This book can best be described as a “protest” history of the United States. Zinn it seems has never met an anti-establishment movement that he doesn’t like at least when it comes from the political left. This is not to say that the book is not interesting or well written, it is both of those, however if one is looking for a balanced look at the History of the United States in one volume then this is not that book. It does present things that the normal history books either ignore outright or gloss over, if one is reading to glimpse different aspects of historical events then this should be on their list of books to consider. If one is a leftist or interested in seeing where some of the left ideas originate this book is a must read.
If Zinn were to have written “A Tale of Two Cities” in place of Charles Dickens, it would not have started out “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…” but would have started “It was the worst of times, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Darkness, it was the winter of despair and the only thing before us was my utopian plan.” This is to say that he looks at almost all “traditional” American actions in the worst possible light.
Zinn heaps criticism on almost every President from Washington to George W. Bush, although he is somewhat kind to Carter (which says a lot about where he is on the political spectrum). He even criticizes Democrats and in many cases rightly so, but he often denigrates what some did that was beneficial to the people and the country. Whereas he rightly criticizes Andrew Jackson for the forcible removal of the Indians (particularly the Cherokee) to west of the Mississippi, this removal the cause of the infamous “Trail of Tears” march, he later praises FDR for the forcible removal of people from their land that established the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). Many of those removed by the TVA were the descendants of Cherokee who had “taken to the hills” to avoid the Jackson removal order and here was the government again under FDR back to finish the job. Zinn however applauds the TVA, in his estimation it served the public good, although I am quite sure that those who were removed would disagree. Moreover, I would imagine that those who benefited from the first removal would also have claimed that it served the public good. He was also critical of the progressive Woodrow Wilson although it is directed primarily at the Alien and Sedition Act and the First World War.
Zinn thinks that the constitution was written primarily to protect the property of the wealthy. He points out that in 1771 that 1% of the population controlled 44% of the wealth. If any of this sounds familiar, it should, this kind of argument is being put forth today by our current President, Barak Obama. Moreover, he says that the 1% is constantly doing things to protect them and keep down the 99%. So here we have where the Wall Street Movement came up with the “we are the 99%” from this book and Zinn.
Zinn never found a war he thought was necessary or discovered an anti-war movement that he was not in agreement with. He covers anti-war dissension from the Mexican War right through the 1st Gulf War. Although, one would have to agree that some of this wars were unnecessary and some could have been avoided, Zinn it appears thinks that there is never a good reason to fight. He has letters or commentary from resisters from virtually all the wars; some are quite honest and candid for their reasons, where others or more obscure. The one that sticks out in my mind is a Doctor who refused to serve during the first Gulf War and his reasons were ludicrous. First he takes money from the government who pay for his medical training, takes money from the military for many years then when a war is imminent all of a sudden thinks war can never be justified, seems to me that he should have thought of that before taking the commission and the money for his training from the government. Zinn thinks a draft is terrible, and talks about how people avoided the draft; humorously after it was stopped they were still avoiding it because they refused to register for the draft that at this time no longer exists. Don’t construe this to mean Zinn himself didn’t serve, he did, he was a bombardier in the Army Air Corps (Air Force) during World War II, and served honorably. In fact Zinn received his education on the GI Bill.
Zinn attacks Wilson for getting us into World War I, and Roosevelt for “forcing” the Japanese to attack us by his sanctions and further that he lied and manipulated the American people into World War II. He criticizes Johnson and Nixon for Vietnam, Truman for Korea and in a roundabout way blames everyone from Ford to Clinton for terrorism. But, he has little criticism for Carter (which tells you where he stands on the political spectrum) or for Eisenhower, whom he praises mainly for the warning about the “military industrial complex” that the left is so fond of quoting, and like the others on the left leaves out the next line where he warns about government funding of science and how it to can often lead to government seizing control of our lives (think global warming).
To call Zinn a liberal would be an injustice to him and liberals, he is a man of the far left, and by this I mean he is a utopian socialist/communist. If one doubts this one only has to read Chapter 23 of the book where he admits that this is a “biased account, one that leans in a certain direction” this is where he lays out his blue print for the way he thinks things should be. He again states his belief that the 1% is sticking it to the 99%, only now things have grown worse and the 1% now own a third of the wealth. Guess he forgot that earlier (1771) they owned all most half of the wealth (see the beginning of this post). This puts the lie to the rich are getting richer, because before the top 1% had 44% of the wealth and now they have only 33%, evidently he can’t see that the rich are losing ground.
He often talks about the Establishment (after all he is a man of the 60s so to speak) pitting one group in society against the other, for example whites against blacks, citizens against immigrants. Not that this hasn’t happened, it still doe. In fact our current President Barak Obama is doing that now, by pitting the rich (the 1%) against the poor or more precisely the less then rich (99%). Moreover, like the Democrats of the past who stirred up racial animosity in the South and the large urban centers in the North to acquire the white vote, now the Democratic President is stirring up “class” envy, and racial animosity to get the votes of white liberals and black radicals by pitting them against the middle class, which today is represented by the “Tea Party” movement.
Zinn champions every political movement from the left; he is particularly fond of those from the 30’s. Zinn praises the political left movements of the 30s which were socialist/communist movements. He champions these movements but fails to mention that they were often, and still are, anti-sematic. He also doesn’t connect the dots on how much in common they have with fascism and Nazism. He does talk a little about the anti-department store movement. This movement was popular in the 30s not only in the United States but even more so in Europe. They thought that the large department stores were forcing out the small local shops. There was also an element of anti-Semitism involved in this movement. It probably comes as no surprise then that one of the 25 planks of the Nazi party was directed at changing this by forcing the department stores to give space inside to small shop owners. The department stores were often boycotted by many groups including trade unions. A similar thing is happening today with Wal-Mart as they expand into communities, they are often attacked by citizens group and are boycotted by some labor unions..
He loved Roosevelt’s New Deal particularly where it gave government money to fund the arts. He loved the fact that people in Appalachia were able to see plays, and listen to concerts of classical music
“bringing culture to people that hereto fore had none”. Even though Zinn is critical of Ethnocentrism when it comes from traditional people he is all for it when it comes from the left. Evidently the culture of the Appalachian region failed to meet his requirements and needed to be improved, but traditional American culture should never be forced on others. A hypocrite, you decide.
“bringing culture to people that hereto fore had none”. Even though Zinn is critical of Ethnocentrism when it comes from traditional people he is all for it when it comes from the left. Evidently the culture of the Appalachian region failed to meet his requirements and needed to be improved, but traditional American culture should never be forced on others. A hypocrite, you decide.
Zinn points out that only a little over 50% of eligible voters vote in elections, and that of those sometimes less than 50% of those votes will put someone in the White House, meaning they are elected with the votes of less than 25% of those eligible to vote. He seems to think that the reason most of them don’t vote is that they are unhappy with the candidates that the two parties put up and so they just stay home. I disagree; I think most of them just don’t care. Aside from the fact that there are other candidates and parties on the ballot, although most stand little chance of getting elected, still the opportunity to express your beliefs is more varied then he would like to admit. Just because your idea doesn’t win shouldn’t prevent you from making your beliefs known.
He talks a lot about the problems of racism, poverty, aids, military spending and not enough welfare spending yet acts as though nothing has ever been done in an attempt to remedy these situations. He complains only that they have become worse over time. Yet in this book he praises the sexual revolution of the sixties with all it promiscuity, but fails to make the connection between it and the outlandish number of children born out of wedlock, aids and poverty. One only need to look at poverty stats for a brief moment to see that one of the surest ways of ensuring that children grow up in poverty would be to encourage single parent homes. This doesn’t mean we can’t do a better job on poverty, I believe we can and we certainly could do a better job on education.
Zinn in several places plays fast and loose with the truth. For instance when talking of the Red Hunts during the 1950’s he mentions the prosecution and subsequent execution of the Rosenberg’s as though they were completely innocent and the government never proved the charge. As an historian I am sure that he was well aware by the time of the publication of this book, through the Venona intercepts and files released after the fall of Soviet Russia, that they were in fact guilty of espionage. Whether one or both should have been executed could be debated, Zinn chose not to have that debate. Instead he wanted; as the left has done since the time of the Rosenberg’s arrest, imply their innocence.
Finally Zinn like all the socialist and communist that have went before him believe that both are superior to capitalism, and they just haven’t been done right, but that he and his ilk can do it properly. In the end Zinn has a utopian fantasy that would make Thomas Moore cringe. I think he is like many who think that they are more intelligent and can do it better than those who went before. The thought that the idea is flawed and that no human could make it work seems never to occur to them.
I read this book knowing from the start where Zinn was on the political scale. I think it is important to read those with whom we don’t agree, it helps us think through our own beliefs and exposes us to a different way of looking at things. I have already told you some of the things I didn’t like many more could have been included, however, it would be unfair to not say that this book contains many things that give one a fuller appreciation of the history and how people’s movements can move society in different directions.
