The politics of history

by Howard Zinn

This title includes a series of classic case studies and thought-provoking essays arguing for a radical approach to history and providing a revisionist interpretation of the historian's role. In a new introduction, Zinn responds to critics of the original work and comments further on the radicalization of history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Philosophy, Theory

390 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Howard Zinn was an American historian, playwright, philosopher, socialist intellectual and World War II veteran. He was chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, and a political science professor at Boston University. Zinn wrote more than 20 books, including his best-selling and influential A People's History of the United States in 1980. In 2007, he published a version of it for younger readers, A Young People's History of the United States.

Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." He wrote extensively about the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (Beacon Press, 1994), was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn's life and work. Zinn died of a heart attack in 2010, at the age of 87.

Reviews

[Kyle Worlitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Howard Zinn is just the embodiment of honest scholarship. Not all of us buy into the "great man" model of historiography. Really a must read for anyone that identifies with the "New Left" and anti-colonialism in general. Classic.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Howard Zinn's The Politics of History goes through some major historical events as they relate to issues of justice for ordinary Americans and the U.S. government's foreign policy. The other part of the book is on how to write history. It is a standard trope that the sciences are to be objective, but Zinn believes this ought to be clarified.

According to Zinn, the sciences tend to have an interest in why something occurs and being able to predict future instances. We ought to be as objective as possible about the evidence but it is fine to pursue some knowledge for some purpose. As Alfred North Whitehead wrote, "Knowledge keeps about as well as fish."

In the context of history and writing about history, it is fine to focus on a particular issue for humanitarian reasons. In fact, that kind of knowledge is all the more relevant to how we live. For instance, think of the Vietnam War. The war was essentially a revolutionary war among the Vietnamese and the U.S. government interfered with it. We can also examine the motivations and flimsy evidence that the government used to justify the invasion. This will help us explain the Iraqi War and other justifications for war.

This is a good book, one that all historians and aspiring historians ought to read. Or anyone, really.

[Johnny D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zinn makes powerful arguments in support of writing history without playing at objectivity. Humanism and political positions do have a place in history writing as long as this writing does not become propaganda or distortions. Principles of evidence and a commitment to truth must still be maintained while the writer understands their own biases.

[Bryan Mcquirk · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would give this 3.5 stars. I would have given a higher rating, but the chapter of philosophers drove it down for me. Zinn basically spends 30 pages bouncing back and forth, dropping a large number of names. I felt he could have condensed this chapter down significantly, especially as most of the chapter was summed up in the last quote.

[Kristin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Touchstone text in the "new history" of the 1970s-on. Challenges conventional historiography and the fascination with scientism/specialization that goes hand in hand with the stripping of humanism and value from history making.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zinn is always a good read. His position is basically is that all history is political. We can gather historical evidence, but that evidence is interpreted in particular ways.

[Thomas]

A must read by anyone interested in U.S. History.