Monday, May 5th, 2014
Excerpt from "A People's History of the United States,", Howard Zinn
1) On pages 3 and 4, Professor Zinn "bluntly" states his approach to the writing and teaching of the history of the United States - his thesis statement. Investigate his approach. Do you agree with it?
Professor Zinn decided to approach the history of the United States in a less conventional point of view: the perspective of the "conquered." If history is truly recorded and told from the point of view of the victors, Zinn decided to attempt a historical account through which he would tell the story on the extreme. I think that this is an interesting attitude and position. It offers another view on the events, at least to the audience. Our views are complimented by accounts from the two sides, in a way that makes our view more complete and balanced on both sides of the spectrum. On the other hand, if Zinn's work allows the audience to develop a broader and more expansive understanding, I think that Zinn is somewhat limiting himself and also contradicting himself. After all, his defense of the "defeated" people also implies a bias, that is not necessarily less strong. But I guess that his explicit statement that he will bluntly and singularly write from this point of view undermine his position as a biased historian.
2) Professor Zinn was not ashamed to say his approach to history was biased, however it just happened to be biased towards viewing history through the eyes of the common people rather than political and economic elite. Should historians write with a bias? Or rather, can any history be objectively written?
Similarly to an omniscient third person narrative in a novel, it is extremely difficult, if not quasi impossible, to write a complete bias-free account of history. This is because it is too broad and expansive to include the thoughts and positions of all the people in the world. To write a completely objective point of view, one would have to include and therefore research on ALL the people included. The wording, furthermore, is impossible to be completely unbiased, for the reason that language itself is filtered by our own biases. To write a completely objective historical account implies a book filled with an infinite number of opinions, because all the people would have to be included. Furthermore, aren't the categorizations all dependent on the people who make them? How can we ever know that we fairly judged all the involved? I guess we do the best we can, and we will have to ignore those who may potentially think that the work is not bias-free, because, after all, we only know the much we know.
3) Professor Zinn's book was loudly criticized by some of his peers. Georgetown history professor Michael Kazin "characterized the book as an overly simplistic narrative of elite villains and oppressed people, with no attempt to understand historical actors in the context of the time in which they lived," and Harvard historian Oscar Handlin said "the book conveniently omits whatever does not fit its overriding thesis... It would be a mistake, however, to regard Zinn as merely anti-American. Brendan Behan once observed that whoever hated America hated mankind, and hatred of mankind is the dominant tone of Zinn's book."
Formulate your own critique of the excerpt you've read of Professor Zinn's book.
Assuming that the excerpt is part of the introduction to Professor Zinn's book, I like that he establishes his ethos, and explains the point of view from which he will be writing his novel. He claims that "the reader may as well know" that he will be writing covering a much neglected part of the history of the United States, interpreting events from the unconventional perspective of the defeated, the conquered, the poor. He thus already states that there will be portions in his book that may seem anti-American, and his acknowledgement of this feature reflects the opposite of some of the criticisms. Professor Zinn does not "invent victories for people's movements," and rather attempts to examine, no, reveal the stories that are often overlooked in favor of the more glorious accounts of victory. The reason that Zinn is doing this is because of his definition and his belief for the purpose of history. Zinn believes that history is a subject that examines past events in order to learn from humans' past. He therefore believes it it not correct to solely praise the good. He believes we must also face the bad in order to not emulate the same mistakes. The stories he recounts are actually all incorporated in glorious accounts of the victors'. The reason that they are not more widely spread is because they are often forgotten and overshadowed by the more exciting and appealing stories of human goodness and wins. Zinn's purpose was to compile all these left-in-the-dark stories into a book, because it is by fierce exposure without any protective layer that lay bare the occurrences that are, after all, part of the story of all of us. I cannot help but note the fierce and sanguine diction he employs, such as "massacre," words and expressions associated with connotations of violence and unjust deaths. I cannot help but build a skepticism towards the point of view that Zinn is presenting, because as he is ultimately trying to reverse people's views on the writing of history, he will necessarily use and include stories that seem particularly more aggressive and brutal.
4) Professor Zinn’s account history has been called honest and necessary, or biased and hateful. Evaluate this claim in relation to Professor Zinn: How does who writes history shape our understanding of history?
Depending on the writer, our view on the event will be swayed by their bias. Primary accounts, especially, are retold with stronger emotions that breed a more marked and passionate account. If the account is written in favor of the victors, it will contain praises and optimistic visions that reinforce the idea of the positive effects of the events. The reader will be more prone to believe that the outcomes of the events were positive and beneficial for all. However, if the account is told from the view of one who was exploited, defeated, unprivileged, it will reveal a more gloomy and negative attitude that will influence the reader to pity and condemn the events and people involved. Professor Zinn is writing his book in order to provide the reader the other side of the story, in the hope that this alternative view will compliment and thus complete another piece of the jigsaw puzzle making up history.
