Just finished reading this and oh boy, that was a wild ride

Just finished reading this and oh boy, that was a wild ride.

I would recommend this book to every poster on Veeky Forums, especially the ones that STILL insist on not embracing Marxism in 2017.

>2017
>not being follower of juche

>History of the United States
>1492
Dat projection

enlightened patrician.

juche is adolescence
pol pot is adulthood

>1492
>united states

>juche
>juche

>First used in the Finno-Korean Hyperwar, juche was effectively used in the Battle of Batshitania where over 9000 Korean monk-warriors blasted the invading Finnish hordes with their weaponized autism and pompadours of the Dear Leader...

you don't get it he talks about white atrocities of white settlers against native Americans which indeed started in 1492.

>people's history of the United States
>United States
>1492

If you want to write a history of the USA it would be foolish not to start with its origins, you aren't telling the whole story if you pretend it just popped into existence in the late 18th Century.

>history of the UNITED STATES
>UNITED STATES did not exist before 1776
>book titled A PEOPLE'S HISTORY of the UNITED STATES starts at 1492

It just doesn't add up!

What's confusing you?

FYI this book has been widely criticized and is well known to be not objective in the story it presents.

He's retarded.

I know, I had to read it for uni and I really wanted to make at least one thread about it (well worth the 700+ pages of biased pseudohistory I had to slog through).

If you honestly were inspired or influenced by this book you're to Young to be on this website. It's absolute shit and only 17 year old fedoras like it.

>too

“Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”

- H. Zinn

why? provide specific examples.

is that a real quote

>tell lies because it makes you feel good
wtf i hate the truth now

it's a good read alongisde the politically incorrect history of the usa

together they give a well rounded picture

It's a decent read, but obviously very political and not always accurate. It has a lot of quotes that are taken out of context for instance.

I hope I can get a pass for reading it when I was 14. Though I was deeply moved by the book at the time I never went Marxist.

They can't, most of them haven't even read it but have heard that it's left wing so they feel they must try to denounce it on the 4chins to bait leftists.

random one:

Young and old were taught that anti-Communism was heroic. Three million copies were sold of the book by Mickey Spillane published in 1951, One Lonely Night, in which the hero, Mike Hammer says: “I killed more people tonight than I have fingers on my hands. I shot them in cold blood and enjoyed every minute of it. . . . They were Commies . . . red sons-of-bitches who should have died long ago. . . .” A comic strip hero, Captain America, said: “Beware, commies, spies, traitors, and foreign agents! Captain America, with all loyal, free men behind him, is looking for you. . . .” And in the fifties, schoolchildren all over the country participated in air raid drills in which a Soviet attack on America was signaled by sirens: the children had to crouch under their desks until it was “all clear.” It was an atmosphere in which the government could get mass support for a policy of rearmament. The system, so shaken in the thirties, had learned that war production could bring stability and high profits. Truman's anti-Communism was attractive. The business publication Steel had said in November 1946-even before the Truman Doctrine that Truman's policies gave “the firm assurance that maintaining and building our preparations for war will be big business in the United States for at least a considerable period ahead.”

it's literally this formula over and over

>there are only two kinds of people, good oppressed heroes, and evel greedy capitalists looking to make a profit
>commies were good guys always
>the gubermint is evil because it protects copitalists
>the oppressed (read blacks and women) tried really hard but they were defeated by the evil white wealthy ruling class

Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.

When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.

Starting with Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, by 1760, there had been eighteen uprisings aimed at overthrowing colonial governments. There had also been six black rebellions, from South Carolina to New York, and forty riots of various origins.

By this time also, there emerged, according to Jack Greene, "stable, coherent, effective and acknowledged local political and social elites." And by the 1760s, this local leadership saw the possibility of directing much of the rebellious energy against England and her local officials.

>evel rich men wanted to keep THE PEOPLE down since the beginning

It's not wholly wrong, but also implies the Founders had some unified vision of what the United States was to become. It basically boils down their motivations to 'we want to control everything', which is kind of falls apart when considering how limited the Articles of Confederation were in the first place.

>evel rich men wanted to keep THE PEOPLE down since the beginning
but this is true to some extent, as the founding fathers were large-scale bond-holders who were in their positions for economic reasons
but it's very true that the US used propaganda to make any semblance of Marxism or left-leaning ideas to be construed as an unthinkable evil at that time
>there are only two kinds of people, good oppressed heroes, and evel greedy capitalists looking to make a profit
>the gubermint is evil because it protects copitalists
yes, these are some of the most fundamental ideals of marxism, and i think that it's a correct analysis of history.
>commies were good guys always
no, i think it was more about the way that propaganda was used on the US population to make the soviets look like the bad guys always
>the oppressed (read blacks and women) tried really hard but they were defeated by the evil white wealthy ruling class
i don't understand how you can look at the history of the US before the 1960s and not (without nuance) have sympathy for blacks and women. sure, feminists and race-baiters might overestimate the roles of women and minorities, but that doesn't mean the US wasn't a country with chattel slavery and tons of segregation laws after it was abolished, and that suffrage didn't come about until 1920.

>people have never invaded and take. Over another's land
>only evil.when da white man duz it

It's a good book and it provides an interesting ternative view on many events in US history. You just need to keep in mind that the author has an agenda and outright tells you at the begining that he is not trying to deliver an objective recollection of history

It's actually kind of funny. Zinn rails against the whole "history as myth" style of writing where we deify these past men like Washington, then turns and does the same thing anyway except because it's Big Bill Haywood or something it's all cool. He's a hack when it comes to sources too. His source for black objection to entry into World War II is a fucking book of poems from Harlem where he also makes sure to ignore any entries that go against his narrative or the fact that blacks volunteered to serve in the military.

The "he's not trying to be objective" defense is no defense at all. It's a poorly researched (Zinn disdained academic research after all, thought it was useless and history should only be written to serve political ends) tripe from a guy who felt so bad about dropping bombs during World War II that he decided to dedicate his life to preaching the evils of America and the white man for all the grave injustices they have committed against the world. Also cheated on his wife by fucking one of his students when he was a professor at an all-girls black college.

Whenever you read "i'm not trying to be objective" prepare yourself for almost absolute shit and lies.
Gould did the same with the mismeasure of man and oh boy.