Many critics tend to discount A People’s History as an affront to American culture and traditions on account of Zinn’s liberal politics and Marxist leanings. Dissent tends to frighten many, especially when directed towards historical heavyweights like the Founding Fathers. But this very fear, from right-wing conservative and nationalistic citizens, of any form of challenge to the U.S.’s political and economic systems, is precisely what he spent his life’s work opposing. According to Zinn, celebrated figures like Christopher Columbus and Andrew Jackson were not the heroes that most history books portray them to have been - in fact, he would have said that they were more like villains. While these men may have accomplished impressive, triumphant feats that undoubtedly altered the course of history, their accomplishments were only possible through ruthlessness and mass murder. To only tell of the glory and to omit the cruelty and bloodshed is to tell only a half-truth. Howard Zinn’s conclusion that “...the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress...is still with us” informs his notion that the real heroes of the American narrative were men like Eugene Debs, who peacefully fought for unions and the labor movement, and Daniel Ellsberg, responsible for leaking the famous Pentagon Papers; women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Sojourner Truth, who organized and struggled for women’s rights in a time when they were legally granted next to none.
Historically speaking, the names and dates of important documents signed, battles won, and important figures remain largely intact between the traditional accounts and Zinn’s. However, it is an unflinching emphasis on the political underdog that really differentiates his form from the rest. In order to paint this portrait of an America that was built on the backs of the poor - a portrait no less accurate than traditional renditions - he certainly was inclined to omit some of our leaders’ more gratifying moments. His portrayal of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency is a prime example of this.
While it is widely known that Lincoln made great strides and attained freedom from bondage for the African American population through his passage of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, Zinn chose instead to focus on Abe’s duality in regards to the subject of slavery. He wrote that Lincoln “opposed slavery, but could not see blacks as equals” and “spoke differently depending on the views of his listeners (and also perhaps depending on how close it was to the election)”, presenting quotes from Lincoln which expressed ideals of racial equality when speaking in northern states and of white superiority while speaking in the South. Examples like this also highlight how Zinn’s politics can often cause a tendency to automatically disfavor those in power. While Lincoln’s words and actions may seem deceitful in a certain light, Zinn neglects to consider the righteous motives that were likely behind them, or that his tactics may have been necessary in order to achieve his greater goals of ending slavery and preserving the Union.
Howard Zinn plainly states his own motives for writing A People’s History within the text: “I wanted, in writing this book, to awaken a greater consciousness of class conflict, racial injustice, sexual inequality, and national arrogance.” As these conditions throughout American history are largely undeniable, especially after reading firsthand accounts of its victims’ struggles, Zinn has certainly succeeded in awakening this greater consciousness. This approach to the narrative tends to be far more compelling than the typical idolatry we ascribe to our heads of state. When the elected and the electorate are regarded simply as people, both fallible and subject to criticism, the real stories that complete the picture are brought forth. Through this mode of telling history, we can begin to actually feel a sense of connectedness not only the people who created or amended our doctrine but also to the people affected by it.
If History is an argument and a way to learn from the past to better shape the future, then in Howard Zinn’s words, “it should...emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when...people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win... that our future may be found in the past’s fugitive moments of compassion rather than its solid centuries of warfare.” If all we learn from history is a series of dates when distant events occurred, what have we really learned? If we are not permitted to question the morality (or lack thereof) which guided the formation and direction of our nation, how can we be expected to foster future progress? Much like the colonists needed revolutionary pamphlets like Paine’s Common Sense to raise and understand the questions of their time, A People’s History of the United States is a document that should be considered essential reading for our time. Even if one’s politics do not align with Zinn’s, it is hard to deny the value in hearing the voices of the previously unheard to round out one’s worldview.
