Reads like a poorly written text book. ( )

I think it is silly to say that this is a people's history, since the people he is talking about don't write history, rather communist professors do. There is some interesting stuff in here, but it is overall quite tiresome; in summary, poor people, or ethnic minorities, or working class people, take it in the shorts. ( )

Books that talk about the truths behind historical events away from the sanitization of the status quo are wonderful. Using that concept to push outright lies and twisted facts so you can sell a book is NOT.

I don't care what narrative an author is trying to push: writing falsehood as actual history just to sell books with the wave of interest over an interesting topic isn't ethical. It erodes the entire fact that we love to study and discuss history not just for entertainment but preservation. Zinn is not preservation but a rewriter of truth for money.

I wouldn't accept this kind of shady misdirection and lack of proper citation from anyone, whether Zinn, Cambridge or Sesame Street and neither should anyone else. ( )

Books that talk about the truths behind historical events away from the sanitization of the status quo are wonderful. Using that concept to push outright lies and twisted facts so you can sell a book is NOT.

I don't care what narrative an author is trying to push: writing falsehood as actual history just to sell books with the wave of interest over an interesting topic isn't ethical. It erodes the entire fact that we love to study and discuss history not just for entertainment but preservation. Zinn is not preservation but a rewriter of truth for money.

I wouldn't accept this kind of shady misdirection and lack of proper citation from anyone, whether Zinn, Cambridge or Sesame Street and neither should anyone else. ( )

3.5 stars. (Review of audio version only as it is different from the book.)

I enjoyed this quite a bit. I found a lot of it to be interesting, and I really enjoyed the personal perspectives shown in the book through statements and interviews, etc.

This doesn't show the US through rose-colored glasses. It definitely shows the people in power or authority in the US as greedy, manipulative, unethical, cruel and conniving sheisters... People who do not scruple to use and abuse and kill for more power and profit. And I don't doubt that's the case one bit.

True, this is one-sided with a left-leaning slant. But it doesn't claim to be otherwise, unlike a certain faux *cough* "news" organization. This is exactly what it claims to be - a people's history of events that shaped America throughout the 20th century. 'People' meaning the little guy, the one without the power or authority to make the rules or enforce them. This shows the perspective of those people who are affected by the people who do have the authority to make the rules and enforces them strictly.

Do I think that what is communicated here is 100% truth and nothing but? Hardly... This is a collection of impressions from people who were there, bound together by a man with a pretty clear agenda. But nevertheless, I found it interesting and pretty informative.

I would love to see the other side of these events, to see the thought-process behind some of the decisions and choices that the people in power made... but you know, the funny thing is that they are shockingly mum regarding that... It seems to me, at least from what I've seen in my lifetime, that what "they" tell us is a combination of spin and buzzwords and fear-mongering. I doubt truth enters into the equation very often, if at all. Does saying so make me a "bad American?" Probably to some. But I love my country... I'm just ashamed of its actions a lot of the time.

Anyway. I would have liked for this to be a little more in depth, even for just the highlighted segments that were included in the audio. I would have liked it to be a bit more clearly defined regarding the sections (Civil Rights, Women's Lib, Vietnam, Native American Rights, etc). Many of the sections bled into each other, or came around to address points again from a slightly different position, but I think that this muddied the waters a bit, and it could have had a bit more impact had it been better organized.

I also think that Matt Damon could have been a bit more... animated as a reader. I enjoy his voice, it was soothing and nice to listen to, but considering the subjects, and the fact that he's reading people's stories, I think that he could have brought them to life a bit more. Maybe he didn't want to step on their toes, so to speak? To disrespect these people who speak for themselves? I'm not sure... it just sounded dispassionate at times to me.

All in all, I really enjoyed this and I will be reading the full text at some point. I can't advertise for this to be included in school curriculum, but it is something I would recommend for anyone looking for a change in perspective. As with all things, take it with a grain of salt. ( )