Scan barcode
line_so_fine's review against another edition
4.0
When I was a kid in US History class, we always started with Columbus and never got much past WWII (with the exception of learning about MLK and Jim Crow stuff). I appreciated that this book went on from there.
line_so_fine's review against another edition
4.0
Clear, simple language and written to hold one's attention. I would have liked more gripping illustrations and photos to go along with the text.
iymain's review against another edition
3.0
Well, VF, since you asked for my opinion, here it is.
First of all, the audience for this book is "young people," but I would suggest that "young people" is closer to upper middle school/YA readers. Younger readers would most likely lack the background knowledge to make much sense of the more modern history and since this is a somewhat reactive history, I think it would be good for your reader to know what exactly Zinn is reacting to IYKWIM.
The Columbus chapter is a good one to consider, but bear in mind that even though it has been cleaned up considerably from its original version, it's still pretty harsh. Determining what is developmentally appropriate for your child is a very personal choice. You know her best. I would advise pre-reading, though, because I think the brutality described (though 100% TRUE and documented and supported) might be a bit hard for a sensitive, younger reader to take in.
(FWIW, I struggled for years trying to figure out when it was OK for my kids to watch the news. Images and reports of violence from local rapes and murders to civil wars and international conflict are important for all citizens to know about, but how and when do you open that door to your children? Zinn's history is a bit more intense than, say, Jr. Scholastic coverage of current events. Still, he offers a perspective that MS age kids should be able to wrestle with. I just wish it weren't quite so... brutal? I wish I'd flagged passages as I was reading it to support my vibe on this, but I didn't, so perhaps if you read it you'll come across some and see what I mean.)
And, actually, any history your child is already familiar with would be interesting for her to read about through Zinn's lens. So the colonial period is solid. As is the revolutionary period. He also adds important dimensions to the practice and legal issues of slavery that don't find their way into the standard telling of US history. So if your reader has covered US history up to the Civil War, she'd be well served to see this take on those events. But when it gets to the post Civil War part, I don't know that many kids under high school age have a fighting chance at that. (Probably most HS age kids would struggle with it, too. Even back in the 90s when we had 30 years less history to cover, I don't think we got past Kennedy. I can only imagine how they're cramming this stuff into HS classes now with all this additional time to include.)
Anyway, having just re-read the original version of this history, I was curious to see what changes made this a better fit for "young people." Pictures are included. (Yay! Older readers like those, too.) Content is shortened. (Nice, b/c the other version has a lot to take in.) Some words are defined in context (but that was inconsistent and not always all that useful, IMO).
I respect Zinn's goal with this revision of history, but I guess we are now in a "post revisionist" phase. My take on this is that in the beginning, histories were all about politicians, wars and a white, male, Euro-centric perspective. That changed in the 90s, I think largely due to writers like Howard Zinn. Zinn's objective was to include the other voices of history, but he does this to the point of completely ignoring the other side. Hence: revisionist. Why waste time telling a story we're all familiar with? Zinn sought to write the un-voiced side.
At this stage (twenty years later), though, while we are definitely more familiar with the "traditional" history, we are not solid enough with it that we can only rely on the revised view. Which is why we need a balance of both perspectives. Zinn's history doesn't meet that need. Before a reader can really digest this history, she'd need to know the history of the US at least in a basic way from the exploration period to the War in Iraq. Not too many curricula cover all that ground by 5th grade.
What I do appreciate about this history is that it includes the economic perspective. He explains that there are alternatives to capitalism and that those alternatives have had brief expression even in the history of the US. He also convincingly argues that the system is rigged (to use a completely exhausted phrase) to favor big business through international free trade--trade that is made possible through active military interventions not for justice and liberty, but to protect economic access. That's sobering. Zinn presents this information in a straightforward, hard-to-argue manner. That economic imperialism thing is very hard to shake off. The fact that lives are lost to guarantee access to those goods/markets is something to give anyone pause. You can't help but wonder, isn't there some other way? And perhaps these are things that our Young People should think about, the sooner, the better.
I guess this history (particularly the more modern stuff) reminds me too much of the "conversations" that we are having now, in 2016 about political matters. It would be nice if we could of recognize both sides' legitimate perspectives, and build on those while acknowledging that both sides have members that abuse ideology and have selfish motives. If we could find the good stuff and fix it when it starts to go bad, I think we'd make far more progress than simply attacking the end result and going to a polar opposite solution.
Example: Waco, TX. In the Zinn telling, it looks as if the Feds simply went on a rampage and killed children, women and men indiscriminately. While it is clear that the Feds made a lot of lethal mistakes, Zinn loses the part of the story where those mistakes are acknowledged and how recognizing those fatal errors would reshape how authorities responded to this type of sitution to avoid a massacre like that in the future. In the book, though, it plays out as if the system whole heartedly embraced the outcome of Waco and is designed to solve problems using excessive violence against citizens. (Also, after doing some--admittedly shallow--research, it appears that many of the children were killed by adults in the compound in an effort to prevent them from suffering in the fire and gassing of the place, so it wasn't the Feds busting in willy nilly and shooting up a bunch of little kids, though that is distinctly how it came across when I read it.)
I appreciate Zinn's intro, though. He believes that children should not be spoon-fed sanitized versions of history. He maintains that instead of worshipping the generals and politicians that make decisions for the people (or do they? Zinn thinks not-so-much.) we should pay more attention to the actual people who fight against injustice and work to make a better life for themselves through cooperation and shared values.
What Zinn fails to take into account is that while some people come together and collaborate to create communities of generosity, decency and fairness, others come together for the same purpose but generosity, decency and fairness look different when the community defines those terms differently. All I can think of is the whole Trump v. Clinton thing right now. People in both parties firmly believe that their view of the nation is fair and decent.
Also, Zinn is pretty pessimistic about the whole voting thing. His take is that the ballot box is used to distract citizens from real issues. The only way to really achieve change is through activism, protest, and even (at times) violence. That's a conclusion I'd like my kid to reach on her own after participating in the existing system and deciding how she wants to change it. I'd rather not have that be her first take on the democratic process.
But that only points out my own bias that yes, change can come through democracy as practiced in the US. It's not just a sham with surface changes. This change is slow and certainly has a long way to go, but in my idealistic (? who thought I'd fall into that category) point of view, as MLK said, "the arc of moral history is long, but it bends toward justice." I don't believe that that is a platitude to keep the masses quiet. I believe it is a goal that we must all strive toward and we simply can't expect quick fixes to problems of this magnitude, especially if we want the fixes to last.
But then, I guess I'm more conservative than I'd thought. It took a book for Young People to drive that point home, which makes me think, again, that perhaps an older audience is a better fit for this kind of writing.
This review could probably stand some extensive revision. I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about this book. I just wanted to throw them out there for you, VF, and to some extent to try and make sense of my thoughts for myself. Not sure I accomplished that, though. :-/
First of all, the audience for this book is "young people," but I would suggest that "young people" is closer to upper middle school/YA readers. Younger readers would most likely lack the background knowledge to make much sense of the more modern history and since this is a somewhat reactive history, I think it would be good for your reader to know what exactly Zinn is reacting to IYKWIM.
The Columbus chapter is a good one to consider, but bear in mind that even though it has been cleaned up considerably from its original version, it's still pretty harsh. Determining what is developmentally appropriate for your child is a very personal choice. You know her best. I would advise pre-reading, though, because I think the brutality described (though 100% TRUE and documented and supported) might be a bit hard for a sensitive, younger reader to take in.
(FWIW, I struggled for years trying to figure out when it was OK for my kids to watch the news. Images and reports of violence from local rapes and murders to civil wars and international conflict are important for all citizens to know about, but how and when do you open that door to your children? Zinn's history is a bit more intense than, say, Jr. Scholastic coverage of current events. Still, he offers a perspective that MS age kids should be able to wrestle with. I just wish it weren't quite so... brutal? I wish I'd flagged passages as I was reading it to support my vibe on this, but I didn't, so perhaps if you read it you'll come across some and see what I mean.)
And, actually, any history your child is already familiar with would be interesting for her to read about through Zinn's lens. So the colonial period is solid. As is the revolutionary period. He also adds important dimensions to the practice and legal issues of slavery that don't find their way into the standard telling of US history. So if your reader has covered US history up to the Civil War, she'd be well served to see this take on those events. But when it gets to the post Civil War part, I don't know that many kids under high school age have a fighting chance at that. (Probably most HS age kids would struggle with it, too. Even back in the 90s when we had 30 years less history to cover, I don't think we got past Kennedy. I can only imagine how they're cramming this stuff into HS classes now with all this additional time to include.)
Anyway, having just re-read the original version of this history, I was curious to see what changes made this a better fit for "young people." Pictures are included. (Yay! Older readers like those, too.) Content is shortened. (Nice, b/c the other version has a lot to take in.) Some words are defined in context (but that was inconsistent and not always all that useful, IMO).
I respect Zinn's goal with this revision of history, but I guess we are now in a "post revisionist" phase. My take on this is that in the beginning, histories were all about politicians, wars and a white, male, Euro-centric perspective. That changed in the 90s, I think largely due to writers like Howard Zinn. Zinn's objective was to include the other voices of history, but he does this to the point of completely ignoring the other side. Hence: revisionist. Why waste time telling a story we're all familiar with? Zinn sought to write the un-voiced side.
At this stage (twenty years later), though, while we are definitely more familiar with the "traditional" history, we are not solid enough with it that we can only rely on the revised view. Which is why we need a balance of both perspectives. Zinn's history doesn't meet that need. Before a reader can really digest this history, she'd need to know the history of the US at least in a basic way from the exploration period to the War in Iraq. Not too many curricula cover all that ground by 5th grade.
What I do appreciate about this history is that it includes the economic perspective. He explains that there are alternatives to capitalism and that those alternatives have had brief expression even in the history of the US. He also convincingly argues that the system is rigged (to use a completely exhausted phrase) to favor big business through international free trade--trade that is made possible through active military interventions not for justice and liberty, but to protect economic access. That's sobering. Zinn presents this information in a straightforward, hard-to-argue manner. That economic imperialism thing is very hard to shake off. The fact that lives are lost to guarantee access to those goods/markets is something to give anyone pause. You can't help but wonder, isn't there some other way? And perhaps these are things that our Young People should think about, the sooner, the better.
I guess this history (particularly the more modern stuff) reminds me too much of the "conversations" that we are having now, in 2016 about political matters. It would be nice if we could of recognize both sides' legitimate perspectives, and build on those while acknowledging that both sides have members that abuse ideology and have selfish motives. If we could find the good stuff and fix it when it starts to go bad, I think we'd make far more progress than simply attacking the end result and going to a polar opposite solution.
Example: Waco, TX. In the Zinn telling, it looks as if the Feds simply went on a rampage and killed children, women and men indiscriminately. While it is clear that the Feds made a lot of lethal mistakes, Zinn loses the part of the story where those mistakes are acknowledged and how recognizing those fatal errors would reshape how authorities responded to this type of sitution to avoid a massacre like that in the future. In the book, though, it plays out as if the system whole heartedly embraced the outcome of Waco and is designed to solve problems using excessive violence against citizens. (Also, after doing some--admittedly shallow--research, it appears that many of the children were killed by adults in the compound in an effort to prevent them from suffering in the fire and gassing of the place, so it wasn't the Feds busting in willy nilly and shooting up a bunch of little kids, though that is distinctly how it came across when I read it.)
I appreciate Zinn's intro, though. He believes that children should not be spoon-fed sanitized versions of history. He maintains that instead of worshipping the generals and politicians that make decisions for the people (or do they? Zinn thinks not-so-much.) we should pay more attention to the actual people who fight against injustice and work to make a better life for themselves through cooperation and shared values.
What Zinn fails to take into account is that while some people come together and collaborate to create communities of generosity, decency and fairness, others come together for the same purpose but generosity, decency and fairness look different when the community defines those terms differently. All I can think of is the whole Trump v. Clinton thing right now. People in both parties firmly believe that their view of the nation is fair and decent.
Also, Zinn is pretty pessimistic about the whole voting thing. His take is that the ballot box is used to distract citizens from real issues. The only way to really achieve change is through activism, protest, and even (at times) violence. That's a conclusion I'd like my kid to reach on her own after participating in the existing system and deciding how she wants to change it. I'd rather not have that be her first take on the democratic process.
But that only points out my own bias that yes, change can come through democracy as practiced in the US. It's not just a sham with surface changes. This change is slow and certainly has a long way to go, but in my idealistic (? who thought I'd fall into that category) point of view, as MLK said, "the arc of moral history is long, but it bends toward justice." I don't believe that that is a platitude to keep the masses quiet. I believe it is a goal that we must all strive toward and we simply can't expect quick fixes to problems of this magnitude, especially if we want the fixes to last.
But then, I guess I'm more conservative than I'd thought. It took a book for Young People to drive that point home, which makes me think, again, that perhaps an older audience is a better fit for this kind of writing.
This review could probably stand some extensive revision. I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about this book. I just wanted to throw them out there for you, VF, and to some extent to try and make sense of my thoughts for myself. Not sure I accomplished that, though. :-/
akalexander24's review against another edition
4.0
Howard Zinn is infamous at my school. We've been forced to read one too many excerpts from [b:A People's History of the United States|2767|A People's History of the United States 1492 to Present (P.S.)|Howard Zinn|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1161517606s/2767.jpg|2185591], I suppose. I like the book about as much as the next person in my class. Which of course is to say I wish every time my history teacher put a copy on my desk, it would spontaneously combust.
It's not like the desks are made of actual wood, anyway.
A Young People's History of the United States is different. Yeah, Zinn suddenly begins defining relatively simple words, but it isn't dumbed-down. Yes, there are pictures. But they're most certainly not of childish cartoons. A Young People's History is everything you loved about Zinn (the bluntness, the people, the concept of history told by the losers more than the victors), but quicker to read and easier to understand.
The title is a little misleading. This isn't your seven-year-old's history book. Nay, this isn't a book for the traditional definition of "young people" (i.e. children)--this is really A Normal People's History of the United States. A People's History of the United States for People Who Like Reading And Like History, But Don't Really Like Spending More Than Two Minutes On Every Page.
Of course, it is Howard Zinn, so I must add a warning to take everything said with a grain of salt. For an American, he's very anti-America. And a bit of a left-wing nutcase. And a bit of a conspiracy theorist. . . .
It's not like the desks are made of actual wood, anyway.
A Young People's History of the United States is different. Yeah, Zinn suddenly begins defining relatively simple words, but it isn't dumbed-down. Yes, there are pictures. But they're most certainly not of childish cartoons. A Young People's History is everything you loved about Zinn (the bluntness, the people, the concept of history told by the losers more than the victors), but quicker to read and easier to understand.
The title is a little misleading. This isn't your seven-year-old's history book. Nay, this isn't a book for the traditional definition of "young people" (i.e. children)--this is really A Normal People's History of the United States. A People's History of the United States for People Who Like Reading And Like History, But Don't Really Like Spending More Than Two Minutes On Every Page.
Of course, it is Howard Zinn, so I must add a warning to take everything said with a grain of salt. For an American, he's very anti-America. And a bit of a left-wing nutcase. And a bit of a conspiracy theorist. . . .
lovelybookshelf's review
Setting it aside for a while. Reading this with my 11-year-old who needs a change in tone.