Zinn v.

Allen and Schweikart: the Battle of the Historians

April 6, 2011 APUSH Period 4 1877-2011
Brittany Amerson

Many events ranging from wars to movements to elections have shaped American history as the American public knows today. Even though these events have been set in stone and are inerasable from Americas past, these same events can be interpreted in a vast multitude of ways. There are also always two sides to a story, and one cannot fully develop an opinion on a specific topic without having knowledge that pertains to each side, and the majority of American textbooks are written by conservatives. With all this in mind, it is only logical to conclude that Howard Zinns A Peoples History of the United States should be read in high schools as opposed to Larry Schweikart and Michael Allens book A Patriots History of the United States because Zinn provides a liberal view of American history that most American students do not ever get exposed to. The New Deal has come to be seen by Americans as Theodore Roosevelts massive plan that was designed to bring America out of the Great Depression after the end of World War One. In many textbooks, Roosevelt seems to be almost comparable to God himself, considering Roosevelt was able to pass so many programs that only benefited the American people. While this is true, most textbooks as well as Schweikart and Allens book, fail to illustrate how many places the New Deals programs actually did not reach to. According to Zinn, Black Harlem, with all the New Deal reforms, remained as it was. There 350,000 people lived, 233 person per acre compared with 133 for the rest of ManhattanProstitution crept in (404). Zinn manages to point out that yes, the New Deal was helpful for the majority of Americans, but a lot of areas and regions in the United States had the same problems going into the New Deal as they did

going out of the New Deal, illustrating how the New Deal was not as perfect as effective as it is made out to be. Schweikart and Allen on the other hand state that Roosevelts proposed New Deal was nothing more than attempt by the President to save capitalism and keep capitalism afloat rather than actually a program designed to help American citizens recover (559). Although, Schweikart and Allen state that Theodore Roosevelt was a conservative corporatist [who] intend[ed] on saving the free enterprise system through regulation supports the view of American history that Zinn writes about, Schweikart and Allen mention basically nothing about how the New Deals programs were not accessible to every American, cancelling out the recognition of the other view of the New Deal because they do not include every aspect of the opposing side (561). This is yet another reason why Zinn should be taught in high school as opposed to Schweikart and AllenA Patriots History of the United States once again fails to recognize all aspects of a program that had potential to change the lives of all Americans. But whether or not Schweikart and Allen did the right thing by skipping over all aspects of the New Deal, one topic that both books just not skimp on details was the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, and one plane crashed into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. It was later discovered that the culprits of the terrorist attacks hailed from men form the Middle East, suspected to be members of the Middle Eastern terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Thousands of people were injured and killed in the accidents, from civilians who were working in their offices, to fire fighters and policemen who lost their lives trying to save others in the massive heap of rubble the World Trade Centers were turned into. Zinn

mentions in his book that he realizes what the terrorists did were wrong, but what they did to America still gave the United States the right to respond to the attack in the manner that America did. According to Zinn, The Pentagon claimed that it was only bombing military targets, that the killing of civilians was unfortunate. At least 1,000 and perhaps 4,000 Afghan civilians were killed by American bombs (679). While Schweikart and Allen stating that Bush was very upset about the attacks, and that he was determined to find out who did this and were going to kick their asses (814). This excerpt from Schweikart and Allens novel provides a completely different view of the attacks than Zinn does. The view that Schweikart and Allen have is more patriotic, and captured how the majority of Americans felt after the attacks. However, Zinns view on the terrorist attacks should definitely be taught in high school because he provides information and insight that no other textbook would provide. By saying that America had no right to kill as many Middle Eastern civilians as it did even though it was attacked by the Middle East is a very powerful statement. By allowing high school students to read Zinns perspective instead of the stereotypical view on the terrorist attacks lets the students fully understand the true cruelty of the war, on both sides, and as a student, knowing both sides of an argument makes the student more knowledgeable. Howard Zinn author of A Peoples History of the United States, and Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, authors of A Patriots History of the United States both provide an in-depth look at American history through two totally different lenses. Zinn is more of a liberal view, speaking for the minorities, the factory workers and the women of America, while Schweikart and Allen have a more conservative view, similar to what can be found in a modern day American history textbook. Both books provide excellent

details and insight of American history, but Zinns A Peoples History of the United States should be taught in high schools, because it provides the other side of the events Americans are familiar with, and like stated earlier, people can only form reasonable opinions about a topic if they have quality knowledge pertaining to both sides.