More comments on Howard Zinns' "Peoples History".

[TheBigGuy]

The book continues to be an good marxist interpretation of US history...I wouildnt recommend it as a primary text, though. Its a great supplementary text to be ready alongside a more mainstream history.

However, some quibbles and comments.

Hes' good on the USSC of the later part of the 19th century (very relevant for our times, BTW), but he gives a just a brief & somewhat negative mention to the Grangers Yet he discusses some early legal decisions on regulation (Munn vs Illinois, the Wabash case) prior to his mention of the Grangers, but does not credit the Grangers for pushing these laws. The cases he refers to are called the Granger Laws or the Granger cases. I think thats becuase he wants to push the Populists as more "revolutionary" type of agrarian rebellion and maybe downplay legistlative remedys to capitalism. I notice he isn't too enthusiastic about the Populists choosing electoral politics or their ulimtate fusion w. the Democrats.

I'm really suprised he omitted the anti-German hysteria when the US entered WWI, given his discussion of the organization of pro-war sentiment and anti-war repression. He did focus on the repression of the socilialists and the people who where anti war but made no mention of the anit German thing, which was a big deal in some of the other history I've read (& have been taught). I think this is because it sort of conflicts with his emphasis that public opinion had to be molded and lead and there was no big grassroots war hysteria when we went into WWI. He does note the Lusitania was indeed carrrying a boatload of munitions as well as passengers...I first read about that in the German press (due to a recent diving expedition to the ship that did find the arms).

In the chapter on the Depression he confirmed somehting I supsected. He quotes a Charles Walker: " I find it no secret that the Communists organize Unemployed Councils in most citys and usually lead them..."

OK, there is or was an Unemployed Council here in Dayton, and I went to some meetings that had people who belonged to it or where affliated with it. I sort of suspected there was somethin up with them as they where quite vocal and usually showed up at activist things...one of them even ran for state rep as a Green. Now, because of Zinns book, I know these councils where started as Communist fronts. Interesting.

*********************************************************8
One of the best things in this book for me was the revelation of the brutality of the Phillipine Insurrection. I guess to put down a guerilla war you really DO have to resort to some level of genocide, which seems to be what we did during that war. A really ugly episode in US history.

[Sushi_lover]

1. marxist?

I have never heard Howard Zinn refer to himself as marxist.

Yes he is leftist. He compliments democratic governments with socialist leanings regarding things such as caring for old people and the poor.

Has he ever said he is Marxist?

I think if he was Marxist, he would say so. He's fearless in his beliefs.

[TheBigGuy]

2. its just an opinion.

I don't know where you are coming from when you say thats a "weak attempt to insult his work". Thats my opinion of his POV in this book..that it seems to be written form a marxist or socialist perspective.

I've made some extensive comments on some aspects of the book in the thread header, some critical, others not, none of them insulitng as far as I can tell. As for Zinn himself I have know idea of his personal political opinions. Im just giving my take on the book as I see it.

[scarletlib]

3. Best American History Book I've ever read

n/t

[Sushi_lover]

4. sorry bout that phrase

I should not have said "weak attempt to insult his work".

I had already edited it out but you saw it too quick... :)

Anyway I have read enough Zinn writing and his interviews to know he does not profess to be a marxist. I get tired of cheap shots at leftists by calling us communist or marxist, etc. That's a FoxNews ploy. "If you're not right, you're a damn commie."

[Allah Akbar]

6. I believe he calls himself a socialist

or at least it seems like he called himslef that once on a c-span interview.

[JanMichael]

11. AFAIK he does consider himself some variety of Socialist.

As do I.

[TheBigGuy]

7. This is an academic work.

I really don't have any problem with an lefitist interpretation of things, as I do think its a good interpretive or analytical framework...using economic or class relations as an interpretive lense, which appears to be what Zinn is doing in this work.

I've seen some pretty powerful work in geography and architetctural history (Manfredo Tafuri, for example, and an anthology on the American city written by some Italian marxist architectural critics) written using a marxist analytical framework.

The interesting thing about this book is that I already know alot of what he is talking about..probably read things eleswhere (I know for sure that Ive read some his sources on soluthern populism and New Deal unionism)..the book sort of puts it in a master narrative.

But Im also learning new things, too. It is a pretty intereting book, although a somewhat demoralizing.

[RichM]

10. It is no insult to be called a "Marxist." Zinn himself would say socialist

In his book "The Zinn Reader" there's an essay (1988) called "Je ne suis pas Marxiste." (That was something Marx himself said to express disenchantment with a certain dogmatism he perceived among some of his followers.)

Zinn likes this quote, because while he has a lot of very positive things to say about Marx, he also feels uncomfortable with the dogmatism of some who have called themselves "Marxist." But his (Zinn's) distaste for the anti-democratic dangers of capitalism is no secret.

Zinn's somewhat-cryptic-sounding introduction to this essay reads, "For a long time I thought there were important and useful ideas in Marxist philosophy & political economy that should be protected from self-righteous cries on the right that Marxism is dead," as well as from the arrogant assumptions of the commissars of various dictatorships that their monstrous regimes represented 'Marxism.'"

[Terwilliger]

12. That last quotation covers a lot

too bad it is lost on so many people

[hippiechick]

5. Was please to hear a reference in GoodWill Hunting ...

The first time I saw the movie it slipped right past me, but saw it a few weeks ago and Matt Damon's character off-handedly recommends it to Robin Williams' character as a sort-of explanation why he blew off a job offer from the NSA .... kind of like, '... read this, then you'll know what this country's all about and why I don't want to work for the gov't."

Sweet !!!


:hippie:

[Terwilliger]

8. HAHAHAHAH

how did I know you would interpret it that way?

So, the social ideals he considers paramount...you consider, what, socialist clap-trap?

You do realize that you're a libertarian, right?

[TheBigGuy]

9. Im just making some comments on the book so far.

I dont really see the big deal in saying I think hes writing from a marxist, or maybe socialist POV. Thats not a politcal value judgement, thats just my opinion of his analytical framework.

I'll have more to say on the book when I finish with it. I'm glad others here have read so we can talk about it some more....