The Worst Book I Have Ever Read.

(Note: this is another massive post. But it's not every day that I read a 700 page Marxist tract. For that reason I have split it into three parts)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts."-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I have recently read A People's History of the United States, by Comrade Howard Zinn. I may have read a worse book at some point in my life, but I would be hard pressed to think of one. I normally wouldn't waste my time with something this far out of the mainstream, but since this is a very popular text in the political indoctrination centers we call public schools I thought I would check it out. I want to point out up front that my problems with this book don't stem as much from the author's politics as they do from the approach he takes toward history. I have just as much objection to revisionist historians like the ones found in the religious right. My objections also don't stem from patriotism or a naive belief that the U.S. has never done horrendous things. My objections mainly have to do with presenting a Marxist (not liberal, Marxist) political tract as a history book. Dr. Zinn admits this in the opening chapter of the book and makes no apologies for it, believing that it is more important to "inspire social change" than to deal accurately with the events of history. He fits in with a common postmodern dis-enlightenment school of thought that objectivity is a myth, and thus it is okay to bend events to suit your ideological predispositions rather than vice versa.(People have always done this, they just don't even bother to pretend any more.) He also presents all historical events as being caused by class struggle, thus finding a simple overarching "magic bullet" theory to explain even the most nebulous and complex historical events. Events are virtually never placed in context, are often distorted, opinion is presented as fact, and in several cases factual claims are made that are patently false. Every formal logical fallacy I know of makes an appearance in the book: reductio ad absurdum, appeal to popular opinion, straw-man, false dichotomies, etc. I should say that this could have been a good book if he had been willing to leave well enough alone. The chapters on the civil rights movement, and some of the sections on slavery were very good, and I found the section about the American war against the Philippines to be pretty good. Also, before ripping the book I should give credit where credit is due and say that I appreciate Dr. Zinn's work in the civil rights movement, dating back to before most Americans knew there was a civil rights movement. I also appreciate his service to the nation in World War II. That being said here is a list of things I didn't like about the book. (This is by no means a complete list. Only the things that jumped out to me enough to write them down and research them.) I am also including a number of links to resources that refute some of the various claims, and wherever possible I have chosen sources from the left side of the political spectrum. All page numbers are from the 2003 edition of the book.

- The major problem that appears throughout the book (and one which is, to me, unforgivable) is the complete absence of source citations. Often something is claimed as a fact with no support whatsoever. If I had handed in a paper like that during my days as a poli. sci. major at Western Michigan I would have received a big fat F. Dubious claims and statistics are presented throughout the book in this manner with nothing to back them up. This is probably more confusing to the reader who is not very familiar with American history (which honestly seems like the type of person this book is targeted at), when coupled with the way his opinions are consistently presented as fact no matter how outlandish. This also made researching the claims that were questionable enough to jump out at me much more difficult. I spent more time researching dubious claims than I did actually reading the book. (I've been exposed to more moonbat websites of communists, Fucking Nazis, aids-conspiracy types, etc. in the last two weeks than in my entire life.) Almost the only time he tells where he got certain information is when he directly quotes another author (The authors he quotes are overwhelmingly Socialists). There is a bibliography which reads like a who's who of leftist whack-jobs (Chomsky,etc.), but he doesn't ever tell what claim came from whom. For example, on page 49 he says "A historian" concluded that "in 1770 1 percent of Boston owned 44 percent of the wealth". Really? What was the name of the historian? What was the specific source material?

-Throughout the book "the rich" and "the powerful" are portrayed as a monolithic entity responsible for all of the ills that fall upon "the people". This oversimplification really sums up the message of the book as a whole.

-Prior to the American revolution, nothing happened except slavery and genocide. No decisions were made by anyone apparently that did not have slavery and genocide as the intended outcome. And of course, slavery and genocide spring from capitalist greed.

-On page 59 he states that the founding fathers "created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times" when referring to the constitution. He presents the constitution as a document designed to protect the interests only of rich white men as well. This is sheer idiocy and crosses over the line into delusional. The best way to control the population and expand the power of government is to write a document limiting the powers of said government? It would have been far more effective to point out the ways in which the constitution has not been lived up to over the years, but instead he indulges in conspiracy theory. He pretty much restates the position of early 20th century socialist historian Charles Beard, which is pretty well dismantled by progressive author and Air America host Thom Hartmann here (he bashes Bush at the same time, so this article has something for everyone).

-On page 85 he states "George Washington was the richest man in America." Nope. He wasn't even the richest man in Virginia. It would fit in great with Marxist mythology if he was though, wouldn't it?

-In a chapter about the treatment of women in the early 1800's he makes no comparison between the U.S. and other societies of the same era. Sexism is presented as being almost unique to the United States. Where comparisons are made they are made between the America of 200 years ago and the America of today. He also seems to be linking sexism to capitalism, as though non-capitalist societies do not oppress women. Some of the stories are interesting though.

-Lincoln gets no credit for freeing the slaves. The Civil War was all about greed.

-An entire chapter expounds on the horrors of how some people became rich in the late 1800's (of course because they all exploited "the people". On page 263, philanthropy is presented as a way for the elite to strengthen their control by producing an army of middle-men who would protect "the system". It is a recurring theme that any time the government does something good it is just a desperate measure intended to shore up its control of the proletariat.

-He suggests that the shelling of Veracruz in 1914 was a ruse to divert the nation's attention from labor unrest, including a miners strike that was going on in Colorado at the time. (p.357) Again all events must be connected by a unifying force and any events occurring simultaneously must be directly related.

-On page 387 he states that the onset of the Great Depression showed that the capitalist system is "by its nature unsound" and "a sick an undependable system". As opposed to the plan of starvation that is Marxism, of course

-I'm not sure if the chapters got worse as I got closer to the modern era, or if it just became easier to spot inaccuracies and unsound logic as it got into events I was more familiar with. In the next section I look at the WW2- Vietnam eras. In the mean time check out this hilarious site.