Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by drululastrix
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
reflective
fast-paced
3.25
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 In fact, an argument could be made that his book is by now sufficiently outdated to be more of interest to cultural historians of the 1980s-2000s, as so many of Zinn's decisions as a writer were in direct response to the academic consensus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Finally, I also cannot help but note the outdated racial terminology used throughout the book. It is remarkable how outdated his discourse is in this respect.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.