Wikipedia:Sandbox
 | Welcome to this sandbox page, a space to experiment with editing.
You can either edit the source code ("Edit source" tab above) or use VisualEditor ("Edit" tab above). Click the "Publish changes" button when finished. You can click "Show preview" to see a preview of your edits, or "Show changes" to see what you have changed. Anyone can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely). Click here to reset the sandbox. You can access your personal sandbox by clicking here, or using the "Sandbox" link in the top right.Creating an account gives you access to a personal sandbox, among other benefits. Do NOT, under any circumstances, place promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in sandbox pages. Doing so WILL get you blocked from editing. For more info about sandboxes, see Wikipedia:About the sandbox and Help:My sandbox. New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page or our tutorial. Questions? Try the Teahouse! |
Criticism
+ +
Margaret O'Brien has written “SNCC is not going to save the world. By suggesting it could, Zinn places SNCC's true greatness in a possible (but very doubtful) future; and he needn't have.”
+ +
In his review of Postwar America: 1945-1971, Peter Michelson writes that “the book suffers finally from political romanticism, the sort of wishful thinking that reveals the frustrating dilemma of American radicalism.”
+ +
Simon Lazarus, writes that Zinn romanticizes “the virtues of confrontation for its own sake”. [1]
+ +
"A People's History of the United States" has been scorned specifically; Luther Spoehr for example writes that Zinn's book “has no notion of process or complexity, no sense of how the terms of argument and weapons of battle have changed over time.” Saterday Review, 7 Feb 2, 1980 page 37
+ +
Michael Kammen finds "A People's History" to be “a synthesis of the radical and revisionist historiography of the past decade, incorporating many of the strengths and most of the weaknesses of that highly uneven body of literature.”
+ +
Bruce Kuklick, writes “its comprehension of issues is stunted; its understanding of materials is unnuanced”.
+ +
Terry M. Perlin contends Zinn's "peoples history" “suffers from considerable naiveté,” and concludes that it is “a utopian tract, suffering from all the beauties and dangers of that format.”
+ +
Mariel Garza accounts for the book's phenomenal sales with the observation “A People's History is a great example of product differentiation, entering underserved markets, and giving people what they want.” [2]