I think this piece shows that unfortunately in the discussion on Zinn's work the critiques are coming largely from the right. Between Kazin/Dissent and Zinn, I think it is clear that Zinn has a better class stand and is for the people, even given his serious blindspots, methodological problems (e.g. on ideology; on the actual configuration of social forces in the US, which is not 99% vs. 1%), and wrong verdicts on historical events (e.g. the Civil War as a clash of elites to be viewed with indifference).

Notice how Kazin inserts his social-democratic politics into the article:

- in his description of the "Founding Fathers" as "astute, if seriously flawed, men who erected a structure for the new nation that has endured for over two centuries" against Zinn's correct description of them as the "leaders of the new aristocracy";

- in his dismissal of Zinn's "angry" exposures of US imperialism and his implicit support for the US war on Afghanistan;

- in his praise of the "wage-earners who took pleasure in the new cars and new houses those awful long-term contracts enabled them to buy" (overlooking the fact that this new wealth was the result of government policies, such as those regarding FHA loans, that openly and systematically privileged white people);

- and, in his disapproval of Zinn's lack of reverence for traditional scholarship (when on the contrary, Zinn does not go far enough).

Thankfully, Zinn and the social-democratic critics to his right are not the only choices in US historians.

I also noted that a lot of Kazin's criticisms were rightist political attacks on Zinn's radicalism. However, I think is critique of Zinn's manichean, crude populism has some merit. It's interesting that some of the historians that Kazin upholds as alternatives to Zinn (especially C.L.R. James) are to the left of both Kazin and Zinn. I'd throw DuBois's Black Reconstruction as an approach to US history that is radical, sophisticated, and dynamic.

Kazin is obviously social-democrat with all their flaws, but his critique of the idea that the US working class are in any way revolutionary today is spot on. Many Marxist historians ignore the 'bought off' nature of the working class in many western nations which resulted due to concessions after WWII/trade with the third-world on unequal terms/imperialism.

Mike wrote:

<blockquote>People with a clear “class stand” can often say things that are mistaken, wrong or misleading (including self-delusional), while people with far more conservative politics (including social democratic critics) can be pointing out important truths. (This has often been called the Lysenko problem)</blockquote>

Do you think that Kazin IS pointing out some important truths in the above review? And if so, what do you think they are? I have to admit the whole tone of that review quickly filled me with disgust (probably because Kazin does sound so far to the right), but no doubt that reaction could severely limit my ability to consider something important.

<blockquote>But the issue here is the accuracy of the actual history — the depiction of events, the descriptions of causality, the representation of specific figures and forces (and their motives, policies, conflicts etc.)</blockquote>

Do you think these are all troubling issues with People's History? I personally remember having some serious doubts about some of Zinn's stances when I was reading the book -- especially on issues of causality and motives... if I'm remembering correctly. In order to pinpoint the exact areas where I felt this way though, I'd really need to revisit the book.

G. Rowan:
<blockquote>However, I think is critique of Zinn’s manichean, crude populism has some merit.</blockquote>

Yet, despite whatever weaknesses critics and many of us here may see, People's History has turned out to be an incredibly huge hit. When a history book manages to sell well over a million copies, it seems like it might be worth taking a moment to stop and think about why Zinn's approach to American history has been so very able to engage the reading public.

I have to agree with Michael Kazin's critique - and with the above comments by Boris, Mike Ely, G. Rowan and NHBK. While Zinn's heart is in the right place, <b>"A People's History of the United States"</b> is a deeply flawed historical work.

One of the greatest flaws in <b>"A People's History..."</b> is alluded to by NHBK in his reference to <i>"the ‘bought off’ nature of the working class in many western nations which resulted due to concessions after WWII/trade with the third-world on unequal terms/imperialism."</i>

Indeed, the American capitalist class is prosperous enough - thanks to the looting of the Indians, the enslavement of Blacks, the plunder of the Third World and the enormous productivity of American industrial workers - to buy the loyalty of almost the entire American middle class, as well as a huge privileged layer of labor aristocratic workers.

The tremendous loyalty of the brought off middle classes and labor aristocrats is an enormous asset to the ruling capitalist class of the United States.

That's why they can rule with lies and deception, rather than with bayonets and nightsticks, like the rulers of weaker capitalist countries have to do.

Also, there is the race factor - White Americans of all classes are privileged over and above African Americans, Latinos and American Indians, and along with those racial privileges comes political loyalty to the rulers who granted those privileges.

The interlinked dual questions of dealing with the brought off middle classes and labor aristocrats and dealing with the more generalized White privileged are the two most critical questions facing American revolutionaries - and Zinn really doesn't deal with that fundamental problem in <b>"A People's History..."</b> - and that seriously flaws his work.

Adrienne wrote:
<cite>..despite whatever weaknesses critics and many of us here may see, People's History has turned out to be an incredibly huge hit. When a history book manages to sell well over a million copies, it seems like it might be worth taking a moment to stop and think about why Zinn's approach to American history has been so very able to engage the reading public.<cite>

Adrienne is absolutely right a that Howard Zinn sells a whole lot of books. Two years ago "A People's History" had an Amazon sales ranking of 413 (meaning that 412 other books, of all types, sold more copies when the survey was taken
(see &lt

I just checked Amazon now and his sales ranking as of today was 114. That is quite an achievement and suggests that this particular book has a staying power that just might make him the "Charles Beard" of this era. Like Beard too, Zinn is taping into a vast reservoir of unfocused populist anger and resentment over a wide range of issues. That, of course means nothing as far the actual merit of his research, scholarship, or insight so what does make the book so popular? I would say that the individual chapters are easy to read and there are no footnotes to bog one down. As it becomes adopted more and more as a textbook legions of students will plow through it whether they want to or not although many teachers report that their students like the tone of the book and find it more engaging than an regular text. Beyond that I am not really sure.

I think much of the criticism of Zinn is simply B.S.

Conservative critics act like the book, and Zinn's work in general, is presented in a vacuum absent of all other influences. As if someone skipped every history class in grade school, every patriotic bit of dogma shoved down our throats on everything from television to cereal boxes, and then came across this book and thought it told the whole story. It's a foolish critique.

Similarly, some critics from the left point out that Zinn, and others like him, don't map out detailed instructions for understanding every damned bit of detail of revolutionary praxis. Which is perfectly fine to critique surrounded by our Cabral books, but for the vast majority of americans, Zinn's work serves as an accessible on-ramp, a gateway drug if you will, to other counter hegemonic narratives of how the empire operates. And for a lot of people who have no connection at all to the left (other than shithead teabaggers calling Obama a maoist), his work serves a vital role. We can take that for granted, we're already inside, but for the people outside, he's a great welcome mat. And let's not forget that. Obviously, not all leftists are making this kind of shallow critique, not even necessarily the comments above this one, but I still think it needs to be said.

Campaign Against Operation Green Hunt!

War Against Naxals(Maoists): The War Against Adivasis, Fishermen and Peasants!

Resist the Naxal Witch Hunt!
Organise Under the Naxal Leadership to Fight Recolonization!

Campaign across Tamilnadu
Public Meeting, Chennai
January 30, 2010

Peoples Art And Literary Association
Peasants Liberation Front
Revolutionary Students And Youth Front
New Democratic Labour Front
Tamilnadu.

Contact:
Com. Mukundan,
110, Second Floor, Corporation Complex,
63, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. India.

Ph: +91 94448 34519

http://vrinternationalists.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/campaign-against-operation-green-hunt/

Here's a link to a recent article on the Solidarity webzine that covers similar questions: http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/node/2189

The author discusses how he came to be critical of "bottom-up history" as practiced by scholars like Zinn and why he still considers it ultimately useful today.

Regarding the view of Zinn's work as a stepping stone or on-ramp to further political consciousness, I think their limitations in this respect should be recognized. Is it an stepping stone for Chinese or Filipino youth, or other youth of Asian descent? Not really, these texts barely acknowledge the existence of their people, no different from the standard history texts. Is it a stepping stone for Puerto Rican youth? People's History of the US doesn't mention the Young Lords in its discussion of the 60s struggles and doesn't mention the Puerto Rican struggle for self-determination at all.

Also, its discussion of the Black liberation struggle is a bit limited, perhaps by Zinn's politics: People's History, in its brief 3-sentence discussion of the movement led by Marcus Garvey, the largest mass movement among Black people after Reconstruction, gives no sense of the extensiveness of its support (it is only described as inspiring to "some blacks"). Its discussion of other Black nationalist movements is also lacking (e.g. nothing on Amiri Baraka and the Modern Black Convention Movement). One can have an analysis of the problems of Garveyism and other forms of Black nationalism, while still accurately presenting the significance of these movements in the people's history of this country.

As Radical-Eyes' pointed out in the other thread, Zinn has acknowledged his blindspot on Chicano history and referred his readers to other authors such as Elizabeth Martinez, including in the text of People's History, which shows his good faith, at least on this particular topic. But, I would argue that the main audience for whom Zinn's work serves as a stepping stone to further political consciousness is white people. That is still valuable, but it should be recognized.

Mike E wrote: "This is true there are many choices. Do you have a sense of who you think has a more accurate and nuanced analysis of it all?"

My sense is that a text of a comprehensive history of the US remains to be written. Does anyone else have recommendations? The works I do think are valuable are those of historians working in more particular areas, for example, Robin D.G. Kelley's Hammer and Hoe, Freedom Dreams, and other texts; Peter Kwong's Chinatown, NY: Labor and Politics, 1930-1950 from MR Press (much of which refers to Him Mark Lai's essay "A Historical Survey of Organizations of the Left Among the Chinese in America"); the debate between Eugene D. Genovese and Herbert Aptheker on the significance and scope of slave revolts in US history.

History is a Weapon,

I routinely point my students to your website, and in particular to the Zinn chapters that you have posted there.
Thank you for this work!

It is good to 'meet' you out here on Kasama.

Thanks for the kind words, Yall. Likewise, we got Kasama in our RSS.

Responding to that last comment, Mike E: instead of highlighting existing History Is A Weapon content, everyone should feel free to suggest stuff that you think is missing. We're already getting Him Mark Lai’s essay “A Historical Survey of Organizations of the Left Among the Chinese in America” to put online after Boris suggested it, but we're always on the look out for more readings that are accessible to new people. Feel free to list them here or contact us through the site.

Thanks again for the kind words.

This critique has some similarities to the <a href="/http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/new-kasama-pamphlet-the-historical-failure-of-anarchism/" rel="nofollow">critique of anarchism</a> that Kasama put out.

The critic is saying that, in Zinn, the "people" lose, not because of failings on their part, but because of external forces. They are romanticized, and contemporary students don't have access to a deeper level of contradictions--contradictions within the people, contradictions among the rulers.

Just saw this on Marge's Facebook page. A real loss indeed.
"Marge Piercy: My long time friend Howard Zinn died in California this morning of a heart attack. A great loss to the left and everybody else."

Well, now confirmed, here's the obit in the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/howard_zinn_his.html

and a link to Zinn's website:
http://www.howardzinn.org/default/index.php

To Gregory A. Butler who summed up his post with:

"The interlinked dual questions of dealing with the brought off middle classes and labor aristocrats and dealing with the more generalized White privileged are the two most critical questions facing American revolutionaries – and Zinn really doesn’t deal with that fundamental problem in “A People’s History…” – and that seriously flaws his work,"

and to others who criticize People's History for similar reasons:

A work's meaning or success isn't based on the meaning you want to attribute to it but on whether the author has accomplished the goal he set out to accomplish in writing it. While your criticisms may be correct in some general sense, within the less ambitious but still very important scope of Zinn's book, I think he has succeeded completely.

Adding to previous post: Remember, Zinn was ultimately social democrat at best in his politics though his Peoples - as in about the People as well as written for People in a populist fashion - History was necessarily influenced by radical US thinkers, activists and movements. Expecting from him contemporary Marxist analysis, which seems to be what some of you want, is like expecting from Obama anything more than pretty speeches on the State of the Empire.

Mike, I think your criticism is fair, especially here where you point out: "Howard was a radical. He was a (small d) democrat — in the sense of a Walt Whitman or Mark Twain. He was a democrat in ways that is often revolutionary in our world and its history. He dreamed of socialism too, though not of the kind that existing generally during his lifetime. He was a bit of an anarchist — in the sense of how he viewed popular agency, and suspected revolutionary institutions. But really, he was a radical — he wanted basic change, wrenching change, disturbing and transformative changes, and he thought that had to come by forcing, and overturning, and resisting, and mobilizing the oppressed."

Actually in defending Zinn I see I went too far right in defining him and I was wrong to do so.

But the following raises questions:

"I think this summation greatly devalues Howard’s radicalism. I’m not a fan of simple labels based on simple sorting — and the quote above is a reason why. Does endorsing Kucinich (or the Greens) in this or that election mean that someone can’t be “revolutionary minded, politically speaking”? I suspect that is rather simplistic. Lots of people who dream about revolution, desire revolution, wait for revolution…. nonetheless (begrudgingly) endorsed Obama last year…. that is part of the complexity of what “revolutionary-minded” often means in these moments, that people are caught in what they want and what they have offered."

What is the benefit to the struggle for Socialism when "revolutionary-minded" people vote for a Kucinich or an Obama? Did Zinn's voting for Kucinich (or in a previous election for Nader, which may be a bit more understandable) not, in itself, devalue his own radicalism? More broadly, what is the benefit of revolutionary-minded people participating in electoral politics of the status quo? Or are you suggesting that this just occurs out of people being "caught up in what they want and what they have offered," because they haven't learned lessons taught, for example, by Howard Zinn in People's History with regard to how reform, let alone revolution, happens? Does Zinn voting for Kucinich not contradict himself?

Addendum: "If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candidates" Zinn

"What matters is not who's sitting in the White House. What matters is who's sitting in!"
Zinn