Howard Zinn Greed

Howard Zinn’s, Peoples’ History of the US and Larry Schweikart’s, Patriots’ History of the US are two analytical views on history that most people would consider politically conflicting. Zinn’s Marxist book was widely praised by liberal activist and Schweikart’s book is greatly publicized by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. These two widely known historians turned their focus on writing two historical pieces that would fill in the “historical holes” that weren’t being taught in the educational systems. It created a type of diverse learning that made for a great argument while still allowing the readers to understand all sides of the topics at hand. Zinn really dismissed the common “white mans history” and focused his approach on a multiple minority perspective. Schweikart’s book is very different in the sense he takes aim at Zinn as he targets words like “great discovery” and “war on terror” which Zinn only used as scare quotes. Schweikart’s book really reads like old history textbooks from the moral principals of the American founders that built this nation to the ideological view of American prosperity. No matter who shares the views of the political perspectives or condemns them because of its bias stances both historians felt responsible in writing the history of the United States.

1. Zinn’s main purpose for writing A People’s History of the United States is to show history from the viewpoint of others.

In June of 2003, Howard Zinn’s “Dying for the Government” was published in “The Progressive” newspaper. He discusses the government’s claim to military victory in Iraq, and he believes that many innocent people have died for an unjust cause in that war. His claim is that soldiers died for their government, not their country. An important part of his argument is his discussion of democracy, which he says is what our country is supposed to be based on. He also brings up some history of U.S. wars and quotes Mark Twain’s statement about the invasion of the Phillipines by the United States. Even though some of his assertions lack evidence, Zinn uses authority

2. By assigning both, The People’s History of the United States, and A Patriot’s History of the United States, it allows us to take a look at two different views of American history. Howard Zinn, the author of The People’s History of the United States, seems to tell the story from the view of those not in power, like those in slavery, women, and Native Americans. Conversely, the authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and

No two accounts of any event are ever exactly the same, as different people have unique experiences that impact their views. Historical accounts and history books are the same way, as an examination of A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, and Give Me Liberty, by Eric Foner demonstrates. Both accounts of early American history cover the important colonies, such as Jamestown and the influential Puritans and the immigration of different peoples to America. They differ however, not only on the depth they choose to go into these events, but also on interactions between the natives and the colonists. A People’s History, by Howard Zinn, tells history in a biased way that excludes information that Eric Foner, of Give Me Liberty, does not. Zinn’s bias is in favor of the Indians, while Foner lacks a bias, telling history from all views. This difference can be noted in the telling of the Pueblo

Howard Zinn 's A People 's History of the United States has been highly influential since its initial publication in 1980. It spawned adaptations for young readers (a two-volume adaptation by Rebecca Stefoff: A Young People 's History of the United States) and The People Speak, a History Channel documentary based on Zinn 's work. Zinn himself was until his death in 2010 a heroic figure to many, especially for this book and for his ongoing teaching and social activism, which were directly related.

Public consensus, similar to politics, varies greatly when it comes to American history, especially as it pertains to the classroom. Views about the content and historical interpretation included in history texts have reached a heightened polarization in recent years. This can be seen in the vast differences between the diatribes of Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States, and Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s, A Patriot’s History of the United States. While both books, prescribed by this introductory course into American History, cover many of the same topics, they clearly paint different pictures. I feel that any text seeking to represent a responsible survey of a

So far, it has become very clear that Zinn and Johnson view history in almost completely different viewpoints. Johnson comes from a conservative background with an Oxford degree while Zinn, was more of an activist from a Jewish immigrant background. Johnson has pride in America and almost always sugarcoats major events to keep his country looking great, much like what we learn in our current high schools. However, Zinn shows us the left out facts of our American history and his novel is referred to as an anti-history book. Both authors make significant points and it’s great to have both sources available for comparison as well as chance to see both sides of the story.

Colonial life in America was a time of many victories and failings. It was a learning experience for the people of the time. In a A People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart tell contrasting stories of the issues of colonial life.

Howard Zinn is a professor of political science in Boston University and Gordon S. Wood is a history professor at Brown University. These two historians viewed the nature of American Revolution from two opposite different perspectives. Zinn viewed the American Revolution as an effort to preserve America’s status; while Wood looked at Revolution as an event that incorporated sense of equality among all Americans. Zinn was able to present the argument better as evidences he provided to support his argument seemed to make more sense and were closer to reality.

The modern world is rapidly changing. Events occur and often time’s only one side of the story gets told. But to every event there are multiple way to view it. Take the history of the United States of America for example. In Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s book A Patriot’s History of the United States, the United States is viewed in a positive light. It tells the facts about the United States in a strait forward manner. However in Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States, the United States is generally viewed in a negative light. Zinn highlights how the country has caused problems while rarely admitting that in fact the United States has done more good for the world than harm. While both books are inherently biased based

This book has proven to be an enlightening read. It both teaches and inspires. Howard Zinn has offered us a perspective of the real story of American history heretofore unavailable to us – history from the perspective of real people – immigrant laborers, American women, the working poor, factory workers, African and Native Americans.

Later on in A People’s History of the United States, Zinn questions whether “all this bloodshed and deceit – from Columbus to Cortez, Pizarro, the Puritans – [was] a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization.” Zinn

Howard Zinn defines American exceptionalism as the belief “...that the United States alone has the right, whether it be divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary.” The American exceptionalist ideology has domestic implications found in political rhetoric and within the founding of the United States. External implications of exceptionalism are evident in American foreign policy and militaristic interventions such as Vietnam and Iraq. A new definition of has arisen, highlighting the negative implications of exceptionalism, “Roast beef and apple pie explained exceptionalism but now we are back to moldy rye bread and water.”

When it comes to American history , the credibility of our textbooks has been a problem recent years, especially those in high school. And what we are taught in class seem to be far away from our real life. Facing such an irrelevant and boring subject, most high school students have no choice but to suffer the course and struggle for it. The book Lies My Teacher Told Me may account for this phenomenon to some extent.