I'm still thinking about this one...

Me too!  Still thinking.

That book has a way of blowing away any last vestiges of the "myth of American exceptionality" that may still be sequestered in one's mind. As much as I want to view our history as one of freedom sought and freedom found, when I remember what it took to give freedom to some of us, I remember how many people lost theirs to give it to us. Humans: that's what we are. And all we can be without something from outside of our system of self-seeking getting inside of us and altering our natures from the inside out. This possiblity is what gives me hope and resignation. I know that some will choose to be altered, but most will not even recognize the merits of it.

So given your reading of this book, what do you see as the author's position on what we do from here? Obviously, you stated what you felt was the only political solution you could think of...but then you countered that you would not likey support it if it happened. Do you have any sense of what we should do now?

First off, I think I should say that what I wrote is my interpretation of a perspective of history. I don't think that there is one way to look at history, or one correct point of veiw, but I do think this perspective of the history of the United States is a valuable one and a coherent one. There is no reason to be in the dark about any government, even your own... This is a history of the United States and those connected with it, but if one were to write A People's History of... Russia, Britain, Bolivia, Australia, I think it would look much the same. What makes America different is its attempt to justify tyranny in moral terminology and reason, and the means by which it does it... first, shaping America popular opinion and then saying that the American people's opinion is the "world's" opinion. It's simply naive to think that what went on back in the 1800s isn't still happening today, just in more subtle and complex ways due to social, economic, and technological advancement.

My question is, what does this mean for me? How do I live my life knowing what I know? If I trully am, in some way, a slave to opinion and logic that I've been bread to accept and defend, what do I do about that? Should I side with the rich because it will benefit me, or should I side with the poor because they aren't rich. I can't just see a poor person and automatically think, "Oh someone must have done some injustice to him otherwise he would be rich otherwise." I don't think that's necessarily true; even though it may be very true in some cases and at least partly true in all cases. I think it would be fair to say that Zinn thinks violent demonstration as morally acceptable, and I can say that, in most cases, the examples he gives are not unjustifiable. But could I participate in those demonstrations or movements? To not participate, in some sense, is to justify the tyranny because I cannot separate myself from the struggle; I am part of the struggle. But what of non-violent discontent? We see in history where non-violence has accomplished things, but things which I would consider concessions of the system not the destruction of the system. When I say system I mean the system of corporatism and the philosophy of social classes and feudal-like social structures. But is such a system destructable? The reasonability of another system escapes me. Mostly because I thought for so long that's what America was at its heart, but it's not, only a more subtle example of the same system.

To a casual reader, Zinn's account of the indian nations and way of life might seem like an arguement for their validity as a people that had rights to the land that we stole from them, which is well made. But I get a strong sense that Zinn feels that the Indian social structure was the ideal, and if it trully was as he describes it, I would tend to agree, reluctantly. I sense this is a bias of his, and that Indian society and culture were not as fine as he makes it sound, but even so, it brings many questions to my mind about how some of what they believed could be implemented in society today. That said, I think it is a timely point to make that the population size for the world make such a system, and many positive changes that could be made, nearly impossible.

If there is a thing I have learned from my reading thus far, it is that to be moderate is just as contradictory as to be extreme in either direction. You enevitibly hurt one group and help another without doing anything but buy groceries from Wal-Mart and watch CNN or take subsidies. You can't be an adsentee in this struggle morally or realistically. But in the end, it seems to me that if your are going to err, err on the side of the "common man." I just haven't figured out who that is yet exactly. Can you define him by average yearly earnings? If that is so, the common man is certainly not an American.

One thing I have firmly decided, there has been no change in the pattern of human history since it began; all the supposed changes that we see or are told about are merely a changing of hands in human domination and power. It seems to me a paradox much like the hand of Midas, I don't want him to have the touch of gold but neither am I prideful enough to think I can take it from him without becoming a faxsimily of his tyranny.

I have not read this book.  I went online to see what information and maybe excerpts I could find for Zinn's book.  And I came across this article.  It is not particularly flattering towards the book but I thought it very interesting.  If you are so inclined take the time to read it.  I knew nothing about this book until Nathan mentioned it.  And it sounded like a good history book.  I was surprised to read how cynical this writer came across to the person writing the article.  Although maybe I should have picked up on that based on what Nathan was saying but for some reason it just did not take on that persona..it seemed more of a 'this is what really happened' but not necessarily extremely cynical.  Very interesting.  See what you think.

Thank you very much for sharing this article. I read it and found it very interesting. Certainly the book is biased, but it's refreshing to me in that I know it is. As I said in a later comment, this is a perspective of American history, I don't know that there is a correct perspective, but at least I know what Zinn's perspective is; I don't have to read between the lines. The person who wrote this review obviously didn't agree with this perspective and didn't find it valuable either; even showing a little bewilderment at other scholars that do. He certainly wished to trivialize Zinn's perspective with as much furvor as Zinn did with other political complexities in history. There is no Complete History of the United States, the one who attempted to write such a book would certainly fail miserably, and there are also other factors about your personal experience that make certain perspectives more obvious and legitimate. I, myself, will always lean in some senses to the view of history that Zinn has for reasons which are not totally obvious to me. Even so, I picked up on the fact quite quickly in the book when Zinn told of how some Unions in the Cuban War were originally in favor of it for self-serving reason. This I feel is a very important fact to acknowledge when talking about that war, wars in general, and when discussing socialism. Here we see an elitist group in the United States heavily pushing for this war with Cuba for reasons which were certainly malicious, but that of course we should expect. Remember this editorial never denied the elite, just the degree to which they diviate from popular opinion. And here we see the central unit of socialism of the time, the union, acting against another country, admittedly, by Zinn, for its own benefit. This, I think is key, to the legitimacy of certain types of socialism and socialism as a whole because a major part of socialistic theory surrounds groups of people that fall under many different categories and types that are supposed to be the manifestation of "direct action" or true democracy in government. My question is, what is to keep these groups from following there own personal interests or even communal interests as a group to get what is best for them, as was the fate of several unions in those times. If so, how can socialism function for the 'greater good' of humanity without espousing capitalistic ideas?

With all that said, I do believe there is an elite and that class conflicts are important because they show us how we are doing as a country. The stark history of what the government has done to discontented Americans is not a matter of debate. Also, if a country must have true markets to be a true capitalist country, America is not one, and niether is it socialistic in the orginal meaning of the word. Most modern countries are what is called mixed economises, which in it's realistic form, I believe, means the government helps the corporate world through massive subsidy and tells the common man to flip the bill in many coercive ways. This seems to be almost irrefutable in the times that we live in today. Everyone is asking whose going to pay the billion dollar bailouts?

I believe there is a complexity in history that can only be expressed by a mixture of writings with varying world views and perspectives. To address these complexities is impossible is a short editorial, as it is always easier to be critical of another than to defend yourself. With that in mind I would encourage you to read the book for yourself. I usually don't try to read any reaction or review of a book of this type, until I have made my own opinions, because a great amount of truth can be missed when draped in a cloak of misleading logic however reasonable it might be.