I guess that’s OK. We’re all guilty if it, just some of us are more guilty than others, I suppose. And so it takes seriously the thoughts and actions of political figures: It demonstrates that qualities of deliberation and decision, character and virtue, matter deeply. Hearkening back to the histories and historians of the more distant past, A Patriot’s History of the United States is a new book that takes a very different approach to the course of human events. A Patriot’s History of the United States A Patriot’s History of the United States FROM COLUMBUS’S GREAT DISCOVERY TO THE WAR ON TERROR Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen SENTINEL SENTINEL Published by the Penguin Group Penguin Group (USA) Inc., … Although People’s claims to tell the story of the “Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves,” etc., etc., Zinn says he doesn’t want to “grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners” nor to “invent victories for People’s movements.” He instead offers this lofty goal: If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win.

It didn’t go so well. Zinn makes the point that historians should neither lie outright nor by omission and then writes, “It is not that the historian can avoid emphasis of some facts and not of others […] My argument cannot be against selection, simplification, emphasis, which are inevitable […] for historians.” He not only admits his shortcomings (and the shortcomings of all historians), he goes on to the say that the decisions historians make in telling history serve (intentionally or not) to support “some kind of interest, whether economic or political or racial or national or sexual.” So, is this a profound insight or cheap cop out? It should come as no surprise that the book has been successful mostly because college professors and high-school teachers require the book in their classes. Schweikart said that he wrote it with Allen because he could not find an American history textbook without "leftist bias". I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he knows he is being two-faced, he’s just doesn’t have the cajones to own up to it.

I’m not so sure, however, about the straw man argument that he invents later in the chapter. Such an altruistic aim – those people are often denied a voice in history books – but don’t worry.

'New books How Trump Won and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents, Part 1, From Washington to Taft, available now! What happened to “Nations are not communities and never have been?” Or to “The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest?” Hmmm? A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen (Sentinel, 944 pp., $29.95) THE most influential historian among today’s college students isn’t David McCullough, despite the wide public appeal of his several books. A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror is a 2004 book on American history by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. That probably depends on which side of the aisle you pee on. Marx never published anything called A People’s anything and by Patriot’s logic, Google’s most Marxist result is…. After describing the terrible things that Columbus’s men did to the Arawak Indians (“terrible things” = fucking genocide), Zinn says, “When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure – there is no bloodshed – and Columbus Day is a holiday.” This must be the line that pissed of Patriot’s authors enough to write their own non-Marxist version of American history for they claim that, according to “any mainstream U.S. history textbook,” “America’s past is a tale of racism, sexism, and bigotry.”.

And so it spends considerable time developing the ideas of the American Revolution, the theory of republican government, the importance of religion and the concept of religious liberty, the lessons of the early state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation, the arguments of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and the extensive debates about the Constitution. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest […] And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners. Manjoo purports that, “No longer are we merely holding opinions different from one another; we’re also holding different facts. A Patriot’s History is biased in its own way, of course, for it assumes that “if the story of America’s past is told fairly, the result cannot be anything but a deepened patriotism, a sense of awe at the obstacles overcome, the passions invested, the blood and tears spilled, and the nation that was built.” Anything that has to do with patriotism has long been controversial in academic circles. This is Part I, here are Part II, Part III and Part […]. With his statement, “Was all this bloodshed and deceit – from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans – a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?” Zinn is drawing in any reader that ever felt suspicious, guilty, or angry with the expression “sacrifices were made.” But who is saying that “this bloodshed and deceit” were a necessity – Columbus, Cortes, Pizarro, and the Puritans? A Patriot’s History has its idiosyncrasies, to be sure; like any sweeping epic, it isn’t perfect.

Other than the “Marxist” title, People’s has no introduction, no statement of purpose, no interviews, and no out-and-out chest thumping, acerbic, and/or combative blurb on the back, except for this: Known for its lively, clear prose as well as its scholarly research, A People’s History of the United States is the only volume to tell America’s story from the point of view of – and in the words of – America’s women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers.

( Log Out /  While both books, prescribed by this introductory course into American History, cover many of the same topics, they clearly paint different pictures. A People’s History, as the title might suggest, is written from a neo-Marxist perspective. He means nothing. The rejected assumption, which is the foundation of A Patriot’s History, is that there are principles and purposes reflected in American history that make this imperfect country worthy of our affection, and that honest history should explain those principles and illustrate those purposes as the centerpiece of our nation’s story. Change ), You are commenting using your Twitter account. Nations are not communities and never have been. THE most influential historian among today’s college students isn’t David McCullough, despite the wide public appeal of his several books.

The result has been a constant deconstruction of the past according to the latest take on societal evolution. Patriot’s vs People’s is an analytical review of two books about American history that most would assume are politically opposed – Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s Guide to the History of the United States and Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. The title could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I feel that any text seeking to represent a responsible survey of a, The current economic struggles affecting our nation as well as the controversial conflicts abroad have arguably caused a shift in the nation’s politics. Views about the content and historical interpretation included in history texts have reached a heightened polarization in recent years. I'm a linguist who researches email marketing. The book is, in Zinn’s words, a “history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people’s movements of resistance,” portraying states and statesmen as pawns of bourgeois elites standing in the way of the proletarian revolution. Patriot’s vs People’s is an analytical review of two books about American history that most would assume are politically opposed – Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s Guide to the History of the United States and Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. He has been revered for the serious manner in which he treats his cited works, and for offering, Child Health, Safety, and Nutrition Essay, Essay on Samsung Electronics - Harvard Business School, Reflective Journal on Ethics Game Simulation Essay.

Although People’s begins with the history of the Native Americans encountering Columbus, it does include a thesis statement in this first chapter. It started as an idea after I bought Zinn’s book and was given Schweikart and Allen’s by an uncle who so rightly explained his gift as a way for me to read “the other side of the story.” I decided to read them side by side, chapter by chapter, in order to compare and contrast the two works to each other. A Patriot’s History of the United States corrects those doctrinaire biases. 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. A People’s History of the UnitedStatesopens right into the story of the Americas. Last week, I gave my review of the introduction to Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States. He retorts, “The consequence of those omissions has been not simply to give a distorted view of the past but, more important, to mislead us all about the present.” (Zinn, 684) However, in reference to a common insistence on strictly teaching the facts in the classroom, Zinn also claims that there is no pure fact which does not preclude a judgment. The idea that the teaching of American history might actually foster patriotism is to some deeply problematic. It’s an emotional salvo, but factually strained. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. The more basic problem is that A People’s History is not all that extreme by today’s academic standards. “As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.” Not for the sake of a national myth meant to create blind affection, but to prompt an enlightened love of country–or, as Webster put it, to “implant in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable attachment to their own country.”. Seriously, Patriot’s? They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature. For the authors of Patriot’s, however, A People’s History of the United States, “honestly represents its Marxist biases in the title!” [Exclamation theirs] I’m not sure which part of the title is Marxist, but I’m guessing it’s the “People’s” part, probably because some communist countries are called the “People’s Republic of Whatever” and Marx is the godfather of communism. This can be seen in the vast differences between the diatribes of Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States, and Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s, A Patriot’s History of the United States. ( Log Out /  It does not try andpreface with anything that most students simply skip over because usually theyare long, boring, and simply trying to reinforce what the text says or … Let’s hope it’s both and move on. ( Log Out /  While both books, prescribed by this introductory course into American History, cover many of the same topics, they clearly paint different pictures. People’s is beating a 400-year old dead horse here. Flaws and mistakes are there, too, but they are just that, which is to say they are exceptions and not the rule. It is a noble aim and the sentence tells readers what they will be getting with People’s, which is a welcome skeptical view of history as usual. Zinn sums up his motivation and goal with People’s very nicely in the last sentence: Even allowing for the imperfection of myths, it is enough to make us question, for that time and ours, the excuse of progress in the annihilation of races, and the telling of history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of Western civilization.