Zinn, from the observations I’ve made reading his book, is an extraordinary man that isn’t afraid to scratch the surface of details left out of history books. Zinn discusses historical events from the point of view different from other historians, political leaders and governments. In his book “A People’s History of the United States” Zinn uses eye catching titles for his chapters that essentially describe the chapter in its entirety.
Zinn titles chapter one “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress” as he discusses the story of Christopher Columbus from a point of view that is seldomly told. Zinn doesn’t see Columbus as a hero, he was greedy and ruthless with the Indians, believing that the murder of countless Indians was necessary for human progression. Zinn makes it clear that Columbus was not only a murder but also a thieve. Zinn argues against historians and history books that deem Columbus as the “great” hero we’ve been told he is. “The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks) – the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress – is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders” (Zinn, 9). Zinn conveys his readers with facts that aren’t told by governments, leaders, etc. He shines light on the horrifying events of “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress” that are kept obsolete from history books.
Chapter four is titled “Tyranny is Tyranny” as Zinn discusses how the American Revolution gave freedom to the thirteen colonies from British rule, however the Founding Fathers reflected that of the British ruling to their people. Zinn argues that the Founding Fathers gave its people just enough freedom while continuing an unjust status quo. “Some Americans were clearly omitted from this circle of united interest drawn by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, blacks slaves, women” (Zinn, 72). The Declaration also didn’t address existing issues, the Founding Fathers were more concerned with their wealth and power. “The Declaration, like Locke’s Second Treatise, talked about government and political rights, but ignored the existing inequalities” (Zinn 73). The Founding Fathers didn’t really liberate its people from tyranny instead they replaced an old form of Tyranny with a more lenient form of Tyranny in which they proclaimed it was Independence.
Chapter five is titled “A Kind of Revolution” as Zinn discusses that many individuals didn’t support the revolution and weren’t convinced by the Founding Father’s patriotism ruling. Zinn argues that the elites claimed most of the war earnings for themselves, war didn’t benefit the rest of America, only the few elites received any gain from them even though it was the lower class that did all the fighting. “Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering” (Zinn, 77). The lower class received little in rewards for fighting in the wars while the elites kept the biggest portion, running the entire show made them wealthier and powerful. “The Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions and compacts by business and family connections” (Zinn 80). The rich would become richer, and the poor would stay poor. As previously stated, the revolution was intended for freedom, but the Founding Fathers only had individuals with power and wealth in mind while writing the Declaration. “As many as half the people were not even considered by the Founding Fathers…they were not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, they were absent in the Constitution, they were invisible in the new political democracy” (Zinn, 101). For these reasons is why I believe Zinn titled this chapter “A Kind of Revolution”.
Chapter seven is titled “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” as Zinn discusses the western expansion of the U.S. by the terrorization of the Native Americans. Zinn argues that these lands belonged to the Native Americans and the so-called U.S. “heroes” proceeded to kill Native Americans to clear way for the industrial era to the west. “Indian Removal, as it has been politely called, cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the building of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean” (Zinn 124). The U.S. military was doing all the removal through the west, hence, the title “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” meaning that the U.S. westward expansion would continue where ever the grass grew and water ran. The country’s leadership stated that the removal was necessary for America to grow beyond the Mississippi to prosper, taking everything in sight. “Indian removal was necessary for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of the modern capitalist economy” (Zinn, 125). The U.S beginning the “Indian Removal” for the country to prosper could’ve been done in less cruel ways.
Zinn titles chapter ten “The Other Civil War” as he discusses the uprising of resistance and strikes due to the growing inequality in the U.S. Zinn argues that Americans began to strike and protest for better work hours, better pay and better working conditions. “In 1835, twenty mills went on strike to reduce the workday from thirteen and a half hours to eleven hours, to get cash wages instead of company scrip, and to end fines for lateness” (Zinn, 225). Thousands and thousands of workers across the U.S would strike and protest the places they worked for. The result unfortunately was always the same, the workers didn’t get what they wished for, and the government would send its forces to break up the uprising strikes. “The governor sent troops in, declaring a state of rebellion existed…the power of law thus crushed [movements]” (Zinn, 208). Although the strikers did not achieve their goals for better pay and less work hours, they did clear a path for successful strikes in the future. I believe Zinn chose “The Other Civil War” as this chapter’s title as the actions and outcomes resembled that of the Civil War. Here workers were against the workforce due to growing inequality. Some strikes did have their death counts, and many were imprisoned as troops did anything in their power to break it up. Not giving up eventually led to better working conditions, better pay and less working hours.
