Thoughts on Zinn's Young People's History of the United States (for 4th)

[Halcyon]

We just started reading this today, and I adore it (loved his People's History when I read it way back when). My older really enjoyed it as well (we only read the first couple of chapters). Does anyone else use this in your homeschool? We're thinking of just reading and discussing. We also use Everything You Need to Know About American History Homework as reference.

 

Would love to hear from others who use this in their homeschool.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Halcyon

[Satori]

There's a thread on this where we're discussing using this book. I've been reading it to Satori (dd6). I love the book and so does she. I realize it isn't meant for a typical six year old, but I wanted to "balance" out the other American History books we've read. We're Native American so that probably influenced my decision to read it so early. I read it aloud to her and we talk about it.

 

I also got a used copy of the other resource you mentioned. That's something we'll use when she gets older, so I haven't looked at it much yet.

[Halcyon]

Thanks Angela. Can you point me to the other thread? Is it the one I started on where American History fits in the WTM 4 year cycle?

[Wheres Toto]

I used Zinn's A People's History in college and really loved it. I definitely planned to use his Young Peoples History in a few years. My guys are definitely too young for it at this point but I read it myself and I think it will be good in a few more years.

 

I do have Everything you need to know about American History homework. I actually got it through Paperback Swap. The kids don't really look at it much but I pull it out sometimes (holidays or fieldtrips) to get some brief explanations.

[redsquirrel]

I am planning on using it during the logic stage. It will make a great book for comparison and contrast.

 

I once got to talk to Howard Zinn. He actually walked on my porch and asked me a question. He was trying to get his suitcase from inside my neighbor's house but her house was locked. He was hoping I had a key.

 

And that, is my brush with greatness. :lol:

[patchfire]

We used it alongside SOTW 3 & 4 in 3rd & 4th grades, along with an Am History encyclopedia. We'll probably use the full Zinn next time around.

[mamachanse]

I think everyone who has posted in this thread has great taste in educational material. :D

[anabelneri]

Y'all aren't finding it to be too graphic for your younger kids? I was looking at it, but it seemed like too much at this age.

 

Just curious! Thanks!

[twoforjoy]

There's a thread on this where we're discussing using this book. I've been reading it to Satori (dd6). I love the book and so does she. I realize it isn't meant for a typical six year old, but I wanted to "balance" out the other American History books we've read. We're Native American so that probably influenced my decision to read it so early. I read it aloud to her and we talk about it.

 

I'm glad to hear that. I have the book--I love Howard Zinn and bought the young people's edition when it came out, to have--and have been wondering when it would be appropriate to read to my DS. We'll be doing American history in 4th and 5th grades, and I wasn't sure whether it would be appropriate to use then, or whether it would be better to hold off until he went through American history again, but I was hoping it was something I could use earlier rather than later, because I do think Zinn provides a much-needed alternative perspective that texts for younger children in particular lack.

[Halcyon]

Y'all aren't finding it to be too graphic for your younger kids? I was looking at it, but it seemed like too much at this age.

 

Just curious! Thanks!

 

I don't think so. I too was a little squeamish reading about the slaughter of the Indians in the beginning, but I think that has more to do with my sadness about the uncomfortable truth surrounding the founding of our country, and my desire to have my kids feel proud of their country but also be well-educated about the darker parts of our history. I think I would have the same feelings reading about WW2 to them, which is supposed to be covered in 4th grade according to the 4 yr cycle. I vacillate on how much of their innocence I want to protect, and until what age. Up until even as late as 7 years old, my oldest had no idea what I was meant when I used the word "black" when referring to people of African American descent; he literally did not notice skin color. So to talk about Martin Luther King's struggle was....difficult :) My oldest expressed sadness when he learned about the complexity of Columbus, that he wasn't a perfect person in any respect. I think so much of young children's education idealizes not only our history, but the world's problems (ecology, class struggle, poverty) in general. I want to provide a balance for my kids: exposing them to more difficult parts of history etc, but imbuing them with hope in mankind.

 

It's not easy.

[MamaReads]

Thank you for starting this thread. We will be starting SOTW 3 in the fall and I am hoping to add in lots of American history. I will have a newly 8 year old and my son who is 5 is at my knee for everything. I really like the idea of using Zinn, but I just don't know if it will be appropriate. Maybe I have to re-read The Peoples History... and be ready to augment on my own.

 

The idea of finding that balance "of imbuing hope" and telling the sometimes shameful truth has been weighing heavily on my mind. I would love to hear more about how others navigate this road.

 

I have found the resource "Rethinking Columbus" to be helpful if anyone else is struggling with this issue.

[sleepymommy]

I plan on using it when my boys are little older. We haven't studied much American history yet, but this will probably be our main resource when we do.

[sleepymommy]

I don't think so. I too was a little squeamish reading about the slaughter of the Indians in the beginning, but I think that has more to do with my sadness about the uncomfortable truth surrounding the founding of our country, and my desire to have my kids feel proud of their country but also be well-educated about the darker parts of our history. I think I would have the same feelings reading about WW2 to them, which is supposed to be covered in 4th grade according to the 4 yr cycle. I vacillate on how much of their innocence I want to protect, and until what age. Up until even as late as 7 years old, my oldest had no idea what I was meant when I used the word "black" when referring to people of African American descent; he literally did not notice skin color. So to talk about Martin Luther King's struggle was....difficult :) My oldest expressed sadness when he learned about the complexity of Columbus, that he wasn't a perfect person in any respect. I think so much of young children's education idealizes not only our history, but the world's problems (ecology, class struggle, poverty) in general. I want to provide a balance for my kids: exposing them to more difficult parts of history etc, but imbuing them with hope in mankind.

 

It's not easy.

 

:iagree:

[Satori]

:iagree:

Another :iagree:

 

Although I do think it's probably too early to introduce in early elementary. In another thread, I said I think of my daughter as more mature than her age when it comes to certain topics. She gets interested in certain things, handles them maturely, and begs to learn more.

 

We're also watching 500 Nations DVD series from Netflix. I think I'll purchase the series, it's been so enlightening.

[Crimson Wife]

I spent a good hour or so at the beginning of this school year reading through a copy of AYPHoUS at my local Barnes & Noble. My DD is also mature for her age, but I decided that even for her, Zinn would be more appropriate the next time through the cycle. At this point, I feel that it's better to use a text with a "positive" slant and then provide qualifications than to use one with a negative slant & try to qualify that. DD may be further along towards logic-stage thinking than most kids her age, but even still, I think Zinn is rather much for her right now.

[Satori]

We're not using this as a main history text. At this age, we're reading the Betsy Maestro American History books, which does tell both sides in an age-appropriate manner, but not as um, provoking as books like Zinn's. We're also adding other resources (books, movies, DE videos). I don't mind reading Zinn as a minor supplement if my DD enjoys it, even if it's only one or two chapters a year, just to demonstrate that there is another side to the story. She then goes off to write stories about what she's learned. Anytime she writes her own stories, I know the subject is important to her.

 

When Zinn is more age-appropriate to focus on more, I hope she'll be reading more Zinn and Loewen type books on her own. I'll get her own copies (physical or ebook), as I only have these as Kindle versions.

[anabelneri]

Satori, thanks for the Maestro suggestion. I hadn't encountered it before despite searching for hours.

 

I'm still debating... we're on a 6 year cycle, and my daughter isn't sensitive, so I'm probably Ok. But we're scheduled to start Columbus in the fall.

 

Thanks for this thread!

[twoforjoy]

The idea of finding that balance "of imbuing hope" and telling the sometimes shameful truth has been weighing heavily on my mind. I would love to hear more about how others navigate this road.

 

 

Am I the only one who finds Zinn, particularly once we move past very early American history, quite hopeful?

[Embassy]

I plan to use Zinn. I'm not sure about next year though. I think I want to use it when we get to that point in the history cycle, but I have no problem using it with young elementary kids.

 

I guess I don't view it as a negative slant. I see it more as telling the cold, hard facts. I believe that is the most important thing to learn. I'm not interested in building my children's patriotism through a white-washed view of our country. I just wish Zinn's books were more comprehensive. I haven't found anything else I am willing to use yet.

 

Now, I'm not very well read on all things relating to history so if someone can explain to me how Zinn's book is incorrect I'll all :bigear:

[Halcyon]

Angela, I too like the Maestro books, especially for younger elementary (1st and 2nd grade). I also am considering some of the Landmark series and the Drama of American History (which we've read a bit of)

[Crimson Wife]

I guess I don't view it as a negative slant. I see it more as telling the cold, hard facts. I believe that is the most important thing to learn. I'm not interested in building my children's patriotism through a white-washed view of our country.

 

I don't believe in blind "rah-rah" patriotism or of whitewashing the aspects of our country's history where we failed to live up to our ideals. But I do believe that there are two sides to every "hot button" issue and that Zinn tends to present just the "politically correct" one. I understand why he chose to do that when he wrote the original A People's History of the U.S. back a couple of decades ago. He looked at books like This Country of Ours that were racist and whitewashed and felt that people needed to hear the other side.

 

I don't believe that Columbus and the Founding Fathers are perfect, but neither are they the villains that Zinn makes them out to be. For me, I prefer to use one with a positive depiction and then say "well, this isn't totally accurate" than to use Zinn's very negative depiction & try to make the same qualifications.

[Embassy]

I don't believe in blind "rah-rah" patriotism or of whitewashing the aspects of our country's history where we failed to live up to our ideals. But I do believe that there are two sides to every "hot button" issue and that Zinn tends to present just the "politically correct" one. I understand why he chose to do that when he wrote the original A People's History of the U.S. back a couple of decades ago. He looked at books like This Country of Ours that were racist and whitewashed and felt that people needed to hear the other side.

 

I don't believe that Columbus and the Founding Fathers are perfect, but neither are they the villains that Zinn makes them out to be. For me, I prefer to use one with a positive depiction and then say "well, this isn't totally accurate" than to use Zinn's very negative depiction & try to make the same qualifications.

 

 

I was listening to Zinn last night while I was working. He mentioned that he sought to tell the parts of history that were left out. I don't see how political correctness would come into the equation here.

[Ravin]

Check out this website:

 

http://zinnedproject.org/

 

Using Zinn's approach is not about accepting HIS version as the correct version or to just uncritically read it. It's all about the critical view of history--getting underneath what any one historian may say and recognizing the biases, and listening to the voices that have more commonly been ignored and looking at the viewpoints that have been whitewashed. It has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.

[Crimson Wife]

It *IS* political correctness to view the European explorers and colonists as merely evil Imperialist landgrabbers out to oppress the poor, innocent Native Americans. That's the POV that comes through in Zinn, and I don't think it's accurate.

 

Additionally, to claim that the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution merely in order to distract the masses so that they could continue their economic oppression is also "politically correct" nonsense IMHO.

 

I do think that Zinn is a useful read for older students and adults, in order to provide an alternative perspective. But younger kids are less able to do the kind of logic-stage "read both sides, and decide for yourself" type exercise necessary with something like Zinn.

[twoforjoy]

It *IS* political correctness to view the European explorers and colonists as merely evil Imperialist landgrabbers out to oppress the poor, innocent Native Americans. That's the POV that comes through in Zinn, and I don't think it's accurate.

 

Additionally, to claim that the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution merely in order to distract the masses so that they could continue their economic oppression is also "politically correct" nonsense IMHO.

 

In what sense is it "politically correct"?

 

You could certainly argue that he brings a Marxist slant to history, which he certainly wouldn't deny, but I think it's extremely difficult to call such a position "politically correct." The whole point of "political correctness" is to minimize offense, and Zinn's ideas would, to many if not most Americans, cause significant offense.

[mamachanse]

Are you all using it alongside SOTW3 or 4? I was thinking of using it before we start 3, mostly because I'd like another few months before I start ds5 on our history rotation with ds8. I thought ds8 would enjoy learning a little about America history first and then applying it to the global perspective with SOTW3 and 4. I was planning on reading possibly the Maestro books to both ds5 and ds8 and then Zinn to ds8 alone. Any insight or opinions on this approach? :bigear:

[Crimson Wife]

In what sense is it "politically correct"?

 

"Politically correct" as in anti-European and especially anti-WASP males.

[Mrs Twain]

I don't believe in blind "rah-rah" patriotism or of whitewashing the aspects of our country's history where we failed to live up to our ideals. But I do believe that there are two sides to every "hot button" issue and that Zinn tends to present just the "politically correct" one. I understand why he chose to do that when he wrote the original A People's History of the U.S. back a couple of decades ago. He looked at books like This Country of Ours that were racist and whitewashed and felt that people needed to hear the other side.

 

I don't believe that Columbus and the Founding Fathers are perfect, but neither are they the villains that Zinn makes them out to be. For me, I prefer to use one with a positive depiction and then say "well, this isn't totally accurate" than to use Zinn's very negative depiction & try to make the same qualifications.

:iagree:

 

After reading through this thread, I was wondering if there was anyone else out there who thinks the way I do. I'm not against presenting alternate points of view to my kids, but from what I have seen, I don't agree with Zinn's general interpretation of history at multiple points.

 

"Politically correct" means the liberal or far left worldview, as opposed to a conservative worldview.

[mamachanse]

 

"Politically correct" means the liberal or far left worldview, as opposed to a conservative worldview.

 

:001_huh: :confused: :auto:

[twoforjoy]

"Politically correct" means the liberal or far left worldview, as opposed to a conservative worldview.

 

That isn't true, I don't think. Zinn, as I noted, is a Marxist, in terms of how he views history (he takes a materialist, progressive--in the sense of history progressing towards something better--view). Marxism is about as far from "politically correct" as you can get in the United States.

 

"Politically correct" is about offending as few people as possible. That is absolutely NOT Zinn's intention. Zinn's intention is to shake people up, to make the comfortable uncomfortable. That's pretty much the opposite of political correctness, which seeks to keep as many people comfortable as possible by being as inclusive and inoffensive as possible.

 

Your standard textbook is politically correct. It doesn't want to offend anybody. That is not Zinn's project.

Edited May 20, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Mrs Twain]

That isn't true, I don't think. Zinn, as I noted, is a Marxist, in terms of how he views history (he takes a materialist, progressive--in the sense of history progressing towards something better--view). Marxism is about as far from "politically correct" as you can get in the United States.

 

"Politically correct" is about offending as few people as possible. That is absolutely NOT Zinn's intention. Zinn's intention is to shake people up, to make the comfortable uncomfortable. That's pretty much the opposite of political correctness, which seeks to keep as many people comfortable as possible by being as inclusive and inoffensive as possible.

 

Your standard textbook is politically correct. It doesn't want to offend anybody. That is not Zinn's project.

 

"Politically correct" was a term invented in the 1970's by liberals as a way of expressing things as nonoffensively as possible from the liberal point of view. Not everyone agrees with the liberal point of view, and therefore terms and ideas that liberals consider "non-offensive" or "least offensive" are sometimes or often regarded as offensive by people of other viewpoints.

[Elizabeth in WA]

"Politically correct" was a term invented in the 1970's by liberals as a way of expressing things as nonoffensively as possible from the liberal point of view. Not everyone agrees with the liberal point of view, and therefore terms and ideas that liberals consider "non-offensive" or "least offensive" are sometimes or often regarded as offensive by people of other viewpoints.

 

A cursory review of the Wikipedia (an admittedly non scholarly source) suggests that the origin and uses of the term are substantially ore complicated that that, and also that the term is used most often as a red herring argument at the present time.

[Embassy]

So Zinn's book is viewed as liberal or the left point of view?

 

Zinn said that he wrote the book (adult one) to tell parts of history that are often left out. I guess I want to know why certain facts of history are relegated to a political viewpoint. I read Zinn's book recently and learned of events that were never included in history books I had in school. I'm not talking about what he thought of the events, but the events themselves - the actual facts.

 

Is it the WASP thing as Crimson Wife mentioned? If it isn't pro WASP or European it is liberal?

 

I'm raising 3rd culture kids and I find this all baffling.

[Satori]

I just like reading his books. I feel like it's been a positive influence and it makes me even more understanding toward other people (I've always tried to be anyway). And interestingly, I like the type of people in this thread who read them too. That's what I care about.

 

Someone left a comment on my blog about Zinn not being appropriate for classical homeschooling:

"I'm not sure why anyone would include the Howard Zinn history books in a classical curriculum. They communicate a Marxist worldview and should not be part of a curriculum that is supposed to celebrate the best of Western civilization."

 

Well I've studied the "best" of the acts of Western civilization all my life, learning about Columbus and all the other Europeans conquering the Americas. It's time the minorities get a chance to have their voice be heard. As a minority myself, why shouldn't I read books and watch videos and hear the voice of my ancestors and the people who lived here before us?

[stripe]

I guess it's normal history if it's about what those in power did, and some weird deviant, offensive stuff to talk about normal people -- the poor, workers, women, ethnic minorities, and so on. The very suggestion of anything else in history, say, than what date a war was fought (which is how my grandma describes how she was taught history, and why she hated it) is a violation of somethingorother.

 

Honestly I think it's boring and sad to think the only stories worth telling are about the victors of wars.

 

I think Zinn has an interesting idea, which one could try to incorporate in other ways than simply using his book.

[stripe]

Someone left a comment on my blog about Zinn not being appropriate for classical homeschooling:

"I'm not sure why anyone would include the Howard Zinn history books in a classical curriculum. They communicate a Marxist worldview and should not be part of a curriculum that is supposed to celebrate the best of Western civilization."

 

Well I've studied the "best" of the acts of Western civilization all my life, learning about Columbus and all the other Europeans conquering the Americas. It's time the minorities get a chance to have their voice be heard. As a minority myself, why shouldn't I read books and watch videos and hear the voice of my ancestors and the people who lived here before us?

That's so eloquent. Thank you for saying it.

 

Re classical - why study the ancient Greeks? They weren't Christian. Er, anyway, I am not sure a classical education is a celebration, or that it should exclude large swathes of the human experience.

[Halcyon]

It's time the minorities get a chance to have their voice be heard.

 

 

Hear hear.

[Halcyon]

:iagree:

 

After reading through this thread, I was wondering if there was anyone else out there who thinks the way I do. I'm not against presenting alternate points of view to my kids, but from what I have seen, I don't agree with Zinn's general interpretation of history at multiple points.

 

"Politically correct" means the liberal or far left worldview, as opposed to a conservative worldview.

 

 

I don't think Zinn is "interpreting" history any more than standard school-issued textbooks "interpret" history. History is the story of peoples and civilizations as relayed by one or more "historians" (and in the case of most history textbooks in public school, you also have to take into account the Texas School Board! ;)). There is no "correct" history of the United States. How many times have you related a story of something that happened in your childhood while sitting around a family gathering, only to have a relative say "That is NOT how it happened at all! You've got it aaallllll wrong!" ;) It depends on the perspective from which you're telling the story, is all. Zinn tells another perspective, not another "interpretation".

 

To "not agree" with Zinn is, IMO, equivalent to saying that you believe everyone views every historical event the same way, whether victor or defeated, powerful or weak, black or white or Hispanic. There is no one truth.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Halcyon

[anabelneri]

It *IS* political correctness to view the European explorers and colonists as merely evil Imperialist landgrabbers out to oppress the poor, innocent Native Americans. That's the POV that comes through in Zinn, and I don't think it's accurate.

 

Additionally, to claim that the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolution merely in order to distract the masses so that they could continue their economic oppression is also "politically correct" nonsense IMHO.

 

I haven't read Zinn's original book, but only the Columbus chapter in the Young People's version. I wanted to mention that, even though Zinn portrayed the landgrabbing (and peoplegrabbing) aspects of Columbus, I was very excited to see the "hero" section. I'd have to look at it again (I don't have it handy), but I remember it being about a Catholic priest who had a change of heart and began advocating for the Native people. I loved that he portrayed someone who was European but who acted with honesty and courage -- definitely traits I'd like to encourage in my children. (I also liked that he displayed a Catholic in a positive light -- that's not politically correct in any portion of American society!)

 

And FWIW I tend towards being a "bleeding heart liberal", but I am in no way against our Founding Fathers. I haven't read that portion of Zinn's work, but I really doubt that I will somehow feel less grateful to them for their work in founding our nation.

[Wheres Toto]

I don't think Zinn is "interpreting" history any more than standard school-issued textbooks "interpret" history. History is the story of peoples and civilizations as relayed by one or more "historians" (and in the case of most history textbooks in public school, you also have to take into account the Texas School Board! ;)). There is no "correct" history of the United States. How many times have you related a story of something that happened in your childhood while sitting around a family gathering, only to have a relative say "That is NOT how it happened at all! You've got it aaallllll wrong!" ;) It depends on the perspective from which you're telling the story, is all. Zinn tells another perspective, not another "interpretation".

 

To "not agree" with Zinn is, IMO, equivalent to saying that you believe everyone views every historical event the same way, whether victor or defeated, powerful or weak, black or white or Hispanic. There is no one truth.

 

:iagree:

 

We used Zinn in a college course I took (actually not that long ago). We didn't start at the beginning because the course was geared toward 1800/early 1900's. The two things I remember most clearly were Women's Suffrage and Child Labor. Two things I never learned about in any other history class except to say something along the lines of "women marched and men decided to let them vote to shut them up" and "children sometimes worked in factories". Not anywhere near the whole picture. Learning about what Women's Suffrage was like for the women - the ones who were arrested, the ones who died - and what the children actually went through - was way more meaningful to me than to hear once again about Henry Ford inventing the assembly line.

 

I always think of "political correct" to be a slightly derogatory term for whitewashing things so they are acceptable to the masses. Wouldn't want people to get too upset over anything (except those things which "the powers that be" want them to get upset over).

[twoforjoy]

Is it the WASP thing as Crimson Wife mentioned? If it isn't pro WASP or European it is liberal?

 

I don't think Zinn is anti-WASP; he certainly has no problem with the working-class WASPs who were part of the labor movement, for example.

 

Zinn, like a good Marxist historian, is taking the side of those who have been oppressed, and primarily those who have been oppressed due to class. Obviously race intersects with class very closely, so the two are tied together, but Zinn's bias is anti-ruling class, not anti-male, anti-white, or anti-WASP.

 

If there's one thing, IMO, that Americans are more uncomfortable talking about than race, it's class, so it's easier to write off Zinn as just "anti-white" or "anti-white male" than to think about the ways in which his position is mainly about class.

Edited May 21, 2011 by twoforjoy

[stripe]

And FWIW I tend towards being a "bleeding heart liberal", but I am in no way against our Founding Fathers. I haven't read that portion of Zinn's work, but I really doubt that I will somehow feel less grateful to them for their work in founding our nation.

And, really, is it historically accurate to say that many Founding Fathers were completely and only focused on liberty, to the point that certain people give speeches claiming that the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery, and totally ignore the fact that some of them were in fact contented slave owners, and fathered children with their slaves?

 

I am not sure it's healthy to paint such a misleading picture, nor am I sure that the correct path is to teach young children that certain people are infallible heroes, and then when they get older, teach them that you lied by omission and that those people really have major flaws. You may not need to dwell on those flaws, but some people -- including but not limited to black people, native Americans, and women -- may not find that to be the sort of history they are comfortable depicting.

 

In short -- I have a hard time believing it should only be black people who find slavery morally questionable. Slavery is not just "a black thing."