Howard Zinn tackles the biases of historians in this important book. His thesis, which he explores with case after case, is that historians employ a double-standard with regard to covering history, basically serving a propagandistic role in our society, camouflaging the bad deeds of business and government, even as they claim to be objective and neutral outsiders.

It's a similar argument that's made with the media, and no less important here. He argues persuasively (and thoroughly) for a radical approach to history, changing the role of historian to sideline cheerleader for the status quo to active participant in true social change.

Because this book deals with a lot of history, it may be of limited interest to folks who aren't already into history, hence the four-star rating. But for anybody who does find history interesting, I strongly recommend it.

Howard Zinn is a teacher of social responsibility. This book breaks down American history into simple snapshots. He starts by examining who gains and who doesn't throughout history. The pattern is obvious. The government has had a long indifference to the poor. Zinn is a polished writer and a major force for good.

Zinn makes perhaps the best points in this book early on, in his first essay "Knowledge as a Form of Power." Here he quite correctly notes that academia in America (and this is equally valid elsewhere in the world) tends to produce mountains of "inconsequential studies" which do little to add to our general knowledge or understanding, much less provide a basis for future action. What makes this statement so damning is that Zinn first wrote it over 30 years ago, and it's still applies today. Most of the essays in this book are dedicated to arguing that history and other social sciences should be more socially active, and that its practitioners should not hide behind objectivity and neutrality but rather "put their knowledge to work." Zinn backs the latter point by noting that even in the 'hard' sciences there is subjectivity, which is what formulating theories is all about. Even so, several times he warns against omission or doctoring facts to suit the needs of idealism or ideologically driven agendas - in this context, he wisely includes this truism by Mannheim: "while ideology is the tendency of those in power to falsify, utopianism is the tendency of those out of power to distort." Zinn's views on scholarship and the philosophy of history are illuminating, and his specific essays dealing with the Ludlow Massacre during a miners' strike in Colorado in 1913, Hiroshima or the Allied bombing of the French town coastal town of Royan even after Nazi withdrawal (in which Zinn himself participated as a bombardier in U.S. warplane) provide a great deal of otherwise hard-to-find information and commentary on these events.

Inspirational, funny, moving. A time machine to a place called the 60's. This will open eyes and minds, give new awareness. Not for the shallow or ignorant.

After seeing 'Steal this movie', I had no choice but to learn more about this incredibly crazy man. This book is amazing...it made me laugh out loud, think, ponder the idea of getting out there and causing a ruckus in the name of freedom. His writing flows...like old friends reminicing about their life changing experiences. What an insane, beautiful man. I can only hope that there will be more like him to come...our country needs a good jousting in the ribs!

I picked this title up at a local used bookstore and decided to give it a look and see how it stood up to the current political climate. It seemed very relevant in spite of its age.

First of all, this essay - 'Disobedience and Democracy; Nine Fallacies on Law and Order' - is a direct response to a position against civil disobedience given by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas entitled 'Concerning dissent and civil disobedience'. Both were written in 1968 amidst considerable political turmoil on the issues of the Vietnam War and civil rights. I wish that I'd had a copy of Fortas' essay to refer to while reading Zinn's response, but instead I was left to take Zinn's interpretation of Fortas' document 'as gospel'. My other concern was that I was so far removed (over 30 years) from the atmosphere that ignited this asynchronous debate. In spite of these hurdles (which are the main reasons that the rating is reduced to 4 stars), I thoroughly enjoyed this short book/outlook.

Justice Fortas seems to advocate near blind obedience to the law (NOT for moral reasons, but for purely institutional integrity). Zinn exposes this to be counter to the revolutionary spirit which preempted the Constitution, as well as logically perverse to the idea of justice. At one point, Fortas apparently questions the value of Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience' which was instrumental in the advocacy of the abolitionist ideals of the time. Zinn gives him a thorough beating.

The idea of civil disobedience was so paramount to the growth of America in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and civil rights periods. It is necessary to prevent the stagnation of public policy, and to keep the law in tune with the people under it. Zinn does an excellent job of renewing my interest in this form of revolution with this book, and I heartily recommend it to those who may see the value of this American tradition in responding to the brewing conflicts of today - such as the death penalty, affirmative action, etc.

put aside the warm, fuzzy portraits of Office Friendly and harken back to a not too distant past, Chicago 1968, Kent State, 1970, the union strikes of the 1930s, the Bonus Army, the Poor People's March on Washington, World Bank protestors in Seattle and Washington, DC and a more realistic image of red faced and angry cops swinging night sticks, spraying pepper spray, chasing protestors, and really doing their jobs--protecting the status quo and the machinery of state.

Based on Zinn's literary challenge to Supreme Court Justie Abe Fortas's "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience," the author outlines nine fallacies where democracy fails and the iron fist of the state becomes a reality. Each one is punctuated with lucid commentary, historical examples clearly demonstrating where Justice Fortas only supports civil disobedience and dissent on his terms within the parameters established by the government.

Zinn points out throughout his analysis of the nine fallacies how creative the left could be with "CD" and how it serves as a safety valve for crisis much worse than disrupted traffic or blocking doors.

The details are important, the arguments flush with a fresh attitude of what has become a sometime tiresome left-wing ritual of march, demonstrations and planned CDs.

Part of what plagues the American people from organizing against the government's violence at home and abroad is a misplaced faith in institutions, particularly the courts, which are supposed to offer relief against injustice. If we placed as much energy and resources into our own efforts as we do the courts and the electoral process, the politicians might not feel so free to plague the American people with as much oppression and tyranny as they do.

Zinn's small but powerful work dissaudes the reader from any faith that the judiciary,the electoral process or any other mechanism established by government can solve the systemic problems facing the nation and the world, the world being as much a victim of American terrorism as the American people.

Zinn's work is a must read for a clear, convincing, well documented and thought-provoking perspective into the American system not, as Rush Limbaugh styles it, "The Way Things Ought to Be" but the way they really are.

In this collection, Howard Zinn, a reputable historian and political activist, has compiled numerous essays and articles regarding the hypocrisy of global foreign policy and the lunacy/horror of war.
Zinn's analysis digs through the surface rhetoric and explanations given by governments in regards to the wars and imperialist tendencies that fuel the power of these nations. He exposes the deeper truths that guide nations' foreign policy agendas. His article, Aggressive Liberalism, illustrates the two-sidedness of American foreign policy, citing the numerous acts of unchecked aggression that the U.S. has unleashed on smaller, weaker nations. One of the most interesting thoughts expounded by Zinn is the belief held by many Americans that the U.S. is seeking to improve the interests of these occupied nations through the use of American imperialism.
However, Zinn doesn't overtly slam the "American way of life," or the institutions of America. Rather Zinn makes his statements through careful study and cites irrefutable evidence supplied by history in supporting his claims.
Although Zinn is a dissident that sticks in the craw of more conservative America, his essays and article provide much food for thought, regardless of ones position on the political spectrum. This collection will certainly fuel discussion on a variety of topics.

I am a great admirer of Zinn's brand of radical politics as well as his revisionist history. Here he collects a series of his anti-War essays into one slim but excellent volume. Never have I seen the case for pacifism made so well, recommended to readers of all political stripes, even if you disagree with Zinn's notions you'll find the book insightful and easy to read. I especially enjoyed the WW 2 parts, since this is typically viewed as a 'good war'.

Zinn is despised by traditional historians, especially conservative ones, mostly for daring to hold unorthodox views, as a rule such talk seems ill founded. However he is also criticized for the sloppiness of his scholarship, and I was disturbed to find an example of that here, Zinn says:

"Bombing Ethiopia in 1935, Mussolini's son-in-law Count Ciano described the explosions as an aesthetic thrill, having the beauty of a flower unfolding."

The quote that Zinn refers to is from Vittorio Mussolini, Mussolini's SON (who wrote a book called Flying Over Ethiopian Mountain Ranges) and not Ciano, here is the actual quote:

"one group of horsemen gave me the impression of a budding rose unfolding as the bomb fell in their midst and blew up. It was exceptionally good fun"

In a sense, this does not detract from Zinn analysis, since he was commenting on something that was actually said, and making a point about how fascist regimes glorify war. The point is still valid, even if Zinn has attributed the quote to the wrong Mussolini relative. It is disturbing in that it displays certain sloppiness with the facts and a relative unfamiliarity with prominent figures of the period.

A few months ago I read Howard Zinn's pre-september 11th book "Zinn on War." I found it extremely touching and thought provoking. Zinn once again captures that feeling with the newest book from the Open Media publishing movement.

"Terrorism and War" is a collection of interviews (both Zinn and Chomsky are at their best when speaking, as their writing is too scholarly.) Throughout, Zinn speaks about our need and Constitutionally protected right to dissent, or more specifically, our right to oppose war.

Packed with news accounts and historical facts (10% of the book is notes and index), Zinn systematically proves that the war on terrorism, as currently being waged, is not a just response and will only make things worse in the future. He is not opposed to a response, even a violent one, but he feels that the bombing of Afghanistan and the targeting of Iraq are unjust and incredibly harmful to us.

Read this book, then debate the war with someone you know who either supports it or is unsure. There is a very large group of people who, if given a dose of truth, will start seeing both sides of the story. Save yourself the time and ignore the ones who actively support the war, they will just call you un-American and nothing you say will change their closed hawkish minds.

Highly recommended - Discuss this book!!

"Terrorism and War" is based on a series of interviews given by Howard Zinn in late 2001 and early 2002, regarding current events such as the bombing of Afghanistan, the "war on terrorism" in general, and the terrorist attacks of September 11th. As should come as no surprise to readers familiar with Dr. Zinn's writing and opinions, he denounces all three events, arguing that while the events of September 11th were horrible atrocities, killing people around the world in a potentially endless war (whose targets currently include residents of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and many other countries) is no solution - and quite possibly could simply exacerbate the problem. Altogether convinced that "we must do something" to respond to 9/11, he is just as certain that we must not respond with bombs and war.

What I appreciated more than the arguments made for this case (which can be found in the literature of any self-respecting progressive or anti-war organization) are the chances that the questioner gives Dr. Zinn to explain his personal views on various aspects of war, pacifism, patriotism, civil liberties and politics, both in the present day and throughout history. As a veteran of the "Good War" who has come to believe that there is no such thing as a 'good war,' Zinn explains the reasoning that lead him to this conclusion, demonstrating warfare's inability to improve the world and discussing viable alternatives to mass killing.

In this well-organized publication, Zinn is also able to fire back at attackers who have accused him (and others) of "blaming America first" (a reference to the 1940s pseudofascist pro-Nazi organization 'America First'). Comparing this to the tactics used by McCarthyists in the 1950s, he illustrates how it is just a part of a largely successful effort to intimidate, marginalize and silence any who may be opposed to war or simply want to examine the roots of terrorism and "why they hate us". Neither Dr. Zinn nor this book are anti-American in any way; no one should be frightened away by any such baseless accusations.

All in all, this slim volume contains far more worthwhile discussion than I can summarize here. From optimism and alternatives for the future to America's historical support for global terrorism and anti-democratic forces, Dr. Zinn's considerable historical knowledge and capacity for critical analysis emanates from every page. Dozens of reference notes have been added by the editor to the text of the interviews, and the book includes a useful index, bibliography, and contact information for a variety of anti-war and alternative information sources. Excerpts from the Geneva Protocols are also included in an appendix. This short volume is an easy and informative read which I enthusiastically recommend to anyone who has a couple of hours to spare.

Zinn's latest collection of writings--a selection of interviews collected after 9-11--is an important expression of protest against the unjust and illegal war carried out against civilians. Using the the bombing of Afghanistan as its basis, this book examines the consequences and realities of a war supposedly directed against terrorism, which has left thousands of innocent civilians dead and transformed hundreds of thousands into homeless, starving refugees. While some, perhaps even many, would argue that these effects are simply the tragic, yet unintended, consequences of modern war. Tragic it certainly is, but as Zinn shows, the civilian deaths are of little concern to the US military and their allies, who glory in the use of so-called "smart bombs" that seem to be continually missing their "targets". Colin Powell has said in response to the question concerning the number of Iraqi dead during the Gulf War that "it's really not a number I'm terribly interested in", which shows little has changed since his involvement as an advisor during the Vietnam war. In fact, the bombing of civilian targets has been the preferred method of "breaking" the enemy spirit and dates back to at least World War Two and the carpet bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima. Thus the continuing use of this tactic from Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan is based on the same indefensible, immoral logic.

It is also interesting to note, as Zinn does, that this tactic embodies the same unconscionable actions we pretend to abhor and is itself a form of state terrorism. In addition to exposing the real nature of our war against terror, he also critically examines the reasoning put forth by our politicians and military leaders. Perhaps, more importantly, though, he directs our attention to the fact that so many simply believe these explanations at their word, and care little to investigate the merits of these policies, which have really devastating effects on many people around the world. Of course, as Zinn points out, the media isn't really doing anything to promote this kind of critical inquiry, they are doing precisely the opposite, which doesn't excuse us for not seeking out the facts that are out there, but may be a little more difficult to find. This book, for example is a fine place to start, in addition to the numerous alternative media outlets that constantly report on these issues. Ultimately, the final responsibility rests with us and as Zinn points out it is only through broad political and social involvement that real change can be achieved.

This book is not nearly as poignant as its inspiration, Zinn's A People's History of the United States. While Zinn's title will anger friends of the corporate world, millionaires, and the hopelessly-stuck-in-the-middle-class individuals who amazingly follow them, Iron's book is more objective.

The major strengths of the book are: the short biographies and stories of the people involved in the cases and the justices (how many people actually know who Plessy was?); a professional and informative, but not academic, writing style that will not alienate 99% of the public (hint: if you see a history book written by a professor, put it down and look for another - they write for other professors and themselves, not to add anything significant to the field of history); and the introduction detailing how the Constitution was created -- quite possibly the best telling of the story I have ever read.

Overall, a very good book and an ideal introduction to a history of the Supreme Court.

This book by professor Irons is fascinating. Very well written, tells a tale about the workings of power and Institutions in the U.S.; the devices and remedies that, from time to time, were instrumented by the Supreme Court of Justice, in the past 200 years, to limit or reaffirm the constitutional rigths of the people, according to the evolution of legal and political thought of the justices of the Court and the changes in public opinion and the mores, regarding fundamental issues at stake. It is a very interesting approach because not only provides sketches of the justices that constituted the soul of that body, but also deals with the persons that provided its food. The individuals that took a stand and fought for their rigths, are also portraited, and thus the history of the evolution of Constitutional law and the Supreme Court, aquires a meanigful and intimate perspective that you will not find in other books related with this subject. This book could be a nice introductory text to U.S. Constitutional law for students, but since it is a very accessible reading of fundamental issues that concern all citizens, I would recommend it strongly to the lay man, the common person in the street, so that he can better understand those that came before him, and those that will follow....

Peter Iron's book, A People's History of the Supreme Court, was a joy to read through all the many hours I was engrossed in this immense book. He puts his ideological cards on the table in the introduction and then, if you have any spark of liberal spirit inside you, you go along for the ride as Irons takes the reader through over two hundred years of siginificant cases of the Supreme Court. The great pleasure of this book is that it also allows the reader to see the personalities of both the court and the petitioners before the court. Dred Scott becomes more than the name of the decision. It is fascinating, too, how politics and legal decisions are weaved together in this epic book as they are in the actual decisions themselves. It was a wonderful book that demonstrated that the Constitution is for the people and the story of the Constitution is the story of the people.

This Review refers to the paperback edition of Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You, by Norman Solomon, and Reese Erlich and as introduced by Howard Zinn with an afterward by Sean Penn.

Target Iraq is a book of many aspects, covering varying topics relating to the recent Iraqi war from a pre-war perspective. The introductory chapters focus largely on the media and self-censorship, providing the reader with insight into how the larger media organizations conduct their operations. The book then goes on to describe the opinions of the Iraqi people, with both examples from public and private sources. After which it moves into the US propaganda campaigns and examples of why the majority of it is untrue, in the authors' opinions. Detailed in the later chapters is the use and visible consequences of depleted uranium, along with the UN resolution issues, and effects of the economic sanctions. Concluding the book is a chapter concerning US manipulation and discrediting of various aspects of the UN, followed by the motives for war. Also contained in the book is an introduction by Howard Zinn, afterward by Sean Penn, article by Seth Ackerman, Bush speech with analysis, and Resolution 1441 with analysis.

This book contains a nearly extreme bias at points; however, it does probe both sides of some aspects. It does manage to provide a decent overview of Iraqi public opinion, and properly warns that the opinions may change once the displacement of power takes place. There are also informative summaries concerning depleted uranium and the illegal no-fly zones.

The two authors, Solomon and Erlich, switch each chapter, giving the reader an interesting mixture of viewpoints. Solomon is the stronger literary presence throughout the book, yet is also quite lacking in his ability to back up his rather strong claims with proper evidence. The result is a shell of sorts, leaving the reader skeptical if they do not already have a proper background in the area. Erlich, on the other hand, wanders and is weaker in his content but stronger in his presentation of possible sources to collaborate his statements. Yet, Erlich has an intriguing literary form that allows the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. However, neither provides any form of a bibliography, forcing the unfamiliar reader through hours of research to verify their statements. There are also typographical errors in the appendices.

The private interview with the Iraqi civilian family is an invaluable insight into the opinions and thoughts of the Iraqi people. However, the literary styles and lack of sources subtracts heavily from the book. Overall, the book would have been a great and inspiring work, even after the war, had it been the recipient of proper source work and effort. Perhaps the authors could release an updated version with a proper list of sources.

This book brings up a few points that are not publicized in the main-stream media in regards to the situation in Iraq. It could be beneficial for those who don't read alternative press, and would like to familiarize themselves with a non-corporate media view. However, if you are looking for an in-depth analysis of the situation in Iraq, you might be disappointed in the book.

Personally, I thought that the chapter on self-censorship in the media was the most thought provoking.

"Target Iraq" is a must for anyone who is concerned about the truth in the upcoming war with Iraq. Both Norman Solomon and Reese Erlich went to great lengths to be fair and to state facts and the sources of information for these facts. The book is clear and concise in presenting a case against going to war with Iraq.

It is not just a book about a war with Iraq. It is a book that will educate you on what is going on in our government and the news media. Knowledge is power, and the knowledge gained from reading "Target Iraq" will allow the reader to cut through the deluge of bad information we receive daily concerning the war with Iraq. This is a book for those who wish to know the truth.

If you are tired of political talk shows that consist of appeals to emotion rather than fact, then this is the book for you. For example I was viewing a political talk show where one of the people in the discussion said that the Iraqi people would be "dancing in the streets" if American troops invaded Iraq. An interview of an Iraqi citizen that can be read in "Target Iraq" quickly dispels any such notion.

If you wish to understand the role played by our secretary of state Collin Powell than this is the book for you.

If you wish to understand why claims by the American news media that Iraq expelled U.N. inspectors in 1998 are not true than this is the book for you.

Sean Penn who recently traveled to Iraq with Norman Solomon writes a moving afterward that is an appeal to president Bush where Sean Penn shows his concern for our eroding civil rights, the young American men and women who will have to fight this war and the innocent civilians of Iraq.

Considering the ramifications and long term effects of a war with Iraq "Target Iraq" is one of the most important books written to date. I urge everyone who is concerned with the truth to read this book and to tell their friends about "Target Iraq." A democracy can only work if people are informed and this book does just that.

In the introduction to "Marx in Soho," Howard Zinn says that he "wrote the play at a time when the collapse of the Soviet Union brought an almost universal exultation in the mainstream press and among political leaders: not only was Marxism gone, but the ideas of Marxism were discredited." So Zinn wrote this play in which he sets out to show that "Marx's critique of capitalism remains fundamentally true in our time." In order to do this, Zinn invents a scenario in which Karl Marx is inexplicably returned to the land of the living (and to contemporary New York, no less) to defend his theories, reflect on his life, tell a few stories, and occasionally just talk. If this sounds like a weird way to defend Marxism, it is. But it does allow a passionate and excited (though fictional) Marx to talk to us directly in a more conversational and less academic or inflammatory manner. And while Zinn was bending the rules of time and history, he decided he'd go ahead and submit Marx's idea to an anarchist critique as well, and wrote in an account of a fictional night of drinking with Bakunin. This allows for what Zinn calls "a dialectic of opposing viewpoints," but interestingly so in a one-man play. The play humanizes Marx a little by spending time on Marx's family relationships.

Stylistically speaking, this play clearly has its weaknesses. A lack of interaction (there's only one character!) makes the dialogue the only show in town, so to speak, and thus puts a lot of weight on not-too-strong shoulders (Zinn's dialogue writing didn't wow me). And there are some really awkward stabs at humor. Those things said, I only read the play, and maybe I'd be surprised at how well this comes off in the hands of the right director. But what this play does succeed in doing is offering a succinct and engaging summary and interpretation of the writings and ideas of Karl Marx, and encourages further reading (even pointing the reader in the right direction at the end of the script). Myself, after finishing this I marched straight to the bookstore and picked up "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts," which I'd have to say I've gotten a lot out of and, dare I say it, even enjoyed.

ZInn is an extrordinary researcher/writer. One cannot merely breeze thru his work, along the way past the prologue, he/she gets absorbed - becomes part of the history.

in marx in soho - zinn takes a somewhat fictional attempt at bringing out Marx in a contemporary society. The monologue is short enough to breeze thru on an hour bus ride - that's how i read it.

AH! In typical Zinn fashion, "Marx in Soho" is a joy to read, especially for those of us who are already familiar with Marx. I would not recommend this book as "the first book on Marx" - but rather as a definite book to be included in any collection on Marx or on socialism, and, especially, in any collection of Zinn's brilliant and empowering works.

The one-man play is also a true pleasure to watch!

This mammoth book covers the Sacco / Vanzetti trial - probably the most tumultuous trial in the early part of last century. Sacco and Vanzetti were two Italian workers who were accused of murdering and stealing money from two payroll carriers in suburban Boston. The story is told through the use of a fictional character named Cornelia, who had lived a life with the rich and elite of Boston. After her husband dies, she wants to live life and takes a tough job in a rope factory. In seeking room and board, she meets and befriends Vanzetti. Experiencing the poor working conditions and associating with Vanzetti, she sees the abuse of the workers by the rich owners and becomes sympathetic to social change.

The story turns tragic, though, when the good-natured Vanzetti and his friend Sacco, are implicated in a burglary. The police seeking a guilty party intimidate and coerce Irish witnesses into telling lies about the pair. The Italians have very little hope once they reach the courtroom, when they learn that the judge is clearly against them. Being poor, they are unable to pay the necessary and customary bribe.

When they are found guilty, other countries and labor leaders throughout the world became angry with Boston. Freedom and the United States' justice system becomes a laughing matter. Ultimately, the police were called in to handle the riots that almost ensued in Boston when the pair of activists was put to death. Even today, there are shadows of doubt over Boston as a result of this trial.

Using part fiction and part history, Upton Sinclair paints a grim portrait of American justice gone awry. Over and over, Sinclair points out where the plaintiff's case was based on non-credible witnesses, a biased judge and jury, hatred of the defendants' socialistic and anarchistic beliefs, and prejudice. While the book was interesting, especially in illuminating the reader of how the system "really" works, I did find it tiring. The book was long and there were a ton of witnesses and characters that the reader had to remember. Sometimes, the same points and facts were repeated two or three times and the story had a tendency to jump around in time. Overall, though, I found the book interesting and absorbing - like all of Sinclair's works that I have read.

Boston, a novel in two volumes by Upton Sinclair, was first published by Albert & Charles Boni in 1928 and is an historical novel about the well documented Sacco-Vanzetti trials. Written in typical Sinclair fashion, the story weaves through the personal lives and motivations of Sacco and Vanzetti. In his continual search for social justice, this event gives Sinclair another opportunity to decry the social conservatism of the day. The novel presents the reader with a different perspective of this milestone in American jurisprudence.

This book provides an interesting perspective of the justice system. It compares the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, two poor, italian, anachists, to a trial of some of Boston's Blue Blooded elite (fictionalization of a true story). Sinclair never goes so far as to claim Sacco and Vanzetti are innocent (actually one of his biographers claimed that he had his own doubts), only to show that the trial was biased by their social and political views.

Even people who hate Howard Zinn admit that he's a good scholar. But many people hate him, for sure--and you have to remember that when you're reading some of these reviews. On the other hand, most of the reviewers seem to be communists themselves, and so their gushing reviews should surprise no one.

I recommend the book with some reservations. Agree or disagree, perspectives like Zinn's keep us from becoming ignorant victims of ideological propaganda.

I recommend it because it is a great, well-informed, honest and self-conscious dissenting opinion. Anyone who wants to consider themselves educated needs to consider dissenting opinions frequently. But I have reservations. Most importantly, Zinn's purpose is not to introduce someone to American history. He assumes his readers already know the basics. Of course, many people do not. It's not a history of the US; it's a series of contentious corrections to the history traditionally taught in American classrooms. (Why did the Colonies defeat the British? What caused the depression? Why did Nixon visit China? Unless you know this much, this book isn't yet for you.)

Some reviewers complained about Zinn's tone. Zinn is an average writer; better than many academics but worse than any good writer.

Other reviewers seemed to assume that either communists or far-right conservatives aren't "students of history." But of course some are. Zinn and Newt Gingrich are both well-informed scholars.

(If it matters to you, I am neither communist nor right-wing; I'm just not a political thinker. I'm American, and I think Americans--all of us--can be proud and thankful; but we should recognize that our government and politicians have never been perfect. Ideologies often serve to control people, so dissenting opinions are vital for freedom's perseverance. But democracy and moderated capitalism have often succeeded in blessing their people, while communism has evidently failed everywhere, with more gruesome histories even than capitalism.)

"A People's History" by Howard Zinn is, to put it mildly, an eye-opener.

If you're looking for a quick read, this book is not it. The topic's scope is so encompassing, and presented so thoroughly, that you should expect to spend several weeks reading this book, if not months.

From Columbus' first steps in the New World to the Clinton administration, Zinn presents the history of European expansion into the "New World" and the United States' development as a country from the perspective of the peoples who were displaced, persecuted and suppressed in the process.

This is not your typical high school textbook view of history, in which atrocities are watered down or glossed over entirely in favor of a portrait of our country's and our government's glory. The portrait that emerges in Zinn's book is a much darker one.

If anything, this book is a tribute to the resiliency of persecuted outsiders -- Native Americans, women, blacks, industrial workers, and others -- and the progress that came about through revolt, not through government altruism.

"History which keeps alive the memory of people's resistance suggests new definitions of power," writes Zinn. "By traditional definitions, whoever possesses military strength, wealth, command of official ideology, cultural control, has power. Measured by these standards, popular rebellion never looks strong enough to survive.

"However, the unexpected victories -- even temporary ones -- of insurgents show the vulnerability of the suposedly powerful."

Zinn predicts a time when the middle class will organize and transform this country into a collaborative society with much more satisfying ways of life. Is this a true picture of what is to come, or a pleasant fiction? Time will tell. But if you're rediscovering our country's history and the average citizen's place in it, this is a must-read.

I was skeptical when I began this book, but Zinn's extensive research and copious amount of primary source material convinced me that he - like his book - belongs in the highest tier of American literature that every good citizen ought to read. Not only is his fresh account of American history far more convincing than the chest-beating pro-American tales of adventure and prosperity that fill most orthodox historical approaches, but his clear, smooth and engrossing narrative make it a fun and intriguing read.

I suspect the real reason that this book has triggered the controversy it has is because some people have serious problems facing the fact that our beloved country has not - and is not - the ultimate guardian of equality, truth and justice it claims to be. The facts are there - read 'em.