The Twentieth Century: A People's History

Book overview is the description of the 2003 version of this book. Stating it will be up to date beyond 2001. Be careful to check the release of the version you buy, as most are released 1998 or before.

No historian of the United States is more provocative than Howard Zinn, whose leftist philosophy permeates his writings and never fails to challenge his readers. "The Twentieth Century: A People's History" is every bit as ambitious as his other works; it is drawn from the latter part of his "A People's History of the United States" with additional chapters to bring the chronicle to the end of the century. Like the majority of other works by Zinn, this one is a must read for anyone seeking to ensure the broadest possible perspective on the American past. What is presented here will be disturbing to many and perhaps angering to some, but as always he presents his analysis with a style and verve that is rigorous and often compelling. If you are not up to being challenged read something else that presents a more consensus perspective on the past, such as Stephen Ambrose or David McCullough. But if you are willing to consider that there might be more to the story of the twentieth century than you learned in school and from consensus historians, then ponder the ideas in this book. Zinn believes, and states throughout this work, that the dominant narrative of American history focusing "on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us: in the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers; in the slavery crisis, Lincoln; in the Depression, Roosevelt; in the Vietnam-Watergate crisis, Carter. And that between occasional crises everything is all right...The idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics. We have learned to look to stars, leaders, experts in every field, thus surrendering our own strength, demeaning our own ability, obliterating our own selves" (pp. 413-14). Zinn abhors this aspect of our culture, and seeks to tell the story of those who bucked it throughout the twentieth century. He argues that the power elite in America have created a system of control in which most people do not even realize they are being controlled. "With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority" (p. 414), he writes. Zinn notes that one percent of the nation owns one third of the wealth, and that the elite dole out just enough to placate the rest, all the while pitting them against each other. He adds, "These groups have resented each other and warred against each other with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers, in a very wealthy country" (p. 414). This book is really about those who battled that system, and he celebrates Eugene Debs, Daniel and Philip Berrigan, Angela Davis, Martin Luther King, Bill Haywood, and thousands of others who challenged the status quo. No question, Zinn views the history of the twentieth centu

I often use this book in one of my university history classes, "US History Since 1877." It's biased. All history writing it biased. (George W. Bush's problems with "revisonist history" aside.) I tell the students about Howard Zinn and his biases. And I tell them to try and be as upfront and aware of biases as they are of Zinn's, and as Zinn is of his own. People are bombarded with so much yahoo, rah-rah, raise-the-flag, my-coumntry-right-or-wrong (the next part of that toast is usually---and very conveniently---ignored; check it out some time) that Zinn is as refreshing as a tequila mojito on a hot summer day. He may rant, but unlike many on the other sides he can be checked out for veracity and found to be correct. You have to be when you're taking shots from folks who prefer using cant, rhetoric and arrant nonsense to propel their own agendas. Highly recommended. But, if you use this book in a class, watch out; the Thought Police are watching.

After reading A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, also by Howard Zinn, I wanted to learn more about our more recent presidents and their legacies. This volume offered some of the info from the original book, in order to keep continuity, but also continued to the Clinton presidency. Due to our current political problems in election 2000, I was able to reference my areas of interest. More specifically, the role of the electoral college, and how the vote is affected by voter turnout. I found, for instance, that due to low voter turnout, Geo. Bush, Sr. got into office with only 27% of the country's vote, claiming the election as "the will of the people". The same applies to Ronald Reagan. During massive budget cuts in social services, there were significant demonstrations all across the country during the Reagan administration. I hadn't been aware of this information since the media just didn't cover a lot it. The current political climate becomes clear when reviewing events from Zinn's historical perspective. Howver, this is a book written for the common man, not for the mythology of conservatism. If you like Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews, you won't like this book, although it isn't partisan, but rather clear and comprehensive.

Howard Zinn, in a 20th Century spin of his most famous work has really outdone himself. After reading this, which was my introduction to the Zinnist theory, I instantly became outraged with the way I had been taught history to this point. He asks you to take all things considered and make your own judgements. He has the guts to talk about government scandals and the struggle of social groups against them. Your judgements cannot be wrong as long as you consider all things. This institution challenging way of history must be the way histotry is taught to the youth of AMerica. Zinn does not paint a rosy picture like most history books will, giving you a false and unfounded sense of patiotism. The best part of this book is the inclusion of recent history, which is absent from most recent texts.

The Rhode Island reader was incensed that Zinn would admit his bias. Frankly, I find it refreshing that Zinn admits that his history focuses on the people as opposed to leaders. This history is an attempt to help readers form a more complete view of American history in their minds. This is why Zinn does not push it as definitive, he recognizes that it isn't. However, it does one amazing job of reminding Americans to get off their high horse. Also, Zinn is an amazing writer, especially for non-fiction. It enthralled me.