The Case Against Howard Zinn

Over the last eighteen years, I have taught U.S. history with the last fourteen years spent teaching its Advanced Placement variety.  During those fourteen years, I’ve used American Pageant, one of the more popular textbooks used in AP classes throughout the country.  However, it is not the one about which people talk.  That distinction falls to the late Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.  It is a favorite among liberals and some university professors.  Mr. Zinn, who died of a heart attack in 2010, wrote this account, ostensibly, to give voice to the historically mute.  Instead, he created a book that is neither history nor particular deserving of its reputation.   

At the center of the debate is the role of the historian.  Famed American historian Arthur Schlesinger once said that Howard Zinn was not a historian but rather a polemicist.  Through various professions, we see people moving away from objectivity and towards personal opinion.  Journalists have forgone any and all pretense of objectivity and use their paradigm to present and comment on the news.  Mr. Zinn made a career of doing the same through the prism of U.S. history.  History professor Eric Foner of Columbia University called A People’s History of the United States as “deeply pessimistic” and this partly explains Mr. Zinn’s impact on the study of the United States history.  We complain about young people having little knowledge and even less appreciation of our country’s history.  Why should they?  When the mark of a “good professor” or history writer is based on how much one tears down the country and its efforts, is it little wonder that teens find nothing appealing. 

Mr. Zinn and his supporters would likely say that the United States, as a people and as a government, have done horrible things and it would be irresponsible to not present such events.  Fair enough but the “crimes” of the U.S. are presented as something unique and not common place when imperfect people seek to create a perfect union.  Every country has done horrible things but the mark of a great country is the tireless effort to get it right.  The U.S. has displayed their crimes for all to see and have openly attempted to deal with its past mistakes.  For every mistake the country has committed, it has been followed by a sincere attempt to right the wrong.  This does not invalidate a nation and its objectives – it is a mark of a great country.  Mr. Zinn’s pessimism is misguided and ultimately harmful to the country in the long run.   

The second major criticism of Howard Zinn’s work, in particular that of his famed textbook, is that it fails in its usage of historiography.  German historian Leopold von Ranke pioneered the usage of primary and secondary resources as a means of better understanding the past and to do so more accurately.  However, Mr. Zinn never approached his study in that manner.  It was so bad, that other history professors have railed against it for years.  Christopher Phelps, an American historian, once said that many historians have looked at Mr. Zinn’s work with equal portions of exasperation or condescension.  So bad was his use of primary resources, historian Oscar Handlin of Harvard University said it was unfair to critically judge A People’s History because, unlike a true historical tome, the survey book was “patched together from secondary sources…torn out of context.”  Herein lies the more heinous component of Howard Zinn’s textbook – it depends on people not understanding history to be effective.   

I’ve often said that just because Oliver Stone’s JFK was pure propaganda and not history did not mean it was not a good film.  The same could be said of A People’s History.  Still, within the walls of academia, standards should be higher.  Recently, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declared his opposition to Howard Zinn’s book from being used because of its bias makes it inappropriate.  If we are to rebuild the reputation of history instruction in the United States, we must begin with how we present the subject.  Mr. Zinn’s seminal work stands as the worst of historical scholarship and certainly, the American education system can do better.