Bias and Historiography Theme Analysis

Howard Zinn’s book is a history of the United States, but it’s also a critique of other books on the same subject. Zinn argues that many previous histories of the United States haven’t been fair in their accounts of the past; in particular, they’ve glorified Establishment figures, marginalized or demonized the contributions of the ordinary American people, and celebrated superficial reforms for being revolutionary. While Zinn doesn’t offer a full-scale investigation of bias in American history, he suggests that many historians write biased versions of history because they’ve gone through an education system that’s funded by the Establishment (see Establishment theme), and they have been trained to give authority and tradition too much respect. With this in mind, A People’s History of the United States represents Zinn’s attempt to balance out some of the more unfortunate biases in American history texts. Because most books marginalize the American people and overemphasize the Establishment, Zinn chooses to do exactly the opposite. Unlike many historians, Zinn acknowledges his ideological and political biases upfront: he writes that he’ll emphasize the American people’s contribution to history. Furthermore, Zinn was frank about being sympathetic to some of the political ideas of Karl Marx, the founder of Communism; partly as a result, his book treats history as a conflict between people of different classes.

In what ways does Zinn’s version of history differ from other, more mainstream versions? At times, Zinn’s approach is to write about a familiar, well-known historical event, but from an unfamiliar perspective—that of the persecuted people. When he discusses the “discovery” of America, for instance, Zinn refrains from glorifying Christopher Columbus in the manner of most elementary school textbooks. Instead, he draws his readers’ attention to the suffering of the Arawak Native Americans whom Christopher Columbus murdered, tortured, and kidnapped. At other points in the book, however, Zinn makes an effort to write about events that are relatively unfamiliar to the average American, usually because they revolve around working-class people, and, as a result, have been omitted from history textbooks. Zinn spends many chapters analyzing the organized labor strikes of the 19th century, which had a profound impact on American society but which too-rarely show up in student textbooks.

Zinn also avoids the tendency to write about history by concentrating on the lives of a few important individuals. While his book is full of fascinating people, no single figure in A People’s History—not even Dr. Martin Luther, Jr. or Abraham Lincoln—is portrayed as having played an indispensable part in changing the country. Instead, Zinn shows individuals like Lincoln and King to be responding to the will of the American people. At other times, Zinn’s approach to history is more abstract; he idealizes alternative visions of society. For example, he devotes several pages to conveying the beauty and complexity of Native American society before the arrival of Columbus, and he even posits that Native American society was happier, more equitable, more democratic, and more stable than European society in the 15th century. By celebrating the societies that European conquest wiped out in America, Zinn challenges one of mainstream historians’ most dangerous forms of bias: the assumption that society progresses over time, and that European society “improved” America by replacing Native American culture with science and rationality.

Zinn has been criticized by many writers and historians for being too one-sided—deliberately one-sided, in fact—in his account of American history. However, Zinn is open about his biases, and in interviews and other books, he repeatedly said that he didn’t want A People’s History of the United States to become the “last word” on American history (especially given his practices of ignoring contrary evidence and speculating about people’s motives without grounds). Rather, Zinn wanted students to put his text into conversation with other, more mainstream history books, so that his work could balance out the bias in other books. If he were alive today, Zinn probably wouldn’t appreciate that college students still treat A People’s History like the unimpeachable truth, rather than as a primer designed to help them learn about American history and question their biases.