Analysis of a People's History of the United States

A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn Howard Zinn’s retelling of America’s past shocks audiences with it stark honesty and brutality. Heroes that have been idolized for hundreds of years are ripped from their pedestals and the audience sees revolutionary events from the eyes of the ignored and voiceless. Columbus, the sinless hero that is credited for the discovery of the new world, is publicized as a heartless, conscienceless, executioner who maliciously annihilated native american communities due to a blinding greed for gold and power. An unedited account of what everyday life was like for slaves in pre­revolutionary America. The book goes on to portray one of the impactful and inspiring events in American and World history as a scheme for the upper­class in the colonies to acquire more wealth while controlling the lower classes. Modern day American’s were told the story in a completely different way. Many historians and readers have criticized Zinn’s work, David Flynn states, “Zinn utters perhaps the most honest words of A People’s History of the United States in the conclusion of the book’s 1995 edition, conceding that his work is “a biased account”(Flynn 6). But if Zynn knows that his work is biased, then why would he write it? Howard Zynn wrote A People’s History of the United States with one goal, to show the perspective of the story that has been ignored or unknown. He says in the introduction to his book, “ Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves... I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past's fugitive moments of compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare” (Zynn 7­8). Zynn choose to retell the history of the US that was previously swept under the rug. Zynn writes

to show the perspective that is not shown in most history books, but he acknowledges that his perspective is not the only one worth seeing. He clarifies this here “I don't want to invent victories for people's movements...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”(Zynn 8). Zynn aims to show the side of the story where even though the losers lost, they still have a story. The losers still have their own account of the story that is lost when the victor retells it. “History is written by the victor” is what Zynn is trying to break away from, the victory tends to downplay the brutality and force it used to win. Zynn also claims that history is sugar­coated in order to justify what happened in the past, when really nations should take responsibility and admit to themselves what they did and move on, treating is as a “necessary evil”. Zynn explains” We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly”(Zynn 7). What Zynn’s real message throughout the text is: Although American History appears to show the full, candid, honest story, it is actually intentionally omitting of information and only shows one side of what actually happened. Zynn argues that factors such as race and social class drastically changes how a persons perspective on history. Social class and race plays a major role in A People’s History of the United States. Zynn shows how being a different race or being in a lower social class drastically changes how a person sees the world and what kind of life they have. White landowners would record this time period in a positive attitude, due to the fact that they have influence in the government, have rights, are wealthy, and all the

work falls on the backs of their slaves. Zynn shows this in the text, “ Rich merchants erected mansions; persons "of Qualitie" traveled in coaches or sedan chairs, had their portraits painted, wore periwigs, and filled themselves with rich food and Madeira..."In Newport, Rhode Island, Bridenbaugh found, as in Boston, that "the town meetings, while ostensibly democratic, were in reality controlled year after year by the same group of merchant aristocrats, who secured most of the important offices..."(Zynn 27). On the other hand, Slaves were treated as animals, being abused, beaten, overworked, underfed, killed, etc. without any of the upper class batting an eye. Not only African American’s, but also lower class servants disdainfully. They did not own land so they could not vote, and they also did not have any rights. From the perspective of the slaves and the servants, this time would be looked back upon bitterly and angrily. In this time period as well as almost all others, a person race and social class determine what happens to that person and what they go through. These experiences provide a completely different story and perspective than those who lived a different life. In an interview with Zynn he states,“Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable. It’s not possible because all history is subjective; all history represents a point of view”(Zynn 14). Zynn goes on to say that teachers should not be afraid of giving their perspective on history. Most schools aim to give students an objective version of history, but that alteration in what is being taught is biased. Teacher’s should be allowed and encouraged to express how they view history and what their perspective is. Teachers and students have different experiences and different ideas then each other and if they were to be allowed to share those ideas then they both have the opportunity to gain a new perspective on history and see it in a way that was before impossible. If teachers had a perspective of an event that wasn’t told in a history book it would give students a clearer picture of history that is only shown through one set of eyes.

Throughout his book however, Zynn only shares one side of the story. One of the greatest examples of this is Zinn's retelling of the Pequot war. Zynn tells a story of helpless, harmless, innocent Pequot Indians that were brutally murdered by the soulless Puritans . Zynn tells, “ Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective...So the English set fire to the wigwams of the village... It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fyer, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stincke and sente there of (Zynn 10)". A criticizer of Zynn, Daniel Flynn, however tells a different story, ”[T]hey took two men out of a boat, and murdered them with ingenious barbarity, cutting off first the hands of one of them, then his feet,” writes 19th century historian John Gorham Palfrey about the Pequots’ assaults upon settlers. “Soon after, two men sailing down the river were stopped and horribly mutilated and mangled; their bodies were cut in two, lengthwise, and the parts hung up by the river’s bank. A man who had been carried off from Wethersfield was roasted alive. All doubt as to the necessity of vigorous action was over, when a band of a hundred Pequots attacked that place, killed seven men, a woman, and a child, and carried off two girls(Flynn 3)”. This cause of the Pequot war, is completely taken out of Zynn’s telling of the story. The innocent indians actually mutilated and tortured people to death, according to Zynn however that never happened. The line between real and fake becomes blurred between these two historians that have very contradicting

accounts of the Pequot war. Zynn, portraying them as the victim, while Flynn, portrays them as the aggressors. According to the Pequot Museum and Research Center, Flynn is giving the true cause of the Pequot war, “Trader John Stone and his crew in the Connecticut River were murdered by the Pequot in the summer of 1634. Although the Pequot provided several explanations for Stone’s death, all of which suggested they viewed their actions as justified, the English felt they could not afford to let any English deaths at the hands of Natives go unpunished. As tensions grew between all parties, the murder of trader John Oldham by the Manisses Indians of Block Island in July, 1636 resulted in a military response by the English of Massachusetts Bay that led directly to the Pequot War (Pequot Muesum)”. However, it does not mention the mutilation or hands being removed or the kidnapping of children. Both Zynn’s and Flynn’s retelling of this event seem to go to extremes, with neither of them containing the whole truth. The Pequot War is not the only historical event that Zynn and Flynn have fought over. Another event that is told two very contrasting ways in the American Revolution. Zynn portrays the American Revolution as a scapegoat for the upper class in the colonies to use in order to get the lower class to look up to them and also to gain more wealth. Zynn states, “Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of

potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.” While Flynn tells the classic story of 13 colonies that want freedom and liberty and their own rights. While the Flynn version of the story is what people want to believe, that the founding fathers cared about the rights of everyone that lived in the colonies and wanted to bring freedom to America, Zynn’s version is more believable. A united upper class trying to keep the lower class at bay while also seeing an opportunity for more weath sounds more believable. The rich and powerful trying to become more rich and power makes more sense than the rich and powerful trying to spread the power and wealth among everyone. While Zynn’s version of American History may be extremely , closed minded, and not completely true , there is still a lot to learn from it. Zynn gives a perspective that has never been seen before and even though it might not all be true, most of it is based on first hand accounts so there is a reason he wrote it. Zynn’s A People’s History of the United States is a good accessory piece to a text book that cover the conventional side of the story because only have one perspective will give someone an incorrect view of history. Classes should not be taught on just this book because of how narrow and close minded it is but it does provide interesting insight to what the other side of the war is experiencing. Over all Zynn’s side of the story is definitely one that should be heard because it is the side that is not focused on or is purposely ignored.