Over the last four days I have been devouring Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I read something like two hundred and fifty pages, my eyes more or less glued to the text whenever I had the chance. The book is radically altering my perception of United States History. From the beginning I was entranced, because, for one, the man's writing is easy to lose yourself in. Besides the main body, he quotes eloquent, primary sources at least once a page on average, like this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060937319/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/103-6033870-3565444?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link) (skip a few pages to where it gets to Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress). The only shortcoming of the book is that a basic knowledge of standard-textbook U.S history is required.

"My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all)--that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth."
Here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060937319/qid=1056678164/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-6033870-3565444)

Although I've only read up to the beginning of the 20th century, I've learned an immense deal of new information. I had no idea that when the constitution was originally written you had to have property to vote, and, although I knew that the government had oppressed the Native Americans, now I had a source that really put it into context for me. To put it bluntly, we wiped them out, and lied to them on countless occasions. Their culture was annihilated. Also listed throughout the text I've read so far are the many riots and strikes that dominated the latter half of the 19th century, the labor movements that ever so slowly slackened the iron grip of the upper classes (some of which were familiar names, like Rockefeller and J.P Morgan). There is so much more to get to, however I should leave it to you, reader, should you decide to open up and give People's History a shot.

America-Haters, communists and traitors should now have an educated reason to hate America (if they even lack one at all), and Patriots should take a closer look at the Fifty States that they so adore. I thought my view of American history was far to the left, but reading through this has allowed me to conclude that my preconcieved notions were nothing more than propaganda spun from the Government's Education System, and that, while I was heading in the right direction, there was a staggering amount of new, true, quoteddata that I had never encountered before. It makes me sick, to find this epiphany, to realize in context that the comfort we live and revel in now is due to the toils, labors and deaths of millions and millions of people. And all at the hands of the upper class, the one-percent-that-owned-thirty-five-percent-of-the-wealth. It just didn't have to be that way.

The only way to keep it from happening again is to remember our mistakes. To remember the land we stole from the Native Americans, from the Mexicans. To remember the millions upon millions (no exaggeration) that we enslaved and stole from, that we made unnecessary war upon, and that we heedlessly destroyed.

"The nationalist not only refuses to believe atrocities by his own nation; he also refuses to hear about them." -- George Orwell

My only request is that you at least consider reading this book. In exchange, I'll at least consider anything you propose. All I ask is that you propose one book at a time.

The thing that always stuns me about the US educational system is that that level of critical analysis of US history just isn't there, unless you happen to be in a Richard Dreyfuss classroom.
Whereas, at least in Ireland, that's just not the case. We're taught about 1916 for example - but those involved aren't deified. Say that De Velera was a self-serving politician, and you don't get the same reaction you'd get if you said it about Washington.
Maybe we're just more cynical.

In a word, it's incredible. Truly, truly, truly, truly incredible. I've let the topic run through my head too long, and now I feel betrayed, utterly betrayed. For almost my entire life (up until a few years ago) I thought the US had been, for the whole of its history, the glimmering beacon of hope for inhabitants of the darker lands of the world, and yet, this is just simply not the case.

I think you've touched on a significant problem of our times. It's not really how sinister the past is, but rather disparities between the collective American self-image and the perceptions of America the rest of the world is evolving.

American denial of our own history cripples us in many ways. There is a fear response to confronting the past because smugness and comfort are more agreeable, and on a deeper level, it may be sensed that the "American Dream" is a critical element of national cohesion. Along with all the recent flag-waving and sabre-rattling, there is an obvious insecurity underlying the bluster.

I have many reasons to dislike the policies and history of the US but a few more can't hurt ^_^.

Only joking i will definatly look this up and have a good read but not to give me ammo to fire at Americans simply for self education.
As less biased as my education and historical knowledge maybe vis a vi the US it would be nice to learn a bit more and get some insights into the States.

I've just finished up a lot of reading on the History of China especially around the Cultural revolution and Mao's time and it's pretty heart breaking reading.
So its time to start looking at the rest of the world.

Its true that we are making the same mistakes again and its helped by the fact that so many are just unwilling to look back on history with their eyes truely open and accept whats happened and what mistakes have been made and why we should not do them again.
But then its easier to not look back and let the tide carry you with the events as you hug yourself and feel warm tellin yourself its all good, and the world is at peace.

Ive been reccommended Zinn by a friend, forcefully, i think I'll get off my backside and get some now.

I find that much of history makes me annoyed, at what was done, deliberately and not, the sheer nastiness that went on, leaving no country innocent.

hypewaders is right, its that peopel outside the USA can see the USA without rose tinted glasses (although of course there is bias there as well.) and therefore many americans jsut cant understand the differences in views. Its also important to consider actual outcomes rather than the intentions, becuase that is a very useful way of decieving yourself. "oh, we meant it for the best" is a cry that often goes up.

Along with all the recent flag-waving and sabre-rattling, there is an obvious insecurity underlying the bluster.

The same thing was happening before, under the Mckinley administration, during the late 1800s in the war with Spain over Cuba, which (correct me if I'm wrong, it's either Cuba or the Philipines) was voted to not be a state by only a margin of one. But the parallels I've seen between the patriotism now and the patriotism then are really astounding. Also, the Spanish seriously got their asses handed to them, just like the Iraqis.

I think you've touched on a significant problem of our times.

Ahhh, but how to solve it? My elementary school class, excluding one or two individuals, and for a time even myself, had no interest in history or social science. It was just another batch of homework to do, of textbooks to read and linear questions to answer. It wasn't interesting. Then, when I got to High School, for reasons that will undoubtedly forever escape me, I began to find an interest in history, coupled with taking a phenomenal class called Media Politics and Power (we studied Herman and Chomsky:D) I was unstoppable.

And yet, now that I take the highest classes my High School offers for social studies, and find myself surrounded by more individuals with similar interests, I still find that there is that pervasive vacuum of knowledge, of past American history. It's just a blank. The elite have done a phenomenal job, and as a result I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that we are starting to relapse into those dark times, in the early industrial era, where the working man labored extensively to be paid fairly and to be truly able to live and pursue happiness.

Isn't the ratio something like one stealth bomber equals a hundred or a thousand public schools? Mind boggling, really...

If we don't remember, if we don't work hard to uncover our past and ensure that we do not repeat our mistakes, as we have been doing undoubtedly since the birth of civilization, we will relapse. I think most Americans live in a paradise compared to the rest of the world now and the rest of the world over the course of human history. Now that we have something nice, the risk of losing it carries consequences that could set the evolution of society back hundreds and hundreds of years.

I've said too much. Too long a post.

No no, not too long a post at all. I just got that book today, went into the bookstore not really expecting to find it, scanned the shelves then found it sitting right in front of me. Interesting read.

It's not such a simple proposition to ascribe the condition of complete dominance of information. The expansion of internet for one has something to do with this phenomena. The pendulum of restrictive information practices versus open access has to be readjusted. Moreover the beast is dying a slow death of imperial overstretch. Think of it as ebb and flow: McCarthyism then Freedom of Information and Nixon then Patriot Act and Total Information.

Information is not being granted with greater ease, instead there has been found a method to convince people of this lie. Often it is done by contrast in comparing the rights granted by third world dictatorships to those we have. There will never be had a conversation of comparative governments between Canada or Europe.

A new pardigm of omission and expansion of lesser subject has pervaded our media. People are occupying two foreign territories and dying and the news is centered around domestic murder trials. These trials are wholly unremarkable and more importantly are not considered in a statistical view, a feature defying common news in that it would be useful. In fact a pattern has emerged whereby the media coverage of these trials directly relate to the outbreak of war.

It is a wholly disgusting condition.

The same thing was happening before, under the Mckinley administration, during the late 1800s in the war with Spain over Cuba, which (correct me if I'm wrong, it's either Cuba or the Philipines) was voted to not be a state by only a margin of one.

Pollux, you're either misquoting Zinn or either he got it wrong. There was never a question of either the Philippines or Cuba being given statehood, and certainly there was no vote on it. Cuba was granted independence in 1902 (with the US maintaining a 99 year lease to Guantanamo Bay, which was later re-negotiated to be permanent, and retained the right to intervene if necessary, which ended in '59). The vote you're speaking of was the vote on whether to annex the Philippines as a territory of the US, not to admit it as a state. According to the Constitution, territories are governed by Congress, presumably until it is ready for statehood. This is where the argument lay. Those against annexation said that annexed territories had to be admitted as states if they met the requirements for statehood, as had been done on the NA continent. They feared not only Filipinos having the right to be represented in Congress and voting for the president, but also because it would be easy for Chinese to enter the Philippines and then legally come to the continental US, thus getting around Chinese anti-immigration laws. Pro-annexationists said that the Constitution didn't specifically state that statehood was guaranteed, only that Congress governed a territory (Art. IV, sect. 3). Annexation of the Philippines passed in the Senate by one vote, which shocked the anti-annexationists, who had believed they had the 2-3 extra votes in Congress to block it (probably some backroom porkbellying swung a couple of last minute votes). Interestingly, there is still an expansionist party in the Philippines that wants statehood.

The thing that always stuns me about the US educational system is that that level of critical analysis of US history just isn't there, unless you happen to be in a Richard Dreyfuss classroom.

Sparks, no offense, but I'm not sure you have any real idea what goes on in an American classroom. You're assuming.

Sparks, no offense, but I'm not sure you have any real idea what goes on in an American classroom. You're assuming.
You're correct in that I've never attended an American school Spyke - I'm basing my opinion on the many first-hand accounts I have received from american friends and from the comments made on the US educational system by US teachers over the years.

You're correct in that I've never attended an American school Spyke - I'm basing my opinion on the many first-hand accounts I have received from american friends and from the comments made on the US educational system by US teachers over the years.

I understand, and I've no doubt you are correct in some cases. I've no doubt that some district school systems are lax in their materials, and I also am quite sure that some individual teachers aren't up to the task, which I find a crime. However, I don't think it's fair to issue a sweeping indictment of the American education system as a whole. It was the challenges presented by both my HS history and poli/sci teachers that pushed me to want to know more, both in college, and as an avid amateur reader of both history and politics.

I remember looking through my nephew's HS US history textbook last year and being amazed at just how much it challenged the ideas of traditional history from even when I was in school (I was concerned because I have one child entering HS this year, and another a year behind), and certainly it is much different from when my parents were in HS in the early 40s. He also showed me an argument on constitutional law he was having to present (on the nullification theory in the 1830s). I believe that in most cases the material is there for the teachers to present to the students. I admit it may be better in some districts than others because money constraints may force some districts to buy weaker textbooks and limit avaliability of computers, where they have easy access to virtually unlimited articles. But in cases where they do have access to these tools and if they're still not getting it it is because their teachers are either unqualified or lax (either is unsatisfactory), and because there is not enough focus through state testing to see that they are getting it. The Gateway exams focus on knowledge in math, English, and biology, and doesn't pay enough attention to humanities, IMO, so it is impossible to gauge what students are being taught in those areas.