ladysagestorm's review
5.0
Gonna read this to my kids as a bedtime story.
Just kidding. It'll be during breakfast.
Just kidding. It'll be during breakfast.
ajsterkel's review
3.0
I read A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn. It's an upside-down look at US history. Instead of focusing on presidents and business leaders, it tells the story of working-class people. I have mixed feelings about it. If you're interested in US history, then it's a must-read because it focuses on events and topics that other history books overlook. I'm glad I read it. I learned a lot, but the writing style is bland and boring! This book is a complete slog. It took me a month to read because I'd fall asleep after 10 pages.
I pushed through because the information is interesting. The book highlights how the US government almost always sides with money and businesses over humans. If working-class people want something (such as child labor laws or leaving the doors of a factory unlocked so workers don't die in fires), then the working-class people have to do more than vote. Historically, US politicians don't care about people until those people disrupt the money and businesses. Then the politicians will notice and (occasionally) fix the problems.
I found the end of the book way more readable than the beginning. Once it started talking about events that happened during my lifetime, it became easier to stay engaged in the story. I guess this just proves that I'm selfish and think of myself as the main character of the universe. Nothing interesting happened before me!
I pushed through because the information is interesting. The book highlights how the US government almost always sides with money and businesses over humans. If working-class people want something (such as child labor laws or leaving the doors of a factory unlocked so workers don't die in fires), then the working-class people have to do more than vote. Historically, US politicians don't care about people until those people disrupt the money and businesses. Then the politicians will notice and (occasionally) fix the problems.
I found the end of the book way more readable than the beginning. Once it started talking about events that happened during my lifetime, it became easier to stay engaged in the story. I guess this just proves that I'm selfish and think of myself as the main character of the universe. Nothing interesting happened before me!
ssatrawada's review
3.0
def read a physical copy i kept missing stuff in the audiobook and it was super long oops
ddmgembala's review
5.0
This is one of my favorite "alternative" histories. I re-read it whenever I feel I am getting out of touch with my understanding of our nation's history as made by the people who lived, worked, and created it. A great vaccination against Big Brother.
clairerehfuss's review
5.0
The book was described to me as “the liberal bible”, but I would recommend it to everyone. A very dense, long read but I broke it up over a series of months. Definitely one of the best books I read the pst year. I find myself constantly talking about what I read.
zena_ryder's review against another edition
1.0
Politically, I'm sure I would share many of Zinn's views. Which is partly why this book is dangerous for someone like me. It would probably be easy to read it, and just go along with the comfortable narrative that no doubt 'fits' much of my worldview.
However, I planned to start with reading just the part of the book directly related to the Civil War, but I had to stop reading, because the book was so disappointing.
First, there are not proper notes. I wish I had noticed that before I bought it. For me, that's a cardinal sin and I wouldn't have bought it. You cannot give a legitimate interpretation of history without proper references. All Zinn does is list a bibliography for each chapter.
Second, the writing is sometimes too journalistic, in a teasing way that implies something without explicitly stating it — and so avoiding a need to defend an actual claim. For example, after giving a little bit of back story about black abolitionist, David Walker, Zinn says, "One summer day in 1830, David Walker was found dead near the doorway of his shop in Boston" (p. 180). And that's it. Zinn then moves on to talk about Frederick Douglass. There's no mention of how Walker might have died, just a teasing sentence that leads one to suspect that he was murdered. No evidence is presented, no references are given. (On Walker's Wikipedia page, it says, "rumors suggested that he had been poisoned, most historians believe Walker died a natural death from tuberculosis, as listed in his death record".)
Third, Zinn repeatedly over simplifies the political situation that Lincoln had to deal with. I understand and appreciate the urge to criticize Dead White Men, who are often unjustly revered. However, the following is both unfair to Lincoln and also a misrepresentation of the history:
"[W]hen Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base as Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded." (p. 189)
Lincoln was very keen not to initiate a war with the South. If war was to come, he was determined that the South would start it. Fort Sumter — a federal base, with federal soldiers — was in South Carolina. The SC government said that Sumter had to be evacuated. What was the federal government to do? To evacuate would look weak and set a bad precedent. For the fort to take military action to protect itself would be an aggressive act and the beginning of war. (It would also be doomed to fail because the fort was isolated, unfinished, and not situated to defend itself from inland attacks.) Lincoln's solution to this was to seek to provide needed provisions to Fort Sumter, neither evacuating nor initiating hostilities (nor "trying to repossess the federal base" as Zinn says). The first shots of the war were fired by SC on the civilian steamship which was bringing supplies from the North to the fort.
There are other examples along these lines where Zinn misrepresents the history in an apparent effort to disparage Lincoln. With his general thrust, I agree. Of course, Lincoln was racist. It would have been incredibly surprising if he hadn't been. And for many readers, it would be eye-opening to read some of the racist things that Lincoln said. And of course the North did not go to war in order to abolish slavery. Lincoln was not on a moral crusade, along with the rest of the North, to abolish slavery. Perhaps this is also news to some readers. But that disappointing reality is no excuse for misrepresenting or oversimplifying the political situation to fit a preferred narrative. Lincoln was an astute politician and while the modern mind boggles at how abolitionism could ever have been an extreme position, the fact is that it was, and an abolitionist had no chance of being elected at that time. Lincoln was the right person in the right place, at the right time. He hated slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. (He was vehemently against the spread of slavery, and also hoped for a gradual extinction of slavery in the places where it already existed.) Arguably, only someone with such a combination of views had any chance of actually getting elected in the first place, and having the will and the political skills to find a way to ultimately abolish slavery.
Given that I know how this book misrepresents history in the few pages I read, I have no trust in its other pages and it's pointless to read any more of it.
However, I planned to start with reading just the part of the book directly related to the Civil War, but I had to stop reading, because the book was so disappointing.
First, there are not proper notes. I wish I had noticed that before I bought it. For me, that's a cardinal sin and I wouldn't have bought it. You cannot give a legitimate interpretation of history without proper references. All Zinn does is list a bibliography for each chapter.
Second, the writing is sometimes too journalistic, in a teasing way that implies something without explicitly stating it — and so avoiding a need to defend an actual claim. For example, after giving a little bit of back story about black abolitionist, David Walker, Zinn says, "One summer day in 1830, David Walker was found dead near the doorway of his shop in Boston" (p. 180). And that's it. Zinn then moves on to talk about Frederick Douglass. There's no mention of how Walker might have died, just a teasing sentence that leads one to suspect that he was murdered. No evidence is presented, no references are given. (On Walker's Wikipedia page, it says, "rumors suggested that he had been poisoned, most historians believe Walker died a natural death from tuberculosis, as listed in his death record".)
Third, Zinn repeatedly over simplifies the political situation that Lincoln had to deal with. I understand and appreciate the urge to criticize Dead White Men, who are often unjustly revered. However, the following is both unfair to Lincoln and also a misrepresentation of the history:
"[W]hen Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base as Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded." (p. 189)
Lincoln was very keen not to initiate a war with the South. If war was to come, he was determined that the South would start it. Fort Sumter — a federal base, with federal soldiers — was in South Carolina. The SC government said that Sumter had to be evacuated. What was the federal government to do? To evacuate would look weak and set a bad precedent. For the fort to take military action to protect itself would be an aggressive act and the beginning of war. (It would also be doomed to fail because the fort was isolated, unfinished, and not situated to defend itself from inland attacks.) Lincoln's solution to this was to seek to provide needed provisions to Fort Sumter, neither evacuating nor initiating hostilities (nor "trying to repossess the federal base" as Zinn says). The first shots of the war were fired by SC on the civilian steamship which was bringing supplies from the North to the fort.
There are other examples along these lines where Zinn misrepresents the history in an apparent effort to disparage Lincoln. With his general thrust, I agree. Of course, Lincoln was racist. It would have been incredibly surprising if he hadn't been. And for many readers, it would be eye-opening to read some of the racist things that Lincoln said. And of course the North did not go to war in order to abolish slavery. Lincoln was not on a moral crusade, along with the rest of the North, to abolish slavery. Perhaps this is also news to some readers. But that disappointing reality is no excuse for misrepresenting or oversimplifying the political situation to fit a preferred narrative. Lincoln was an astute politician and while the modern mind boggles at how abolitionism could ever have been an extreme position, the fact is that it was, and an abolitionist had no chance of being elected at that time. Lincoln was the right person in the right place, at the right time. He hated slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. (He was vehemently against the spread of slavery, and also hoped for a gradual extinction of slavery in the places where it already existed.) Arguably, only someone with such a combination of views had any chance of actually getting elected in the first place, and having the will and the political skills to find a way to ultimately abolish slavery.
Given that I know how this book misrepresents history in the few pages I read, I have no trust in its other pages and it's pointless to read any more of it.