Historians ding Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"

Remember that memorable scene in Good Will Hunting, when Jason Bourne Matt Damon goes all preachy at the shrink's and tells him to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States?

I suppose Damon would be happy that it is not the least credible book after all--it was edged out by another book, by nine votes!

However, the most intense discussion -- on HNN's boards, at least -- centered on the runner-up, Zinn's A People's History, with some commenters on one end condemning the book as "cheap propaganda" and "the historians equivalent of medical malpractice"; others took a more moderate line, criticizing the book as partly "caricature" and an "exercise in tortured reasoning," but praising the book for "[reminding] us of some facts about our history that make for discomfort."

Is history dictated not from the top, but from the bottom?

David Kaiser, a professor of military history at the Naval War College, charged “A People’s History” — which has sold more than two million copies since its initial publication in 1980 — with damaging the country, “By convincing several generations of Americans that leadership does not matter and that all beneficial change comes from the bottom,” he wrote, “it has played a significant role in the destruction of American liberalism.” 

More than two million copies!  We have proved Barnum two million times?

I wonder how many of the two million owners were like me: many years ago, I purchased a copy of Zinn's book.  But, lost interest in it after a mere few pages.  It has been on my shelf forever.  Initially at home, and then in my office at campus.  In my initial years, I thought displaying that would give me some cred if and when the comrades peeped in!  Now, it is there because, well, there are no takers; it is practically never opened, so let me know :)

That the book is not unbiased is not anything new though, like it was noted in this obituary in the NY Times:

“What Zinn did was bring history writing out of the academy, and he undid much of the frankly biased and prejudiced views that came before it,” said Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton University. “But he’s a popularizer, and his view of history is topsy-turvy, turning old villains into heroes, and after a while the glow gets unreal.”
That criticism barely raised a hair on Mr. Zinn’s neck. “It’s not an unbiased account; so what?” he said in the Times interview. “If you look at history from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated, it’s a different story.”

 "So what?" becomes critical because, unlike Colbert's "truthiness," academics are expected to be as unbiased as they can. 

Oh, but there is a wonderful scene from Good Will Hunting that makes me smile every time I watch it:



Yes, "wicked smaht" :)