“What we learn about the past doesn’t give us absolute truth about the present, but it may cause us to look deeper than the glib statements made by political leaders, and the ‘experts’ quoted in the press,” states author Howard Zinn (684). Throughout this book, Zinn portrays to the readers the history of the United States from the viewpoint of the people, not just from the rich, but also from the destitute.
As Zinn informed, the book is skeptical of governments and their attempts to entrap ordinary people, through politics and culture, in a ‘nationhood’ pretending to be of a common interest (10). He does not only take the side of the oppressed but convey’s history from both sides. Zinn shows us the innocent of the bad, and the bad of the good. His purpose in writing this book was to make readers aware of class dissension, racial injustice, sexual inequality, and national pride (686).
It is impossible to a have a thorough understanding of history without first knowing the story of the masses and the oppressed. Until you get the full story, from both sides, you cannot truly form your own opinion. I do not believe that a judgment can be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced, because the losses are either unmentioned or mention quickly (17). He does not leave off details or sugar coat, as many texts and teachers often do. As he goes through history, Zinn describes events he feels are monumental to the people of the United States.
American history cannot start without first discovering America. Columbus began the history of European invasion of the indian settlements in the America’s 500 years ago. History books portrayed it as a heroic adventure, with no bloodshed, and celebrated it with a day in his honor (7). The ...
... middle of paper ...
...125). As Zinn presented earlier, we tend to look past the lives that were lost in exchange for progress. We got land, so we believed it was only fair for whites to live on it. The indians we pushed further and further west, until all we could do was force them onto reservations. This was not a choice, as most Americans presume. After we dealt with the Indians, we came back to the conflict of slavery.
The end of slavery in the North, came from the combination of blacks in the military, lack of economic need for slaves, and the rhetoric of revolution (88). The civil war brought issues for all, but it also came with advantage. During the civil war laws didn’t protect working people (239). Laws were either nonexistent or not enforced. While men where The war brought women into shops and factories, over the objections of men, who saw women driving the wages down (234).
A People’s History of the United States, written in 1980 by Howard Zinn, approaches history from a new perspective. Aware that the conquerors write the history books, Zinn wants to show history from the point of view of the victims, those who did not come out as winners. Chapter one covers Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress. He writes about the native people on the Bahama Islands saying, “[they] were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing” (Zinn 1). He quotes Columbus saying, “‘[the Indians] are so naïve and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary,
Howard Zinn’s main point in chapter one of A People’s History of the United States is that history is more accurate through the eyes of the oppressed. Zinn states that choosing to ignore the oppressed in history is “...more than technical, it is ideological” (Zinn 5). This is because in not paying attention to the subdued, one also chooses to ignore the majority of history. If the champion is the only one who gets to tell the story it is more often than not missing key details and glorified in favor of the oppressor. An example of this is Columbus’ descriptions of the Arawak people. He describes them as ignorant, naive, and even compares them to animals. In reality the Arawaks were a developed people with advanced laws and traditions. Also
As a rule, the United States is associated with the American dream and the freedom that belongs to every human being regardless of gender, color, and even sexual orientation. However, the true face of the state built on democratic and liberal values is far from being perfect. The Movement for Civil Rights and civilian protests against the Vietnam War are the results of a discriminatory policy of the USA. Both movements had a common mechanism of beginning. Over time, people's discontent was growing gradually and finally exploded in a series of protests. Both movements have been successful using similar methods. In addition, a key role in achieving success were the highly motivated activists.
...War and the Civil Rights Movements in order to illustrate how the 1960s was a time of “tumult and change.” To Anderson, it is these events, which sparked the demand for recognition of social and economic fairness. He makes prominent the idea that the 1960s served as the origin of activism and the birth of the civil rights movement, forever changing ideals that embody America. The book overall is comprehensive and a definite attention grabber. It shows how the decade had the effect of drastically transforming life in America and challenging the unequal status quo that has characterized most of the nation's history. Despite the violence and conflict that was provoked by these changes, the activism and the liberation movements that took place have left a permanent imprint upon the country.
...ay from certain races, people, or women. This wouldn’t be quite as terrible, but the hypocrisy of promising rights to all, where everyone is created equal and then doing the exact opposite makes the matter worse. Women, natives, the poor, and black had to fight countless years just to be on the same level as their oppressors, with some taking much longer to gain anything close to equality. If there’s one thing that Howard Zinn’s shows us, is that America is not as great as portrayed and some of our great American heroes are quite monstrous and supports Mary Elizabeth Lease’s opinion that “this is nation of inconsistencies.”
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States Volume 1: American Beginnings to Reconstruction. New York: The New Press, 2003. Book.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power (Lincoln). When young, it is taught that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to free our country from the British. Later it is learned that history is not so straight forward and that human flaw plays a central role when it comes to the themes of history. Not everything that occurs in history is an accident nor is it as honest as it would be liked. So when Howard Zinn asserts that, “Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership”, his statement holds some weight. Zinn challenges conventional thought; that the Founding Fathers were revolutionary men who wanted to usher democracy into the New World. Rather he pushes the notion that American democracy is designed the way it was, to serve the self interest’s of the Founding Fathers. However is his assertion true? Zinn is correct in stating that the Founding Fathers created America with a degree of self-interest, which is reflected in the benefits they received, but is incorrect in regard to the extent of their intentions.
2. Schweikart, Larry, and Michael Allen. A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror. New York: Sentinel, 2004. Print
Stefoff, Rebecca, and Howard Zinn. A Young People's History of the United States. New York: Seven Stories, 2007. Print.
The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.
Throughout history most of the world’s documented accounts have been interoperated by the powerful elites. History is the story of mankind; therefore like most stories, history has two perspectives. After the end of the Second World War, historians began looking to other ways of analyzing history. With the rise of the hippie movement, Vietnam War, women’s rights movement, civil rights movement, and the cold war historians started questioning how, why, and what caused society to get like this. The consensus movement was started as historians first observed the primary sources of the outsiders of society. This ultimately led to authors like Dan Richter, Woody Holton, and Walter Johnson who all look to the opposite point of view through historical events. In order to teach history correctly, we as future historians must teach a two sided interpretation of both the powerful and the powerless. Ultimately by understanding the loser’s suffrage in society that is proposed in Dan Richter’s Facing East from Indian Country,” and Walter Johnson’s Soul By Soul; as well as the outsider point of view as described in Woody Holton’s Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution; and Tyler Anbinder’s and Vincent DiGirolamo’s articles contributed to the film “Gangs of New York, we can understand how their beliefs, culture, and lives were affected by the powerful. This essay is not a novel of the history of the outsiders themselves, but a critique on how history should be studied by looking at the author’s way of using primary sources and the outsiders’ perspective on society. IN THE ESSAY I WILL BE LOOKING AT THE COMPLETE POWERLESS TO THE POWERLESS
Young children for generations have learned that the purpose of the Civil War, or the war between the states, was to free the slaves. The noble goal of freeing the slaves and ending slavery became the focus of instruction and the way most Americans would explain the cause of the Civil War. When the North entered the American Civil War it had many reasons to do so, least of which was to end the practice of slavery in the South, its primary goal was the preservation of the Union . To fully understand the issues leading up to the American Civil War and the motivation for the North engaging in this conflict, it is necessary to learn about: The economy, ideology, and statistics of the United States in the
After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.
...y advances to conquer the West. Through shear physical force, the U.S. Army defeated and suppressed the Native American population, gaining a tremendous amount of land and securing the ability for an easy western migration. Many atrocities, such as the mass murder of entire tribes, were committed to secure the land. The suppression of the natives allowed the migrants to settle in the newly acquired land. The economic investment of Eastern companies into the new agricultural and cattle industry allowed the eastern markets to control production in the West, easily making or breaking the farmers. It comes to question, was the conquering of the West a tragedy or a triumph? It is clear that, although the conquering of the West was beneficial to the larger part of American history, it is a tragedy that it was done through physical suppression and outside economical control.
Quindlen, Anna. "A Pyrrhic Victory." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford Books, 1996. 431-432