Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States has received sharply focused critical attention since its first appearance, and that attention has continued or been revived. It has been nominated for and/or received awards both domestic (it was runner-up for the National Book Award in 1980) and international (the French version of the book won the Prix des Amis du Monde Diplomatique in 2003).
The book's reception, however, has not been uniformly positive or, indeed, uniform in any fashion. Upon the recent occasion of Zinn's death, historian Eric Foner (who had reviewed the book when it was first published) reflected on Zinn's critical legacy. Foner praised Zinn's work as a rare variant on "monumental history" for its focus on the common man rather than on great men or great events, noted how often Zinn led fine students of history into the field through his passion for justice, and criticized Zinn for his oversimplified moral reading. This is a gentler version of the review Foner had published in 1980, in which he praised the book's passion and style but specified a number of elements and people Zinn had overly simplified and/or failed to fully integrate into his account of history. Christopher Phelps, also writing on occasion of Zinn's death, found cause for Zinn's success in that very simplification paired with his passion for justice. The result, more than one reviewer noted, was a historian who appealed to nonhistorians. As one might perhaps expect from a historian classified this way, several professional historians found Zinn's work lacking along more than one axis. Praise for Zinn's accomplishments mixed with correction of his focus marked several of the reviews.
The most negative criticism came from those who opposed Zinn on ideological grounds. Roger Kimball, writing in the National Review, accused Zinn of reproducing "every left-wing cliché" that academic intellectuals had ever employed,...
(The entire section is 690 words.)