The following essay discusses the value of using Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States, in a college history class. Its purpose is to examine both the contributions and limitations of Zinn’s writings for history instructors who prefer it as their primary textbook, as the author himself did for a number of years.
A People’s History engages students by revealing to them an alternative approach to the telling of American history, one that seeks to include the voices of minorities, women, and others often left out or minimized in regular textbooks.
As the book jacket states: “[Zinn’s book] turned history on its head for an entire generation of readers, telling the nation’s story from the viewpoints of ordinary people—the slaves, workers, immigrants, women, and Native Americans who made their own history but whose voices are typically omitted from the historical record.”
Zinn’s purpose is to go well beyond the sanitized version of American history to probe deeper into the actual living and working conditions of ordinary Americans, as well as the protests organized by them to combat the glaring inequalities in American society.
The book’s narrative style, historical accuracy, and literary rhythm reveal Zinn to be an accomplished writer of the first order as well as an impassioned historian.
Nevertheless, and without seeking to cast aspersions upon his fundamental honesty, one of the book’s weaknesses includes a tendency to “over-correct” the historical record. The text does so by focusing on some of the darkest chapters in American history without balancing the bad with the good: namely, the positive energy and social achievement that existed simultaneously.
As a result, two rather distinct camps have grown up around Zinn and his writings: the first consists of his legions of ardent admirers who consider him an iconoclastic giant who courageously dared to utter new truths while other writers trembled and ducked, settling for the blandness of don’t-rock-the-boat conformity.
The second camp consists of anti-Zinn detractors who consider his writings one-sided, biased, inaccurate, and unacceptably radical in tone and message. They are as angry and upset by his writings as Zinn’s supporters are pleased and invigorated!–and “never the twain shall meet”, as the saying goes.
This critique attempts to present the views of both camps for it wishes to pursue with vigor the inevitable question and compromise: is there not a middle road to understanding Zinn?
Is there not a way for people and scholars–history instructors especially–to make intelligent use of Zinn’s viewpoint without accepting or rejecting everything he said and wrote uncritically?
Such an approach is likely to displease Zinn’s admirers when they read pointed criticisms aimed at their acclaimed historian, just as other passages highlighting Zinn’s remarkably insightful contributions will displease his detractors intent on vilifying him further.
If the present author gets “stuck in the middle” and ends up taking flak from both sides . . . then he will consider his critique a limited success and his mission accomplished.
To Zinn admirers and Zinn detractors, this essay is for you!
