Is pic related a good read for accurate history? >tfw this

>>>/wsr/
>>>/his/
>>>/google.com/

>>8651073
His pruned it when I posted there.

I have googled it, but surprisingly enough, 4chan is a good base to find the middleground between ideological bias.

Not really.

Accuracy isn't really the issue with modern history writing. It is more about the inherent biases--which are at least rather plainly set out in a book like this--as well as what is omitted and included. Basically, one history book is never enough.

>>8651070
It's accurate in the sense that it documents actual instances of resistance/rebellion/protest. It's not objective in that it clearly positions itself as a counter narrative to historical texts that tend to focus on states and high ranking officials rather than the people living and surviving in the countries that historians write about.

Absolutely worth a read. But know that Zinn considers himself an activist and not a "neutral" observer of the facts.

>>8651100
>>8651106
So Zinn doesn't straight up lie then? I agree that one history book is not enough. I just don't want to waste my time on one that lies to get a idea across.

What's a good one-volume US history book that doesn't have an axe to grind?

>>8651070
not necessarily the most accurate in terms of historical facts, not really "inaccurate" either

basically this >>8651106

>>8651070
er, no. It's certainly hard-biased to the left. that being said, it's a good read.

>>8651156
You're just oblivious to the axe.

>>8651181
Hard biased to the left in what way?

There's no other way to describe a tax cut from 65% to 20% as comically stupid

>>8651209
Kill yourself

>>8651209
It's historically accurate, but unapologetically biased in it's tone and focus on class warfare. This is evident from the title.

>>8651070
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-the-united-states-2nd-edition.html

>>8651106
Good post. The book may have outlived its purpose as a "counternarrative", because many of the books points have been gradually incorporated into American history textbooks since the first half of the 90s and onwards.

When the first edition of the book was published in the late 70s (78?) American history was taught in the more traditional, triumphalist paradigm articulated by Henry Kissinger as "history is the memory of states", which continued through the 80s, so this book was an important counterpoint to that at the time; now that Columbus is viewed a more as a ruthless conqueror than a brave explorer (something that can be attributed in major part to this book), its merit as a counterweight to more mainstream histories may have declined. You could always pair reading it with another book which is similarly upfront with its bias, like A Patriot's History of the United States (which I haven't read).

I personally enjoyed the book and found it very readable, although I'm not sure about the accuracy of some parts, like the Mexican American War. Also, the book markedly declines in quality after WWII, in part because it's probably too recent and in part because Zinn was very personally involved in the 60s and early 70s counterculture protests.

>>8651070
all history is biased.

even if you had a vault which contained all government documents produced that you could go through yourself, you'd still be biased in your understanding, because you're only reading documents produced by the state. you might read something like the patriot act, for example, and have little context as to why that law came to be in the first place, or what effect it had on society.

let's say you even had enough time and space to review every single document produced in the united states in addition to government documents, things like newspapers, journals, photos, pamphlets, audio recordings, video footage, etc. even then, you're still biased because you're only seeing things that have been recorded, and there is a lot that happens that is not.

the greater amount of time and space a historian attempts to span, the more details, exceptions, or otherwise irrelevant topics they have to filter out. if you want more scientific or a pretense toward more objective history, you have to choose a really particular topic and a shorter period of time. trying to comprehend all united states history in a single volume will result in a great deal of distortion.

Any book that starts with "A Peoples" without a doubt has socialist/Unionist leanings

Nonetheless, read the book. A different perspective is good.

>>8651070
it's very biased

>>8651070
Read this for AP US History a few years ago. It's pretty well done but as others have said, it gets rather bogged down in Zinn's Marxist tendencies when it starts to enter more contemporary history with the stories of union strikes and such.

>>8651070
I read it, but as a Dane with little knowledge of American history it wasn't the best read. It's clearly an argument the established narrative, which is interesting. But I would recommend a more general, or several, volume on American history before reading this.
If you already have a good understanding of American history then go ahead, it's a fun read - the first chapter is very iconic.