A People's History of the United States

citizen_drew

Interesting read...

Also wanted to check what appears to be a typo of sorts.


Page 7 where there is a passage that reads...

Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even if his figures are exaggerations- is conquest, ,slavery, death.

Yeah that's not a typo on my part, regarding the comma before slavery, and the word death is highlighted... looks almost like it was done in pen.
Anyways, just curious if I have a special edition as there is no other typos or marks in the book...or did "psychos in love" break into my apt and do his own editing on the book...hmmm.

Can anyone confirm? I'm hoping I have a special edition...

hippiemom

citizen_drew wrote:

Yeah, yeah, I should have read this along time ago, but a couple things anyways...

One. I try not to name drop anymore but check out this email I got from Ron Kovic. I met him while riding my bike along the beach a few weeks ago and he suggested I read this book. I guess most of you would know him from his book Born on the Fourth of July. As well as being the main character in the Oliver Stone film by the same title...


"hi arron, it was nice to hear from you and quite ironic too because it was just last night and again early this morning that i found myself again reading through professor zinns, "a peoples history of the united states" and enjoying it immensely i am so glad to hear you are taking the time to read it. have a wonderful christmas and a happy and fulfilling 2007! most sincerely ron kovic"


Two. So I pick up a copy and start reading, get all the way to page 7 where there is a passage that reads...

Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even if his figures are exaggerations- is conquest, ,slavery, death.

Yeah that's not a typo on my part, regarding the comma before slavery, and the word death is highlighted... looks almost like it was done in pen.
Anyways, just curious if I have a special edition as there is no other typos or marks in the book...or did "psychos in love" break into my apt and do his own editing on the book...hmmm.

Can anyone confirm? I'm hoping I have a special edition...

That sentence is on page 8 in my copy, with no typo.

gue_barium

I think zinn is a commoner among intellects. At least that's the way he attracts me. Chomsky is a verbal leader in the English language, and we need someone like him.

I haven't read the book, so I'm giving Zinn the benefit of the doubt as to the context of the endevour that begins on pages 7 or 8. I've always found him rather solid, in a common way.

Milhouse VanHouten

A 6 part documentary adaptation of "People's History" is to be released sometime in 2007.

sponger

C'mon now. It's not like Americans are brainwashed into thinking that europeans just shook hands with the indians and everything was cool from there. I can remember in elementary school learning about the trail of tears and how the indians really took it up the ass from american settlers. Then when I was old enough to watch R rated movies, I saw Dances with Wolves. In High Plains Drifter, we see that Indian family being treated like dogshit in the general store. So, I just don't see what all the hooplah is about. It's common knowledge. What more do people want? The Indians have their casinos. I met some Indians one night who told me that they sit on their assess and collect over 60K/yr in gambling revenues just because they have tribal blood in them. Is that not reparation?

CorporateWhore

Zinn copied and pasted a bunch of marxist newspapers.

Great historical sources. Really. Good job, buddy.

Real historians wouldn't wipe their ass with A People's History of the United States.

gue_barium

CorporateWhore wrote:

Zinn copied and pasted a bunch of marxist newspapers.

Great historical sources. Really. Good job, buddy.

Real historians wouldn't wipe their ass with A People's History of the United States.

And you are a real historian? I'm sure Jesus and Daniel Boone did some bear rasslin together, but we don't hear about that, do we?

CorporateWhore

gue_barium wrote:

And you are a real historian? I'm sure Jesus and Daniel Boone did some bear rasslin together, but we don't hear about that, do we?

Jesus' life is not a historical account. Don't peg me as the fundamentalist yet, sport.

I'm saying that I've spoken to an incredibly liberal historian and he admits that Zinn's sources are not legitimate "historical" sources. They're incredibly biased. INCREDIBLY.

There's historical and then there's marxist newspapers.

gue_barium

CorporateWhore wrote:

Jesus' life is not a historical account. Don't peg me as the fundamentalist yet, sport.

I'm saying that I've spoken to an incredibly liberal historian and he admits that Zinn's sources are not legitimate "historical" sources. They're incredibly biased. INCREDIBLY.

There's historical and then there's marxist newspapers.

Zinn isn't a historian, either. He is a good man. Do you agree? or is he the devil Incarnate?

I honestly don't know why I waste my time with this person.

Well, yeah, I do. I don't have to work tomorrow and I'v ehad a few beers.

Quite seriously, mr whore, i can appreciate you as a poser, but you have no ideas to elevate. I could appreciate you as an immature trouble maker, and that would be getting closer.

Most of all, I think from now on I will appreciate you as Jesus.

You are my own personal Jesus. On the cross right now, dying for my sins, but since I don't know any better, I think I'll ignore you. And when you rise from the dead, I have a canoe for you.

CorporateWhore

gue_barium wrote:

And when you rise from the dead, I have a canoe for you.

Hahhaa, damn this makes me want to be drunk right now.

citizen_drew

This all came from a casual conversation where I stated I'm skeptical about some historical facts, and this book was suggested as an alternative source...Of course I'm an individual and walk my own path so a lot of you wouldn't understand...

Thanks for the responses. haha great, looks like I have a special copy edited by the vigilante girls....I feel so much better...:)

Collin

sponger wrote:

C'mon now. It's not like Americans are brainwashed into thinking that europeans just shook hands with the indians and everything was cool from there. I can remember in elementary school learning about the trail of tears and how the indians really took it up the ass from american settlers. Then when I was old enough to watch R rated movies, I saw Dances with Wolves. In High Plains Drifter, we see that Indian family being treated like dogshit in the general store. So, I just don't see what all the hooplah is about. It's common knowledge. What more do people want? The Indians have their casinos. I met some Indians one night who told me that they sit on their assess and collect over 60K/yr in gambling revenues just because they have tribal blood in them. Is that not reparation?

They used to own everything, this was their land. Then some people came along, there was a genocide and their land was stolen, they were put in reservations but it's okay, they have their casinos!

Byrnzie

CorporateWhore wrote:

I'm saying that I've spoken to an incredibly liberal historian and he admits that Zinn's sources are not legitimate "historical" sources. They're incredibly biased. INCREDIBLY.

There's historical and then there's marxist newspapers.

You could write an entire book on the meaning of the word 'legitimate' when it applies to historical sources.
You could do the same with the word 'bias'.
There is not one single history book in existence which is free of bias. I suspect this was largely Howard Zinn's point. What he was writing about was the History of the United States from an alternative viewpoint. Does that make this history illegitimate? Is yours, and my, life and history illegitimate because it's ignored by the mainstream media?
Along with Howard Zinn, Edward Said also contributed to the subject of selective history with his two books - 'Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient' and 'Culture and Imperialism'.

P.s, this liberal historian you spoke to. Did he shout when he used the word 'incredibly', or is the above a typo?

know1

I'm not defending the Europeans here, but weren't the "native" Americans also quite involved in slavery, conquest and death?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

I'm not defending the Europeans here, but weren't the "native" Americans also quite involved in slavery, conquest and death?

True. Although the book is called 'A Peoples History Of The United States', not 'A Peoples History Of Pre-conquest' America.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

I'm saying that I've spoken to an incredibly liberal historian and he admits that Zinn's sources are not legitimate "historical" sources. They're incredibly biased. INCREDIBLY.

There's historical and then there's marxist newspapers.

Do you acknowledge the fact that there are historical dates and facts and then we have the interpretation of said events, and the stringing together of, or the narration of such events as well? Do you recognize that the interpretation and narration of any event is a highly subjective endeavor?

miller8966

The books a prerequisite to liberalism 101...

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

The books a prerequisite to liberalism 101...

Have you read it?

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

True. Although the book is called 'A Peoples History Of The United States', not 'A Peoples History Of Pre-conquest' America.

True, but it's also portraying one side as if the other side wasn't doing the exact same things.

qtegirl

All you need to do is read the introduction to the book and Zinn admits that he's biased. He'll tell you right off... you don't have to guess his intent, he tells you in the first few pages of the book.

The point is that all history books are biased. The author chooses what information he's going to include, what he's going to highlight, what he's going to mention just in passing and what he's going to omit. The difference is that they won't admit they are biased and they'll pass their book off as "objective."

Zinn doesn't do that... you know what you're getting.

Byrnzie

qtegirl wrote:

All you need to do is read the introduction to the book and Zinn admits that he's biased. He'll tell you right off... you don't have to guess his intent, he tells you in the first few pages of the book.

The point is that all history books are biased. The author chooses what information he's going to include, what he's going to highlight, what he's going to mention just in passing and what he's going to omit. The difference is that they won't admit they are biased and they'll pass their book off as "objective."

Zinn doesn't do that... you know what you're getting.

Exactamondo baby! Exactamondo!

know1

qtegirl wrote:

All you need to do is read the introduction to the book and Zinn admits that he's biased. He'll tell you right off... you don't have to guess his intent, he tells you in the first few pages of the book.

The point is that all history books are biased. The author chooses what information he's going to include, what he's going to highlight, what he's going to mention just in passing and what he's going to omit. The difference is that they won't admit they are biased and they'll pass their book off as "objective."

Zinn doesn't do that... you know what you're getting.

Maybe so, but doesn't it really reduce the effectiveness of any of his arguments to admit that he's intentionally portraying one side worse than the other? If his point was that there was conquest, death and slavery by the Europeans, then it really doesn't say anything if the other side was doing the same things.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

Maybe so, but doesn't it really reduce the effectiveness of any of his arguments to admit that he's intentionally portraying one side worse than the other? If his point was that there was conquest, death and slavery by the Europeans, then it really doesn't say anything if the other side was doing the same things.

I think you're focusing too much on the early part of the book here. I've not read it, but I'm led to believe that it's a book concerned primarily with the struggle throughout the 20th century of the underprivileged of America - struggles of race, womens rights, and of the unions e.t.c. I don't believe it's a book about the decimation of approx 25 million native Ameicans by disease and warfare.

angelica

know1 wrote:

Maybe so, but doesn't it really reduce the effectiveness of any of his arguments to admit that he's intentionally portraying one side worse than the other? If his point was that there was conquest, death and slavery by the Europeans, then it really doesn't say anything if the other side was doing the same things.

It does say something to expose the masses to the idea that history is a subjective affair--something the average person believes otherwise about. This is about recognizing the forest beyond the blinding trees.

hippiemom

know1 wrote:

Maybe so, but doesn't it really reduce the effectiveness of any of his arguments to admit that he's intentionally portraying one side worse than the other? If his point was that there was conquest, death and slavery by the Europeans, then it really doesn't say anything if the other side was doing the same things.

When the book was published, the story he was telling wasn't being told anywhere else. As others have said, it wasn't meant to tell both sides, because every other historical writer was already telling the other side. Zinn's intent was to provide some balance and look at history from a viewpoint that hadn't been heard, to encourage people to look at history in a different way than what they were accustomed to. Since then, others have told this story and the history being taught in the schools is somewhat more balanced, which I believe was his objective in the first place.

CorporateWhore

angelica wrote:

Do you acknowledge the fact that there are historical dates and facts and then we have the interpretation of said events, and the stringing together of, or the narration of such events as well? Do you recognize that the interpretation and narration of any event is a highly subjective endeavor?

No. There are objective facts of history. Sorry.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

No. There are objective facts of history. Sorry.

I acknowledge there are objective facts. However do you acknowledge that the objective facts are interpreted by whatever group for whatever reason? Do you acknowledge that they way they are woven together and narrated is beyond the facts and about personal or specific group viewpoints?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

sponger wrote:

C'mon now. It's not like Americans are brainwashed into thinking that europeans just shook hands with the indians and everything was cool from there. I can remember in elementary school learning about the trail of tears and how the indians really took it up the ass from american settlers. Then when I was old enough to watch R rated movies, I saw Dances with Wolves. In High Plains Drifter, we see that Indian family being treated like dogshit in the general store. So, I just don't see what all the hooplah is about. It's common knowledge. What more do people want? The Indians have their casinos. I met some Indians one night who told me that they sit on their assess and collect over 60K/yr in gambling revenues just because they have tribal blood in them. Is that not reparation?

What's not common knowledge is the genocide of the natives. That was never taught in my classes anyways. The Trail of Tears is just a small part of what happened. The settlers didn't just kick natives off their lands. They slaughtered them in huge numbers.

At the very least, I think they should be able to do what they want with the small amount of reserved land they have left. I'm sure they'd rather be in our position without casinos than the position they're in now.

And allowing natives to run casinos on their own lands (not ours) is not reparations.

miller8966

Saturnal wrote:

What's not common knowledge is the genocide of the natives. That was never taught in my classes anyways. The Trail of Tears is just a small part of what happened. The settlers didn't just kick natives off their lands. They slaughtered them in huge numbers.

At the very least, I think they should be able to do what they want with the small amount of reserved land they have left. I'm sure they'd rather be in our position without casinos than the position they're in now.

And allowing natives to run casinos on their own lands (not ours) is not reparations.

What type of school did you go to?

Since i was a kid liberalism and all the bad things america has done was pounded into my head.

It wasn't until i encountered this thing called "reality" that i started to see the light.

ps: i read peoples history.

know1

Saturnal wrote:

What's not common knowledge is the genocide of the natives. That was never taught in my classes anyways. The Trail of Tears is just a small part of what happened. The settlers didn't just kick natives off their lands. They slaughtered them in huge numbers.

At the very least, I think they should be able to do what they want with the small amount of reserved land they have left. I'm sure they'd rather be in our position without casinos than the position they're in now.

And allowing natives to run casinos on their own lands (not ours) is not reparations.

How do you "own" lands? Who owned them before the "native Americans"? How did they take possession?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

miller8966 wrote:

What type of school did you go to?

Since i was a kid liberalism and all the bad things america has done was pounded into my head.

It wasn't until i encountered this thing called "reality" that i started to see the light.

ps: i read peoples history.

I went to public schools.