As I understand it, this book is generally polemical and caters more to activism than disinterested truth-seeking. A book taking an opinionated position on a big topic is totally forgivable and above board for a non-fiction books, however when I see that it is the primary reference for so many different ideas, I get concerned that too much is taken for granted. I see enough objections, especially on its treatment of history, to this book whenever it is mentioned for me to approach it with a good deal of skepticism.
I haven't even read it, so I have to reserve judgement. It does appear to be very influential, so it is high on my political reading list whether I like it or not.
All of this is said to build context for what I'd really like to ask: what were your expectations when your read People's History of the United States? Did you have similar reservations?
As a self-described disillusioned centrist, I have to raise my eyebrow when I see that so much political prescription appears to be based on this singular book that generally appears to be an other-side-of-history opinion piece.
I'm in the same position as you re: popular political books, although I would not describe myself at all as a centrist.
A while back, I read "Rise and Kill First", which is a history of Israel's assassination programs dating back to the Irgun, and I attempted to read "Killing Hope", which is similar, but about the CIA. "Rise and Kill First" is clearly written by someone who loves Israel, but is deeply disturbed by the long history of these assassination programs. "Killing Hope" is written by someone who is, if not actually a tankie, certainly tankie-adjacent. Even as leftist as I am, I found it intolerable and had to put it down. I fully expect that I'll have the same response to Zinn.
I am not the person you responded to, but I have read Zinn and yes, it is very obviously written with a bias. That is to say, not only does he have inevitable subjective bias that all historians have, he is very pointedly writing his book as a corrective. The book has many good qualities, but neutrality is not among them. This isn't a problem unless the people who read it aren't aware of that.
I haven't even read it, so I have to reserve judgement. It does appear to be very influential, so it is high on my political reading list whether I like it or not.
All of this is said to build context for what I'd really like to ask: what were your expectations when your read People's History of the United States? Did you have similar reservations?
As a self-described disillusioned centrist, I have to raise my eyebrow when I see that so much political prescription appears to be based on this singular book that generally appears to be an other-side-of-history opinion piece.