Since you read the Zinn, you have me at a disadvantage, however, I gather that "People's History" is a collection of oppression narratives from (for him) an adopted set of "grievance identities".
Commentators, here and there, have stated that their college professors have used it as a primary US history (talk about adopted identities).
I attended high school in Anchorage, Alaska (1973-77) and believe was given a "standard" edcuation in history. I recall that there was perhaps one or two semesters in US History. What I really recall is that it was pretty boring (lots of broad "events") - and did not emphasize political culture and how the US was somewhat unique and early with it - early in that the successful parts of world have since adopted various forms of our governance (and continue to do so).
The term "nationalist" has been thrown about a lot since Trump ran for president - and I wondered - how is that different than holding ordinary American political aspirations as practiced in America. I looked it up (in a 1978 edition of Webster's New World) - turns out it means "patriotic" (in Def 1a) but also excessively, narrowly, patriotic, chauvanistic (Def 1b). Given that it seems to be more used by the journalistic left - I tend to think they mean "not like me - not reflexively guilty about being American".
Going further, the term "white nationalist" would seem to veer from that Websters definition. I tend to be chairitable about my assumptions of others - from that perspective, given that the nation was founded and made great by mostly white men, the "white" part seems not to actually modify. Others use it as code for "racist" of "supremacist" - but I don't think you mean that here.
1977 was a long time ago, and it was at least ten years later when I read "real history" - the penetrating, not-boring kind (you know, with actual "story" in its). And I have undoubtedly blended the old boring with the new interesting in my head.
Commentators, here and there, have stated that their college professors have used it as a primary US history (talk about adopted identities).
I attended high school in Anchorage, Alaska (1973-77) and believe was given a "standard" edcuation in history. I recall that there was perhaps one or two semesters in US History. What I really recall is that it was pretty boring (lots of broad "events") - and did not emphasize political culture and how the US was somewhat unique and early with it - early in that the successful parts of world have since adopted various forms of our governance (and continue to do so).
The term "nationalist" has been thrown about a lot since Trump ran for president - and I wondered - how is that different than holding ordinary American political aspirations as practiced in America. I looked it up (in a 1978 edition of Webster's New World) - turns out it means "patriotic" (in Def 1a) but also excessively, narrowly, patriotic, chauvanistic (Def 1b). Given that it seems to be more used by the journalistic left - I tend to think they mean "not like me - not reflexively guilty about being American".
Going further, the term "white nationalist" would seem to veer from that Websters definition. I tend to be chairitable about my assumptions of others - from that perspective, given that the nation was founded and made great by mostly white men, the "white" part seems not to actually modify. Others use it as code for "racist" of "supremacist" - but I don't think you mean that here.
1977 was a long time ago, and it was at least ten years later when I read "real history" - the penetrating, not-boring kind (you know, with actual "story" in its). And I have undoubtedly blended the old boring with the new interesting in my head.