[maceurt]

Regardless of who the criticism comes from, the point still stands. Also, one of the first results that came up: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-histor...

I don't know if that guy is a liberal or conservative, but he is a Stanford professor, and that seems like a pretty reputable source. At least more than Howard Zinn.

[reefoctopus]

I read that, and it isn’t exactly a scathing critique. He appears to recognize at least some value in it.

Do you by chance consider yourself a conservative?

[maceurt]

No I am not a conservative. I have read that book, and the first time I read it I liked it a lot. I thought it was the definitive book on US history. However, I have heard from many reputable sources about the problems that the book has, and Howard Zinn himself has an obvious agenda. Regardless of ideology, a book that paints itself as nonfiction history book should be objective and unbiased. The Peoples History of the United States is undeniably biased in my opinion, and for that reason I do not recommend it except for someone's own personal enjoyment.

[reefoctopus]

Isn’t that sort of debate pretty common when it comes to history books? The entire point of the book was to write about history from the point of view of those who “lost.” Of course it’s biased in that respect, and it was on purpose.