Nice to hear from you. I don’t doubt that the book is passed off as consensus by certain teachers. Than again, I am willing to venture that any number of secondary sources are treated in similar manner by teachers who have no business being in the classroom.

So, don’t be speechless Larry. I know Zinn didn’t invent truth, nor has he perfected it. But you can hardly deny that much has been concealed from America’s citizens, and Zinn fearlessly probes the dustbins of history to reveal what official government policy has hidden there.

My hat is off to you and all others who search for truth. The subject was Zinn. By defending him I meant no slight to you or any others. Writers of history are my favorite writers. To me all of you who write the thick books of history are seeking to clarify deficiencies in the text books “the agreed to lies”.

Tom

Zinn addresses the atrocities committed upon the indigenous people of the Americas…right or wrong. Other histories I studied in school were silent on the topic. Zinn’s John Brown, though brief, is most likely as accurate as any in print…most histories either ignore him or write him off as a nut who led a gang of lunatics. Zinn cuts through government double talk, lies and obfuscation around the nation’s military misadventures. (Remember, in times of war, the first casualty is the truth). All things considered, I’d rather read Zinn than Kissinger if I’m looking for truth.

Through high school and college, my kids were never introduced to Zinn…until I brought him into the house and explained his work. I would have much preferred that they study Zinn rather than the dumb-ass Oliver Stone movie they viewed in high school (JFK).

A search for syllabus+history+Zinn+”A People’s History” limited to .edu domains yields 310 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=syllabus+history+zinn&as_epq=A+People%E2%80%99s+History&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

That is not a lot of action considering that a search for syllabus+history limited to .edu domains gets 939,000 hits! Of course many of the hits for both searches (especially the second) turn out not to be syllabi but blog posts or articles or whatever, so we should not make any claims about percentages of courses using Zinn. But we surely can say that his is not widely assigned in the academy.

Furthermore, many of those who are using Zinn seem to be using the same way as Kevin and some other commenters here, as an example of one-sided history to compare and contrast. For example Tom Johnson at Yosemite Community College assigns three books in History 17: Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition; Johnson, A History of the American People; and Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. Not a bad historiographic tour right there.

Now, a few professors are accompanying Zinn with Loewen’s Lies My Teacer Told Me or Ehrenreich’s Nickle and Dimed, so the leftist indoctrinating professors of William’s steamy imagination do exist, they are just not very common.

Woodrowfan is 100% correct that Zinn is a favorite of non-historians on the left. I cannot tell you how many times at faculty gatherings a colleague from English or Geology or somesuch will brighten when they learn I am in history and want to talk about a wonderful book, either Zinn or Loewen. The conversation never goes well.

Great conversation here.

I am currently having my students in US History read an article on both interpretations and I am discussing how historians have revised their ideas on Reconstruction. This seems to be a more productive way to discuss history and historical analysis than just bashing one set of ideas and elevating another.

I read Zinn’s _A People’s History of the United States,_ and though I disagree vociferously with Zinn on just about everything, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It certainly made me think. Do I agree with his interpretation? No. And I agree completely about the narrowness of his focus on certain subjects. But I did enjoy the intellectual challenge. Also, looking at Mr. Williams’ charges, it looks like any use of the book is looked on as some type of bad thing, even if it’s used in a historiography course that talks about various historical interpretations. Normally we should read an author’s book before discussing that author’s interpretation.

Regards,
Cash

I’ve been associated with history in higher education for 12 years now, as a graduate student and an instructor in the “liberal” big city (i.e. Chicago). I’ve only encountered Zinn in conversations ~outside~ the academy and in used bookstores. I have not read and do not own the book. So, Richard Williams = small-time David Horowitz?

- Tim