Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lord_tyronisis 's review for:
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