A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

>fucking implying there can be historiography without ideology

it's good to counteract a lot of the biased shit you will have/have had to read like Gordon Wood, and a good source if you are interested in another view of history, but I would not recommend as a primarily academic source, rather it is a book you read for fun/to compliment some other biased shit. Still worth reading tho

if you read this book you are a sucker. same with spqr or any other "acclaimed" pop-history book. It's worse than not reading. Being uniformed is better than being misinformed.

Why though? I was made to read this when taking AP U.S. History, and never undertood the value of having one, single "contrast text"

Like of course there are other sides to every issue, but that can be demonstrated to a reasonably intelligent high schooler in 30 minutes. From there the aim should be working through many sides to arrive at a robust understandimg-- not the standard moderate lefty textbook for core, with supplemental from Zinn.

If you're going to do supplements, you should canvas the ideological spectrum, not have one token radical. But somehow I imagine thats less profitable for textbook publishers

I'd absolutely support your view if the book were being used for college classes, but it is not, it's meant for 15 year olds that need to be specifically shown that it is possible for history to have more then one interpretation

It's kinda funny how some authors got so triggered by Zinn that they had to write their own counterpoint.

>Written from a conservative standpoint, it is a counterpoint to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and asserts that the United States is an "overwhelmingly positive" force for good in the world. Schweikart said that he wrote it with Allen because he cannot find an American history textbook without leftist bias.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Patriot's_History_of_the_United_States

>(((Zinn)))

(((the war on terror)))

>spqr
>bad
Nice meme.

I read part of it when I was working at a bookstore. It was so ridiculous I had to send it back to the warehouse

It's good. All the people ITT are those who have profited by the US's international and internal plundering and would rather forget their own history.

>defends germany
maybe he's not that bad

That book is the most biased, leftist, poorly documented bullshit ever written. It was so poorly done, that Johnson felt the need to rewrite it (which he did very well). I mean, Zinn is the same guy who praised the terrorists following 9/11 -- is that really the source in which you want to receive your knowledge of U.S. history? There are much less biased texts out there.

>It's good
It's this. The rest of the póst is shit, though.

OP, you should read it because it's a good alternative to other books. BUT keep in mind that it's biased in a very silly way.

I'd rather read Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz' An Indigenous People's History of the United States, even though it´s way more political than Zinn's book. It's also more scientific.

Someone should just make a list of books for US history instead of the regurgitation of things through their own lens. No fluff.

why are conservatives so cringe?

>uniformed