★★★★★ 5
Beyond the Usual Left/Right bifurcation
When thinking about Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States, I am reminded of E.H. Carr's seminal work "What is History?" whereby he stated: "The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate". As Carr famously stated, millions of people had crossed the Rubicon, but only Julius Caesar's crossing in 49 BC has been given normative value by historians. For those familiar with the philosophical treatment of historical understanding in Tolstoy's War and Peace, this sentiment will ring true. A People's History is designed to give voice to those millions who passed the rubicon but never found their way into the annuals of history.
A couple of points. This book was intended to be a supplement as opposed to a strictly chronological account of history that will give you the bullet points for the most important people, dates and events. [sic] It is not meant to be a replacement for a more standardized textbook.
Secondly, Zinn did not hate America, and he in fact stated:
"I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which was that all of us have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality-and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that."
Regardless of your political position, between the Great Recession and the Iraq war, there is a relevance to this sentiment that cuts across political lines.
Now, what one will notice in the bulk of the one star reviews is the sense that either the reviewer has not read the book, they copied and pasted their criticism from another source or they have strictly given the book one star because it does not conform with their view of reality. "Blame America first", "socialism", "communism", "Marx, "liberal propaganda", you can easily get the gist of the talking points because many American conservatives apparently got the same memo in dismissing anything they don't agree with. The disservice they do to themselves and the sphere of ideas in the outright dismissal of any perspective which does not conform to their own is truly sad. When someone gives a book one star merely for not conforming to their view of reality,they have obviously lost the plot.
In university I knew many conservative history professors who liked and used Zinn's work. They believed it was important to incorporate and deal with the claims that Zinn made. You cannot whitewash history and blindly stick by the most comforting narrative. That does not mean that one should agree with Zinn's conclusions or think that he has a monopoly on the truth. Zinn himself would not have wanted that.
For those who claim Zinn is a socialist or any other kind of -ist, that he is not completely objective, they have obviously never done any research. Pure positivism was dismissed long ago. Even Max Webber started that our subjective bias comes in the moment we choose to study something, for by seeing the subject matter as valuable, we have placed a normative value on it. There is no pure value objectivity, stating one's position and bias from the outset is what responsible social scientists do these days. A dryly academic text with an obvious bias concealed by a detached form of writing gives a falsely omniscient perspective whose reality is psychological but not objective. However they write, they are just a person, and without expressing their biases it will inevitably turn up in their work without necessarily being obvious. This is far more dangerous than what Zinn does in stating his bias from the outset. So it is a red herring to dismiss Zinn for having a perspective. We all have one and it will come into whatever we do.
There is no knowable, objective reality (for humans) living in the Platonic world of perfect forms. History was a puzzle of immeasurable size that was blown apart and the pieces scattered over the cosmos. The vast majority of the pieces are gone, never to return. We are stabbing at an imperfect speculation, not ultimate truth when we engage in historical study. Any physicist will tell you that the particle wave duality of light has pretty much closed the book on the notion that we can objectively, perfectly know anything.
This book is important because the poison of partisan politics has come to dominate even the dialogue of academic research. If the sole criterion for giving a book one star is the notion that you don't agree with its thesis, then you obviously live in a fragile world and are incapable of being challenged intellectually. This book is of the upmost importance for the conservative to read and digest. In developing a coherent narrative of the United States, you need to wrestle with its sins and determine, despite our historical shortcomings and transgressions, what is it that makes this imperfect union the pinnacle of nation states if one agrees with that prospect. For the liberal, you should not view Zinn's work as the last word on anything, but rather use it as a stepping stone to further develop your own historical understanding and consider how well has American done on a relative scale in light of the political, societal and human failings that have marred all human civilizations. This book is well worth the challenges it presents, and should be a 5 star treat for the conservative who loves his country and wants to develop the most cogent and nuanced argument as to why that is the case despite those unsettling realities to be found in this book as well as the liberal who wants to give voice to his disaffection with certain aspects of American society and the reasons why we need to change it. This is not another tool in the mindless and poisonous Manichean bifurcation of American politics. It is a vehicle to help you strengthen and deepen your understanding of US history, regardless from which direction you are coming. Recommended to all who are interested in the journey of learning as opposed to a presupposed outcome that serves a vested interest.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 13, 2010
