Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.26 AVERAGE
4.26 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
I have a bit of mixed feelings for this book. I didn’t like it as much as I was expecting but there were a lot of events I didn’t know much about and don’t remember ever learning in school so there was that. This book is a critical assessment of American history and a big reminder that all of our rights were always something we had to fight for.
A more critical view of this book is that it felt overhyped. He does reveal a lot that isn’t taught in school here in the United States of America; but nothing in this book was a revelation. The book felt like it was hastily combined together with multiple different topics that felt like there was a lot left out. I don’t consider myself a big history buff in the slightest but unless you’ve lived under a rock most of the things mentioned shouldn’t be as much shocker as it is made out to be.
Read For
✓ Political
✓ Nonfiction
✓ Social Justice
✓ American History
𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊𓋼𓍊
Writing Style: 5/10
Would I Recommend? Maybe
Favorite Quote: ❝ “In the long run, the oppressor is also a victim. In the short run (and so far, human history has consisted only of short runs), the victims, themselves desperate and tainted with the culture that oppresses them, turn on other victims.” ❞
Pages: 729 (paperback)
Format: Audiobook
Language: English
Release Date: 01, January 1995
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racism, Slavery, War, Classism
Moderate: Genocide, Violence, Police brutality, Deportation
Minor: Death, Misogyny, Racial slurs, Sexism, Violence, Murder
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Misses a lot of queer history though I hear that this has been added in later additions.
This was a book assigned as class reading by my history teacher in college that, at the time, I only read bits and pieces of. I always meant to go back and read it completely through. It's an extremely well written history book, I'm glad I finally came back to it.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
hopeful
informative
sad
medium-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Took awhile but glad I read if
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
reflective
fast-paced
Another major disappointment. This was my third attempt to read A People's History of the United States and unlike the previous two attempts, it felt like this one would make the book click for me. Alas, three chapters in it became clear that Zinn does not really write history at all, but instead collects citations and block quotes, which he often does not discuss at any meaningful length. I can imagine loving this book as a teenager, but as a left-wing academic in their early 30s, it completely misses the mark.
The project Zinn set out on it admirable, and I broadly share his left-wing politics. For example, I really appreciate his anarchist critiques of the Soviet Union, which accurately portrays it as a fellow imperialist power. But despite the sympathy I feel for Zinn, I cannot help but feel I expected (and wanted) a lot more than a collection of block quotes. Where is the actual critique? And more importantly: where are the actual people of the United States? The book is a breathtakingly elitist take on the working classes in the United States, never entirely sure whether to idolize them or talk down to them.
I understand this is beating a dead horse and that Zinn's book has been critiqued many times by reputable historians (and not only culture war conservatives). I think I agree with most of their arguments, especially the ones that charge a lack of nuance and depth to the book. I understand why that depth is missing, but as a direct consequence, I do not see how/why you would read this beyond high school. In fact, an argument could be made that his book is by now sufficiently outdated to be more of interest to cultural historians of the 1980s-2000s, as so many of Zinn's decisions as a writer were in direct response to the academic consensus present in White American academic circles of the 1960s and 1970s.
Finally, I also cannot help but note the outdated racial terminology used throughout the book. It is remarkable how outdated his discourse is in this respect. I understand why Zinn wrote the way he did, and it is clear that most of the poststructuralist critiques of discourse that were being formulated contemporaneously flew over his head. However, it has also meant that A People's History of the United States actively reproduces the racist framings that underpin White supremacy, despite setting out to critique it.
TLDR: read this as a historical artifact, not as a reliable alternative and/or people's history.
The project Zinn set out on it admirable, and I broadly share his left-wing politics. For example, I really appreciate his anarchist critiques of the Soviet Union, which accurately portrays it as a fellow imperialist power. But despite the sympathy I feel for Zinn, I cannot help but feel I expected (and wanted) a lot more than a collection of block quotes. Where is the actual critique? And more importantly: where are the actual people of the United States? The book is a breathtakingly elitist take on the working classes in the United States, never entirely sure whether to idolize them or talk down to them.
I understand this is beating a dead horse and that Zinn's book has been critiqued many times by reputable historians (and not only culture war conservatives). I think I agree with most of their arguments, especially the ones that charge a lack of nuance and depth to the book. I understand why that depth is missing, but as a direct consequence, I do not see how/why you would read this beyond high school. In fact, an argument could be made that his book is by now sufficiently outdated to be more of interest to cultural historians of the 1980s-2000s, as so many of Zinn's decisions as a writer were in direct response to the academic consensus present in White American academic circles of the 1960s and 1970s.
Finally, I also cannot help but note the outdated racial terminology used throughout the book. It is remarkable how outdated his discourse is in this respect. I understand why Zinn wrote the way he did, and it is clear that most of the poststructuralist critiques of discourse that were being formulated contemporaneously flew over his head. However, it has also meant that A People's History of the United States actively reproduces the racist framings that underpin White supremacy, despite setting out to critique it.
TLDR: read this as a historical artifact, not as a reliable alternative and/or people's history.
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Ive been realizing how much our education varies throughout the states and what we learned as we grew up. This gave a great overview and cut through the propaganda or retelling of historical events from the victors and the privileged members that built this world.
challenging
dark
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced