Analysis Of Howard Zinn's Historian As Citizen

1. Zinn’s main purpose for writing A People’s History of the United States is to show history from the viewpoint of others.

of America. In writing this book, the major aim, for Zinn, was to set a quiet revolution. This

Howard Zinn speaks to this in his Afterword, referring to common omissions in orthodox history. He retorts, “The consequence of those omissions has been not simply to give a distorted view of the past but, more important, to mislead us all about the present.” (Zinn, 684) However, in reference to a common insistence on strictly teaching the facts in the classroom, Zinn also claims that there is no pure fact which does not preclude a judgment. True to his claims in his Afterward, Zinn lays out an argument and maintains his position throughout his book in addition to the facts he presents. He has been revered for the serious manner in which he treats his cited works, and for offering

Howard Zinn is a professor of political science in Boston University and Gordon S. Wood is a history professor at Brown University. These two historians viewed the nature of American Revolution from two opposite different perspectives. Zinn viewed the American Revolution as an effort to preserve America’s status; while Wood looked at Revolution as an event that incorporated sense of equality among all Americans. Zinn was able to present the argument better as evidences he provided to support his argument seemed to make more sense and were closer to reality.

From the “underdog” perspective, the Howard Zinn perspective, was a cruel, unforgiving time. According to Zinn,

What is Gordon S. Wood’s argument and what is Howard Zinn’s argument on the nature of the American War for Independence and what evidence do the two historians present to support their interpretations? Who do you think presents the better case?

Later on in A People’s History of the United States, Zinn questions whether “all this bloodshed and deceit – from Columbus to Cortez, Pizarro, the Puritans – [was] a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization.” Zinn

2. By assigning both, The People’s History of the United States, and A Patriot’s History of the United States, it allows us to take a look at two different views of American history. Howard Zinn, the author of The People’s History of the United States, seems to tell the story from the view of those not in power, like those in slavery, women, and Native Americans. Conversely, the authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and

never reach the kind of equality that Zinn is looking for even if our society

1. Zinn's purpose for writing A People's History of the United States is to write about American history from the viewpoint of the people, and not from the rich or the men that made the decisions, but from the people who lived through those decisions and whose lives were affected. His purpose is not to make the people who were in charge look bad, but to see what they did from all perspectives.

Throughout time, there will continue to be a considerable divorce between academic and popular historians. As Margaret Conrad argues, popular historians have established the tension, by recreating “historical films without the involvement of trained historians”. This underscores the troubling gulf that sometimes separates public academics approaches to the past. Academic historians have been “too long focused” on professionalism, and discarded “generating” a “dialogue” (Conrad) with their contextual audiences. The substantial dissolution between academic and popular historians is evident in a range of sources, essentially from Michelle Arrows to Herodotus and Thucydides to Bury.

In June of 2003, Howard Zinn’s “Dying for the Government” was published in “The Progressive” newspaper. He discusses the government’s claim to military victory in Iraq, and he believes that many innocent people have died for an unjust cause in that war. His claim is that soldiers died for their government, not their country. An important part of his argument is his discussion of democracy, which he says is what our country is supposed to be based on. He also brings up some history of U.S. wars and quotes Mark Twain’s statement about the invasion of the Phillipines by the United States. Even though some of his assertions lack evidence, Zinn uses authority

However, these works are discrete pieces. Howard Zinn and Victor David Hanson pieces give evidence of a liberal historian and a conservative historian. Qualities of a liberal that believes in democracy and humanitarianism. Liberals oppose war and tax cuts. Qualities of a conservative is believing war can help their nation and nationalism. Conservatives oppose democracy and ethics. In Howard Zinn’s disquisition, he is recognized as a liberal. Howard Zinn is recognized as a liberal because he focused on democratic views and slanders the wrongdoing of President George W. Bush. In his work he talks about the chicanery in the 2000 election and how George W. Bush handled the War on Terror on an inadequate level. Zinn explains how in many of Bush’s request were granted even though it violated Amendments and the U.S Constitution. Zinn states how much of good America can do if they “we sent people to the Middle East to rebuild infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children, rather than kill Arabs to get oil, other countries would not hate us.” (Zinn) Hanson’s piece differs from Zinn’s as Hanson defends how Bush was and immaturely negatively viewed in the media with hardly no evidence of how George W. Bush was positive character to American citizens. In Hanson’s piece, he deliberately criticized Obama and how Obama has handled problems given from his predecessor. Each approach

Zinn joined the Army Air Corps in 1943, eager to fight the fascists. While in the Air Force he was disturbed by the race and class inequality among the servicemen. He knew nothing was ever equal in life but we are all people and how could inequality be this severe? It wasn’t until years after the war that he questioned the necessity of the bombs that he dropped, He realized killing people was a question of one’s own morals not just the morals of our nation. But at the end of the war, back in New York, he deposited his medals in an envelope and wrote: “Never again.” “I would not deny that [WWII] had a certain moral core, but that made it easier for Americans to treat all subsequent wars with a kind of glow,” Zinn said. “Every enemy becomes Hitler.” These actions that Howard Zinn had taken I believe have made him into an elite of not only leadership but truly practical morals of each

The major distinctions of the Zinn’s and Schweikart’s personal assumptions, beliefs and values are their experiences that have lead them to their analytical thought processes and views on culture, society, and government. Zinn had harsher views because of his experiences with the police in New York’s Times Square. Zinn wants to be a balance, to opposing views and is a social activist. Schweikart is a strong patriotic conservative that believes the left wing creates myths.