Big Lie:
"“Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners."

The Problems With Howard Zinn’s 'A People’s History of the United States'

The problem with Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States is Howard Zinn himself - his half-truths, falsehoods, and omissions.  Other than that, the book is still good for the bottom of bird cages.  Howard Zinn said he was “something of an anarchist, something of a socialist.  Maybe a democratic socialist” and “Yes, I’m something of a Marxist.”

Zinn said, “I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle.” And, “I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.”  Except, history as a social science discipline isn’t performance art. 

Bottom line: You can’t believe a single word Zinn wrote or a single assertion he made because he freely admitted his biases and tendentiousness.   He freely admitted he did not write a history textbook; he wrote a propaganda manual in the service of the Marxist cause.  It is a disgrace that Zinn’s A People’s History is being passed off as authoritative true history and taught in schools. 

Here is a small sampling of where Zinn was wrong, Marxist, and spinning partial truths into lies:

• Zinn added ellipses to sentences while also clipping out entire sentences or pages in Columbus’ diary to change their meaning.  The missing passages show that Columbus tried to convert the Indians “through love, not force,” and certainly was not intent on murder or genocide as Zinn claimed.
• Zinn said, “Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private profit.”  Attributing all things to the profit motive is Marxism 101. Mischaracterizing all of English colonization is, like the Marxist understanding of history, economics, anthropology, and sociology – reductionalist and simply wrong.  The basic assumptions are incorrect and factually false.  If you’re looking for regimes that massacre people, look no further than the Marxist Soviet Union and Pol Pot’s Marxist Cambodia.  They slaughtered people wholesale even though their Marxist rule was ‘not based on private profit.’ 
• Zinn morally justifies the murder which started the Pequot War by labeling the victim a “trader, Indian-kidnapper, and troublemaker.” Zinn claims the settlers “wanted [the Pequots] out of the way; they wanted their land.”  Yet, Zinn omits the atrocities that the Pequots committed against other Indians and whites.  He omits the Narragansett Indians repeatedly urging the English newcomers to attack the Narragansett’s enemies, namely the Pequots. 
• Zinn wrote “Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites for the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”  Compare that nostrum to the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution which are all about empowering ordinary people, not ensconsing elites.  Zinn’s screed is contrary to every historical document of our American Revolution.
• Zinn added, “When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.”  Labeling the Revolution as paternalism and command is simply to attempt to discredit it.  Zinn hated America and was trying to destroy it by attacking its foundations through his writings.  The ‘hate America’ crowd needs to be asked, ‘after you destroy America, what will you replace it with?’  As Marxist theorist Sergey Nechayev and Marx himself would tell you, they don’t know what comes next because their only job is to destroy everything. 
• Zinn wrote that George Washington was the richest man in America.  The truth is that Robert Morris, Moses Brown, and others were more wealthy.  Washington had to borrow money.
• Zinn wrote that the opposites of slavery and emancipation are both explained by greed.  How can that possibly be, on the face of things?
• Zinn wrote that the U.S entered World War I because, “American capitalism needed international rivalry—and periodic war—to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, … supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements.”  Neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Stalin would have written it any differently.   Lenin was shocked when the workers of the world did not unite during World War I and preferred patriotism and their own country over international proletarian communism.
• Zinn asks about the Spanish Civil War, “Was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable.”  What were U.S.’s “imperial” interests in the Spanish Civil War?  As incomprehensible as Zinn’s argument is, its logic is undercut further when Zinn doesn’t explain the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact and division of Poland. 
• Zinn writes about World War II that, “Quietly, behind the headlines in battles and bombings, American diplomats and businessmen worked hard to make sure that when the war ended, American economic power would be second to none in the world. United States business would penetrate areas that up to this time had been dominated by England. The Open Door Policy of equal access would be extended from Asia to Europe, meaning that the United States intended to push England aside and move in.”  Who knew the U.S. fought for greed?  If that’s the explanation, why would other countries have become U.S. allies and willingly sign up to be eclipsed? 
• Zinn continues with the claim that the U.S. did not defeat fascism during World War II, but had its “essential elements: militarism, racism, imperialism absorbed into our already poisoned bones.”  All Marxists agree with those allegations.  Any accusation will do if you hate America and are trying to destroy it.
• Zinn falsely wrote that unemployment grew in the Reagan years.  In fact, Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in his first month in office. By January of 1989, the rate had declined to 5.4 percent.
• Zinn leaves out Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate, and that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Likewise, Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are omitted.  Facts matter in history.   This is the problem with Zinn’s reductionalist history - important parts of human progress and the national story are left out, sacrificed on the altar of ideological proselytization. 
• Zinn doesn’t mention D-Day’s Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles.  Zinn writes several pages on the My Lai massacre and about U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during the 1991 Gulf War.  The omission of historical truth is as much a failing as the commission of lies.   Zinn selected certain events and left out others for a reason - to get Americans to hate their own country.  Zinn’s selection bias is plain for all to see - he focuses on the warts and unfortunate chapters of American history to discredit the entire national enterprise.  But despite his best efforts, Zinn fails to convince any rational person that the greatest country in all of human history is the worst country ever.
• Zinn asserts that Malcolm X was closer to the mood of the black community than those who peacefully marched on Washington, D.C. in 1963.  Yet, public opinion polls of blacks at the time found that only 6 percent believed that Malcolm X was “doing the best” for black Americans.
• Zinn says little changed when anti-communist black leader A. Philip Randolph successfully pushed Franklin Roosevelt to establish the Fair Employment Practices Committee to end blatant discrimination in the defense industry.  In fact, FEPC broke down barriers, enabling blacks to get jobs in defense plants, shipyards, and other war-related industries previously closed to them. After 1941, the number of Black workers in defense industries rose significantly, from negligible levels to an estimated 8 percent of the workforce by 1944.
• Zinn writes that in 1892 “free land was gone. The last acre of available farmland had now passed into private or corporate hands.”  But, the Historical Statistics of the United States shows that the peak years for Homestead entries were between 1900 and World War I.  Another mistake or lie from an academic fraud hell-bent on destroying America.  The number of factual errors in Zinn’s writings cannot be chalked up to sloppy research alone.
• Zinn states that, in the second half of the 19th Century, “Harvesting wheat required a machine to bind the wheat ... which the farmer had to buy on credit, knowing the money would be twice as hard to get in a few years. ... In the South the situation was worse than anywhere—90 percent of the farmers lived on credit.” The facts show that machinery prices fell during this era and interest rates certainly didn’t double. In fact, data on the farmers’ terms of trade (crop prices versus the prices of things farmers purchased) show that they broadly improved in the late 1800s and Zinn’s claim that 90 percent of Southern farmers lived on credit is completely unfounded.
• Zinn says that the Supreme Court refused “to break up the Standard Oil and American Tobacco monopolies.”   In fact, the Court dismantled both Standard Oil and American Tobacco in 1911. Most importantly, the chapter fails to note the broad, strong rise in workers’ standards of living during this period which was a magnet for immigration.   And this is the ultimate verdict on Zinn’s work: the facts on the ground.  So many from around the world have flocked to the U.S. for a better life - some dying in the process of trying to get here.  This would not be happening if America were, as Zinn wants you to believe, the worst country ever.  America is now home to many refugees who fled communist countries, countries where people like Zinn - this “something of a Marxist” charlatan - are in control.  Can America do better?  Sure, but the answer is not to tear it all down and destroy it, but to roll up your sleeves and get to work to build it up for the betterment of all.