Zinn's People's History of the US

[IrishHand]

On the advice of a friend, I picked this one up on eBay. I've read the first few chapters and find it fascinating. I'm curious if anyone else has read it and what they think about it.

[GWB]

Does the proletariat win in the end?

[andyfox]

. . . "proletariat . . ."

Here I thought you were the real Dubya. But he definitely doesn't have your vocabulary. The jig's up.

[andyfox]

When I was growing up, all the history was basically triumphalist. When I first read Zinn, it was indeed a revelation, a new way of viewing our history.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I took a course with Howard Zinn as an undergraduate. I credit him with teaching me one of the most important facts I learned in college:

Just because someone is a college professor doesn't necessarily mean he has an ounce of brains or insight.

[andyfox]

Zinn is an unabashed lefty, of course; [but] his history rings much truer than the b.s. I was taught in grade school. We didn't "win" the west; Columbus didn't "discover" America. Zinn's history has much more insight than the Perry Miller/Samuel Eliot Morison/etc. versions my generation was raised on.

[Ed Miller]

I'm reading it right now. I had my copy with me at the Mirage, and Dynasty walked up to me and said, "What are you reading?" I showed him the front, and he said, "Ewwwww, History?! You can't read history in a casino."

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because someone is a college professor doesn't necessarily mean he has an ounce of brains or insight.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, I found that same thing. You have to be true to yourself and weigh everything you hear in life, then draw your own conclusions. There is still a flat earth society somewhere out there.

[1111]

IrishHand,

I found Zinn's book to be very interesting. Generally in reading, as in poker, you have fleshed out a persons general stance within a short period of time, and from there you can extrapolate interesting tidbits of info from their individual perspective. With Zinn, I found much of the "down and dirty" history of the U.S. to be very refreshing and new. The only part of the book I didn't like was the final chapter, where he lays out his idealist ethos in full force. Other than that, a very good read.

1111

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Columbus didn't "discover" America.

Depends on from whose perspective. Obviously a multitude of humans saw the Pacific before Balboa, for example, and Columbus never set foot in what is now the USA.

Zinn is an unabashed lefty

No doubt. I recently read a piece he wrote that was very critical of all US military involvement in the 20th century in which he conveniently left out the fact that he himself was a bomber pilot in WWII.

his history rings much truer than the b.s. I was taught in grade school.

One of the few absolute truths is that *all* history is partially BS, because it's all tainted with the agenda of the writer.

I doubt there's a single culture or nation in the world that would really want a purely objective history to be written.

Zinn's history has much more insight than the Perry Miller/Samuel Eliot Morison/etc. versions my generation was raised on.

I'm from the same generation, Andy, and I hold no illusions about the nature of, say, our westward expansion (my mind flirts with the word "genocide"). Yet i still take Zinn's view with many, many grains of salt.

The fact that we were imperfect in our history does not give any more credence to the Marxist interpretation.

[Rushmore]

I have read this book several times through, and have even given it as a Xmas gift. It is a wonderful perspective, albeit slanted.

I enjoyed it, even though it comes noplace close to representing my worldview in any way.

Extra credit question: Name the popular film in which this book is mentioned.

[craig r]

zinn discusses in a lot of his writings himself being a WWII pilot. he talks about going to towns that he bombed and how they are still in bad shape.

craig

[craig r]

good will hunting...ooooh i am the nutzzzzzzzzz /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I hold no illusions about the nature of, say, our westward expansion (my mind flirts with the word "genocide").

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unfortunate that the view of the relationship with American Indians has gone so far to the left. For the people on both sides who lived through this period of time, their primary motive was self-preservation.

What people now call genocide is often just a series of episodes that occured because an ongoing undeclared war was going on. If someone attacks your town, your efforts to retaliate and prevent future occurances is not an act of Genocide.

[Rushmore]

You win instant Moderately-Decent-Mainstream-Movie-Knowledge-Credibility.

That's probably a little disappointing.

Get used to it, boy.

[andyfox]

There's no such thing as purely objective history, to be sure. What Zinn has done is to look at our history from another angle. The more traditional triumphalist version is "common knowledge." Much of that "common knowledge" is either simply untrue or incomplete in its outlook.

Let's consider the Columbus example. I was taught that the Queen pawned her jewels to finance him. That all people believed the earth was flat and that he'd therefore fall of the edge. That the New World was sparsely populated by ignorant savages (that very word used in the textbooks I read).

All of that is factually false.

In addition, nothing was mentioned of Columbus's strangeness (his hearing of voices, his belief that he was god's agent); his poor administrative skills (he was taken back to Spain in chains because of this); his initiation of Indian slavery as a means of enriching himself; the resultant depopulation of the Indies; nor his lust for gold that determined almost everything about where he sailed and what he did when he got there.

To leave these things out is to have an incomplete view of his accomplishment and what it meant for the world.

[craig r]

who was attacking whos town?

[andyfox]

It is unfortunate for our country that you are as ignorant of history as you are of current events.

Pushing the Indians off their land was not an act of self-preservation. Burning the Pequots was not an act of self-preservation. Putting the California Indians into missions was not an act of self-preservation. Throwing the Acoma off the top of their mesa was not an act of self-preservation. Such "episodes" were reapeated over and over again because the Indians had what the Europeans wanted: land.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
who was attacking whos town?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both sides were attacking each others towns. That was my point, cultures were clashing, as opposed to one culture systematically engaging in genocide as the politically correct histories would have you believe.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Both sides were attacking each others towns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's the real issue. One side seems to think the towns belonged to the white folk, the other side thinks they belonged to the people the white folk kicked out.

[craig r]

my enthusiasm was in jest.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]


Burning the Pequots was not an act of self-preservation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You act as if this was an unprovoked attack, defeating the Pequots was very much considered self-preservation at the time. The colonists knew they would end up dead if they did not win this war. The Pequots were very much engaged in ruthless tactics at the time as well - my point of retaliation to prevent a recurrance fits well here.

I have read histories of the Pequot War, King Phillips War, Queen Anne's War, the Ohio Valley wars, and on and on. Fault lies on both sides in the origin of these wars, but your politically correct histories would make you think that a bunch of Americans were just sitting around saying "lets wipe these people out for no reason."

[ QUOTE ]
Such "episodes" were reapeated over and over again because the Indians had what the Europeans wanted: land.

[/ QUOTE ]

You conveniently leave out episodes just as brutal committed on the other side - again both sides were at war and fully involved in anything goes warfare.

Everyone including American Indians want land. You neglect to mention all the wars between Indian nations over land. The Shawnees for example pushed out a half dozen nations from their land in the East. The Sioux did the same in the Upper Midwest. And the Aztecs of Mexico were brutal conquerers as well.

Because this is all in the past, we as a society forget what really went on, and the Politically Correct historians are redefining history for those of us unwilling to read for ourselves.

[sameoldsht]

Great post Kurn.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there's a single culture or nation in the world that would really want a purely objective history to be written

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor would I want a truly objective and all inclusive account of my life published. /images/graemlins/blush.gif It's sad that there are many who bash the US for it's past without even considering that other cultures/countries have imperfect pasts as well.

[Diplomat]

The Corporation. Actually, he's interviewed in it.

-Diplomat

[nicky g]

"your politically correct histories would make you think that a bunch of Americans were just sitting around saying "lets wipe these people out for no reason." "

Not for no reason - for the same reason that the indigenous inhabitants of Latin America (dig the name), Australia and a horde of other places were wiped out - for land and resources. You can say that both sides were attacking each other and using equally brutal tactics but, aside from the fact it isn;t true, the the native Americans were defending their lands and the white settlers were stealing them. The only way you could say the two sides were morally on a par would be if boat hordes of native Americans turned up in Europe, massacred the native population and set up their own state there.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you could say the two sides were morally on a par would be if boat hordes of native Americans turned up in Europe, massacred the native population and set up their own state there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, you are so right.

I like Zinn FWIW. I would hesitate to describe him as a strict Marxist (Kurn - yes, I know, he wrote 'Marx in Soho) since he is sort of an avowed anarchist (runs in contrast to many Marxist theories of the state, obviously.) Most anarchists are heavily influenced by Marx but I would not call them Marxists.

But that's semantics for you.

NT

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I did not call it genocide. I said my mind flirted with the term. There were hideous acts committed by both sides.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

if boat hordes of native Americans turned up in Europe, massacred the native population and set up their own state there.

Don't give us any ideas. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

he is sort of an avowed anarchist

I believe he was once classified as an "anarcho-syndicalist." What's that? No government, just labor unions? Sounds like the mob to me. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you could say the two sides were morally on a par would be if boat hordes of native Americans turned up in Europe, massacred the native population and set up their own state there.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't invade Europe, but the many nations on this continent frequently invaded each other in the same way that European nations invaded each other for centuries.

Its ok for the Shawnee to decimate a portion of the Iroquois nation, but they become "innocent victims" when they get invaded? The same dynamics were happening everywhere worldwide - you are being results oriented by only being concerned about those who lost in the end.

A lot of European nations have been lost to history - Basques, Celts, ..... Many American nations were lost to history before Columbus came too.

The problem is your attempt to apply a "morality" to routine historical ebb and flow. It really doesn't belong in an honest non-politically correct history.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not call it genocide. I said my mind flirted with the term. There were hideous acts committed by both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I avoided any suggestion that you believed it to be genocide, since your statement made that clear to me. I was commenting on the general trend towards politically correct history in which the distortion of American Indian history is the prime example.

[andyfox]

All of the histories written before the late 1960s, including the original accounts of the Pequot and King Phillip's Wars, placed 100% of the blame on the Indians. Note the name of the wars. It is only with the rise of the ethno-historians that much needed correctives to this biased view of history were vetted. None of the newer histories place 100% blame on the Europeans. Alfred Cave's book on the Pequot War is the most judicious use of the primary sources and Jill Lepore's study of King Phillip's War are among the best of the more recent histories.

The historical record is clear: the Europeans were much more brutal in their treatment of the natives than the natives were in their treatment of the Europeans. Nobody claims that the natives were perfect. But the record is replete with complaints of the ferocity of the European treatment, of their disrespect for women and children, and of their more ferocious battle tactics.

It's not solely because these events were in the past that we forget what really went on; it's also because what really went on was covered up by historians who viewed the battle as one of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. This manichean viewpoint led to a history wherein the losers were evil. As you point out, there was good and evil on both sides. The evil on "our" side has traditionally been denied.

[FWIW, I think your post to which I'm currently responding is your best post to date and evidence that in addressing you as Dubya, I am surely mistaken. Dubya evdiently knows less about history than you do and could not state his ideas as clearly and carefully as you have in this post.]

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
All of the histories written before the late 1960s, including the original accounts of the Pequot and King Phillip's Wars, placed 100% of the blame on the Indians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you don't assume I only read old books. My posts have repeated the point that both sides were at fault. You say old historians considered these as wars of good vs. evil. True, but new historians are doing the same, just who is defined as good or evil has been reversed (this is the new political correctness). The truth is neither side is only good or only evil, and both had elements of both. My original point was that this history did not represent a genocide of a people, yet political correct historians would have us believe that this was so.

You state that colonists used more ferocious battle tactics, this is only true if you exclude guerilla type hit and run raids on settlements. In fairness though, every aggressive act must be included, as guerilla tactics were very effective.

By the way, why always refer to them as Europeans? They were colonists, most of whom knew that they and their descendants would never relocate to Europe. This was their home and you subtly deny them their right to live at home by calling them Europeans (a bit politically correct, eh?)

[Rushmore]

My reaction to your enthusiasm was also in jest.

But it's good you got the answer. It's always good to get the answer, I think.

[nicky g]

Firstly, I thought we were talking about their behaviour vis-avis each other, not in general. Secondly, "invaded" or having gone to war with is not quite the same as "wiped out." Thirdly, the scales are somewhat different - individual tribes may have gone at each other, may even have occasionally massacred each other, but the settlers pretty much wiped out all the natives on land they had no legitimate claim to. I seriously doubt the natives did anything each other to even approach the deaths of 5 million people within three years of Columbus's arrival in Hispaniola. Nor to my knowledge did the tribes put each other in what effectively were concentration camps, forcibly relocate each other thousands of miles or deliberately spread diseases amongst their each other, and so on. Finally, I don't really understand how wrongs excuse each other.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I thought we were talking about their behaviour vis-avis each other, not in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about both, but I started by noting this whole "genocide" claim is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, "invaded" or having gone to war with is not quite the same as "wiped out."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody was truly wiped out. The nation's independence was lost, many died, many joined other nations, many assimilated into American society. This took place over a long period of time. On a micro level some groups may have been "wiped out", but any mass murderer could "wipe out" a family - that doesn't mean he's commiting genocide.

[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, the scales are somewhat different - individual tribes may have gone at each other, may even have occasionally massacred each other, but the settlers pretty much wiped out all the natives on land they had no legitimate claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, assimilation, war deaths, disease deaths, and many were relocated to Indian territory (Oklahoma) and elsewhere. Their societies were not capable of maintaining independence due to the overwhelming numbers of Americans. Over time the available land adjusted to the numbers of people who wanted it. (Today the average land per Indian is still more than the average land per non-Indian American)

Note, the entire history of man is a history of migration, conflict, land conquering, assimilation. In the end, land gets distributed to everybody to the extent that they can hold it. Our inability to stop people crossing our Mexican border is the same thing - human forces overwhelm any societies attempt to preserve the "better share" - American Indians were doomed to lose their "better share" of land due to sheer numbers. Just as has happened on all continents for millenia.

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt the natives did anything each other to even approach the deaths of 5 million people within three years of Columbus's arrival in Hispaniola. Nor to my knowledge did the tribes put each other in what effectively were concentration camps, forcibly relocate each other thousands of miles or deliberately spread diseases amongst their each other, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of disease deaths were not planned. Like the 1918 epidemic, man has less control than he thinks, and you can't really blame disease spread that is inevitable with first contact. Death and slavery and torture were common tools in Indian nations - they were just as ruthless as anybody, don't kid yourself. This doesn't excuse the Columbian excesses, it just points out excess was common in all societies.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I don't really understand how wrongs excuse each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't. The problem is that people will only look at what one side "did wrong" instead of realizing both were involved in ruthless non-declared warfare quite often. It is the bias of historians that is the problem. All societies including America have done bad things. Point that out, but don't pretend the other side were passive victims, it isn't so.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
was talking about both, but I started by noting this whole "genocide" claim is ridiculous.



[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't. For example, the entire native populations of places such as Cuba and Hispaniola were destroyed. Genocide by any definition.

" a micro level some groups may have been "wiped out", but any mass murderer could "wipe out" a family - that doesn't mean he's commiting genocide."

No, but entire cultures and peoples were wiped out; see above.

"The vast majority of disease deaths were not planned. "

Of course. But many were, still pretty atrocious.

"Point that out, but don't pretend the other side were passive victims, it isn't so. "

Passive, maybe not. Victims yes. And they had a much stronger right to the land and resources being contested.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't. For example, the entire native populations of places such as Cuba and Hispaniola were destroyed. Genocide by any definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that you are now focusing on the Spanish experience. I guess that is a tacit acknowledgement that Americans were not genocidal. This thread is called "Zinn's People's History of the US" after all.

Maybe we are not so far apart, just a matter of degree and definition.

Since Columbus was the very first contact, one would expect the very first epidemics to be the most severe - I wonder what percentage of Caribbean Indians died of disease in the first 10 years, when the Spanish were so outnumbered they would not have stood a chance against a healthy Indian population.

[nicky g]

Columbus was mentioned so I thought the places he went were included in the thread.

"I guess that is a tacit acknowledgement that Americans were not genocidal. "

I know less about the conquest of what is now the US. The results suggest some pretty genocide-scale activity to me. I know that vast number of people were forcibly relocated and killed. The deliberate spreading of small pox was by "Americans", no? Or was it in Canada (genuinely forget)?

" when the Spanish were so outnumbered they would not have stood a chance against a healthy Indian population. "

The Spansish had vastly more powerful weapons than the Indians - the whole history of European colonalisation and extermination rests on the European's relatively advanced weaponry. Certainly disease was a major killer, but there's no question that there were deliberate whole scale massacres on a massive scale.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky I agree the Indians were wronged. However what one must realize is that it was largely a matter of competing interests.

Throughout history many peoples have been deprived of land. Gravely competing interests, often with disastrous consequences, has been a recurrent and staple theme throughout human history.

Aggressive and cavalier pursuit of resources, especially when it seems necessary, is not something confined to white Europeans. Demagogues, dividers and self-haters will attempt to demonize the white race or Europeans as if they were for some reason inherently more rapacious or genocidal than other races. The plain fact is that better technology and a burgeoning population helped the Europeans defeat the Indians. World history is replete with similar examples in other cultures and regions.

Viewing such things as "wrong" is a fine moral view. However when push comes to shove the history of the human race is that right and wrong mean less than resources and being able to live as one sees fit.

So bemoan the Indians' fate and criticize the invaders, but realize that it is nothing at all unusual in the history of mankind.

There are also dangers which lurk in Utopian views or overly moral views. The problem is that the morals one can apply on a small scale (with one's self or family or community) cannot effectively be applied on immense scale. Why? Because self-interest is an inherent part of the human makeup. Attempts to legislate--beyond a certain point, that is--against self-interested actions often result in even greater horrors (as in the history of Communism). And the further removed from one's own small community others are, the more apt their interests are to be considered expendable in pursuit of one's own interests.

So in my opinion one cannot expect a large group to act as morally as might an individual or small group. Nor can one successfully force a large group to do so.

[adios]

I agree with your basic points about the past. This may bring you some cheer. Lot's of tribes here in New Mexico. They are starting to improve their lot quite a bit. Almost all of the tribes have casinos (Navajo's are the exception they don't want them) and have gained politically and economically due to the profits. I expect this will continue here for quite some time. It wasn't that long ago that they were dirt poor and seemed to have no hope.

[mosta]

Mr. President, you've become repetitive and belabored. It's undignified. What's become of the master of the pithy rejoinder?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. President, you've become repetitive and belabored. It's undignified. What's become of the master of the pithy rejoinder?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one issue that people so misunderstand you have to paint the whole picture for them - but I am tired of doing so. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'm not anti-Indian, rather I am pro-balanced view of history.

[nicky g]

"So bemoan the Indians' fate and criticize the invaders, but realize that it is nothing at all unusual in the history of mankind."

I do realise this, very much so. But there are still degrees of evil. Not all colonisations/land grabs ended with the almost total extermination of the native inhabitants. It seems to happen when the colonisers want to claim the land as their own rather than simply explout the territory's resources and its labour; usualy when the colonisers are acting on their own behalf rathernthan that of an imperial power.
I'm not trying to say that the conquest of the Americas was teh only time people have behaved genocidally. But to brush it off with the attitude that the natives fought each other and committed atrocities too - that doesn't wash.

[nicky g]

Actually, I'd go further than this. While white Europeans aren't the only people to have treated others badly, the effects of their bad behaviour have been vastly more detrimental than virtually any other group. Probably that's as much to with the power they acquired as with intention (who knows how the Incas or whoever would have behaved if they had powerful weapons and the means to travel the world). Furthermore, if you take what happened to the native peoples of the Americas following the "discovery" by Columbus as a whole, well, it's hard to think of many worse episodes in human history. Of course that's taking in a huge amount of territory and time, but it is broadly contiguous.

[nicky g]

That is good to hear. How are the profits shared amongst the tribes as a whole, do you know?

[MMMMMM]

A matter of power. If another group had had the power do you imagine it would have been much different?

[andyfox]

The original colonists were indeed Europeans; that is, those that massacred the Pequots in New England, were Europeans. And those that enslaved and decimated that Arawaks on Hispaniola were Europeans. (Indians was a term invented by the Europeans. The natives had no collective name for themselves.)

I did not mean to imply that you read only old books. But most Americans who grew up with those textbooks, and watched westesrn movies and TV shows, know only the triumphalist version of history, where the descendants of the Europeans were always the good guys and the Amerindians were the bad guys. Many of the newer histories, as you know, correct this interpretation to show the good and bad on both sides. The most egregious examples of cruelty and deception were on the part of the invaders and their descendants. No open-minded study of the English in New England and Virgina, or the Spanish in New Mexico and California, for example, could come to any other conclusion. The natives' guerilla tactics couldn't have been all that effective given the results.

Disease probably played the major role in the decimation of the native population. Physically isolated from the old world, and thus lacking immunitites to old world diseases, the invisible pathogens killed the new world natives in astounding numbers. Then, too, the Spanish and the English had different attitudes towards the natives. The Spanish wanted to include them in their society, at the bottom rungs, and to convert them to Christianity. The English wanted no part of the Indians and sort to isolate themselves from the natives.

[nicky g]

I did make that point. I don't know. Some colonisations have been less brutal than others. Some powerful/rich countries have been content to stay at home.

[J.Brown]

great book!

the film is Good Will Hunting and he also mentions Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent as tow books that will blow your doors off or something like that.

recommend reading for sure

[adios]

...