do opinions that oppose yours scare you so badly that you feel the need to destroy them? Secondly, if you read A People's History, you will see that Zinn, knowing his work would face controversy, meticulously backed up nearly every statement he made with historical evidence.

I agree that the book forces people to look at the ugly truth about how our country was founded, but Zinn does not condemn early Americans for their actions so much as encourage modern Americans to change. It promotes racial, cultural, and financial equality in a culture that since 1492 has not overcome injustice. If these ideas bother you that much, you should probably ask yourself some hard questions. Or...read magazines instead, they're probably more your speed.

Ben wrote: "billy, you need to pull your head out of the sand. face it, this country was built on slavery, genocide and oppression, like all empires..."

I didn't know this was new news. I guess Billy did?

For a whole different perspective, see A Patriot's History of the United States.

TheAccidental wrote: "For a whole different perspective, see A Patriot's History of the United States."

This book was recommended by Glen Beck *Insert men in white suits here* I have read books that I knew would leave a bitter taste in my mouth ("Turner Diaries") but to read a book Glen Beck says deserves a read, well, I'm not sure I could stand the wormwood aftertaste. It must be a propaganda book, is it?

I know, right? Exactly how much responsibility do I have to look up this bullshit "response" when it screams right-wing nut job? Is Glenn Beck trying to pretend he is anywhere near the equal of Howard Zinn?

Okay, let's look up the cover jacket:

"For at least thirty years, high school and college students have been taught to be embarrassed by American history. Required readings have become skewed toward a relentless focus on our country's darkest moments, from slavery to McCarthyism."

Wow, what bullshit. Why are people so afraid of their own history? What kind of coward can't confront a truth that's a hundred years dead?

Geoff wrote: "I know, right? Exactly how much responsibility do I have to look up this bullshit "response" when it screams right-wing nut job? Is Glenn Beck trying to pretend he is anywhere near the equal of H..."

Can we give Geoff an Amen?! *crowed roars, AMEN!* :-)

You know he's dead right. When he died, my AP US History class had a celebration. But it was still sad.

he told the truth don't run from it, learn from it.

...But history is factual not interpretative. The events are chronicled, not made up. America was built by slave labor and the land was taken (forcibly in some situations) from Native American Indians. We continue to use cheap labor but we call it capitalism. It's better to use minority labor outside of the country and pay them less, according to some large corporations. Howard Zinn's history of the U.S. tells the facts about the underrepresented people in America. To say that he should be impartial is to destroy what his intentions were for writing this book. I mean, white history was recorded by a lot of racist and ethnocentric historians who failed to include important aspects of history. Zinn in this case, aims only to tell what those whites left out.

Wow, someone doesn't like the truth.

You should have gone to school K-12 at least, so if one year of reading Zinn in high school was your "primary" means of learning US history, you should be mad at your teachers, not Howard Zinn.

Mega wrote: "he told the truth don't run from it, learn from it."

Well said Mega!

"do not read""it should be burned"??? I now will HAVE to read it :)

In denial about sacrifices that were made to "make" this country what it is. Every county in the world had violence as part of the molding of it's culture and boundaries. The strong against the weak. In fact, isn't that the basis of capitalism? Darwinism? I mean you don't get rich because of God for pete's sake. Survival of the fittest and adaptation.

Actually I am shocked that they don't know this already. This is nothing new.

You should also read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" If Texas rewriting text books that contain information about Thomas Jefferson doesn't prove the point of how we have revised history to make ourselves look better than I don't know what does.

Robin wrote: "In denial about sacrifices that were made to "make" this country what it is. Every county in the world had violence as part of the molding of it's culture and boundaries. The strong against the wea..."

Darwinism is about genetic adaptations/mutations for survival, it wasn't always the strongest or the fittest that survived. You're talking about Social Darwinism, which is a man made notion to rationalize what capitalist pigs do to tread on the little person. It was one of a few ideologies used to justify slavery.

Your post reads like you are not fond of Zimmerman, perhaps I've missed something Robin? Or are you a Republican Friedmanite, who dreams of making out with Ayn Rand? :-P