Zinn admits to having bias in his book; he claims that regular history books lean heavily in the direction of the governments and resisting unruly rebels. He justifies his bias by saying that since so many books support actions of the government, we need some “counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission.” By his thought, his bias is justified because it provides some balance to other history books that lean the opposite way.
Zinn argues that “the idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics.” He cites examples such as the Founding Fathers being saviors in the Revolutionary Crisis, Lincoln in the slavery crisis, FDR in the Great Depression, etc. He says that Americans are taught to believe that the biggest
…show more content…
In the 70s, it would seem reasonable to predict such, especially with the liberal climate of the time. Students and youth were the driving force behind reform and for the first time, the nation, except a conservative few, witnessed itself standing opposite of the interests of the elite and the Establishment. Zinn speaks about how rebels fight against the system but usually lose because they don’t risk everything, or aren’t passionate or strong enough. This was also the first time the middle class stood against the upper class; usually they act as a buffer between the classes.
Zinn’s idea of a utopian society is a place where our differences are positive attributes, not reason for domination. It’s where people can express themselves without violence. It’s an accumulation of past movements--women’s rights, abolition, labor insurgents, youth, etc. People would have time for leisure and not be consumed by competition.
Zinn’s idea of a Utopian society isn’t completely unreasonable; Zinn provides examples of prior movements that would support his society. He cites the sixties and seventies as a time when the Establishment failed to produce national unity; how there was mass change in things like family, marriage, sex, and other situations that cannot be