Take a photo of a barcode or cover
informative
slow-paced
This is a completely biased, right-wing based text. A history book should be nonpartisan, unbiased. It slams the liberal thinkers of this nation and glorifies conservative leadership. Yes, I am a liberal, but I wouldn’t want a textbook to be liberal-based either, just like a young Republican wouldn’t want a liberally biased text. History texts like this are not supposed to be partial to one side. Also, it glorifies Trump throughout the end of the book and practically vilifies President Barack Obama. Horrible text. And I had an equally not so great professor who assigned the book. If I could give it negative stars, I would.
informative
slow-paced
Highly readable; a book that will hold your interest. That's how I would describe this book if I had only a few words or a short time to do it. I loved the perspective the authors take. They portray people in U.S. history as flawed but not perennial and perpetual racists and oppressors. There's a kind of boldness about this book, too. Some histories conjecture and obfuscate. Not so this book. From rehabilitating the recently tarnished image of Columbus to programs that destroyed the family foundation of urban black Americans, the book offers a decidedly different take from other histories that lean a different direction. The other bonus is this wasn't written for the history-professor echo chamber. It is a comprehensive history that anyone can read and from which they can gain much. I first heard this author interviewed some years ago on a radio program to which I listen. When I saw the length of the book, I was initially intimidated. But it's well worth the time spent.
All histories have to end sometime or they would never be published. I wish somehow the authors could have expanded this to our day and time. Their highly readable style combined with our most recent history would make for a riveting expansion.
All histories have to end sometime or they would never be published. I wish somehow the authors could have expanded this to our day and time. Their highly readable style combined with our most recent history would make for a riveting expansion.
It is very interesting to read Zinn and then this book back to back. Both authors certainly bring facts to bear that are interesting and insightful. I definitely agree with Schweikart more than Zinn and this book is important because Zinn’s view of history has dominated high school history classes for the last 20 years or so. It’s very important to have a counter-point.
That being said, this book was rather dry when compared to Zinn. It is more chronological whereas Zinn was more thematic. This book is definitely a bit more of a straight forward history book. Further reading Zinn was a bit more “fun” given that I disagreed with him and wrote vociferously in the margins. Also, I’m not sure why, but left-wing conspiracism is a bit more interesting to read than the straightforward history.
There are some points of criticism and contention but they are rather minor. Schweikart states that the Nazis had the capability of hitting the east coast with bombers which is SUPER arguable. Near the end he referred to Afghanistan as an Arab nation which it’s not.
But these are rather minor criticisms
A more substantive criticism would be that Schweikart should have addressed Zinn more directly since this book is meant to be a direct challenge to Zinn’s conception of US history
That being said, this book was rather dry when compared to Zinn. It is more chronological whereas Zinn was more thematic. This book is definitely a bit more of a straight forward history book. Further reading Zinn was a bit more “fun” given that I disagreed with him and wrote vociferously in the margins. Also, I’m not sure why, but left-wing conspiracism is a bit more interesting to read than the straightforward history.
There are some points of criticism and contention but they are rather minor. Schweikart states that the Nazis had the capability of hitting the east coast with bombers which is SUPER arguable. Near the end he referred to Afghanistan as an Arab nation which it’s not.
But these are rather minor criticisms
A more substantive criticism would be that Schweikart should have addressed Zinn more directly since this book is meant to be a direct challenge to Zinn’s conception of US history
This book does not add anything new to the scholarship on American history. It's an opininated regurgitation of commonly found American discovery and war history. You can find better coverage of the same events in primary sources and other secondary sources. This is also written around a completely unsupported claim that we don't teach the "good parts" of history anymore. But the author made no attempt to include good parts of history outside of war and conquest (and are those good??). It's a very weak argument to make an "America is awesome" claim and not include in your thesis any technological, educational, legal equity, feminist and racial, health, literature & media, and architectural progress. Just war and profits, only war and profits.
So much nonsense is spoon-fed to us in school. Events are erased from history, in a manner of speaking, and quotes are taken from context to push a narrative that often does not exist. The purpose of this book is to correct that problem and to more fully establish truth and context. Certain people will loathe this book, but will find simple research confirms the overwhelming majority of its statements. A long read, but worth it.