Below are the main books I use for American history. I am not saying they are the best – just the ones I use. Commenters can probably come up with some better ones.
The perfect American history book would be produced by five historians: a Black American, a Native American, a White American, an Asian American and a Latino American. They would each have equal editorial control, with the Native American as the head.
As far as I know, there is no such book. Therefore I have done the next best thing: bought books about Black American history by Black Americans, about Asian American history by Asian Americans and so on. This comes from the bitter experiences of depending on white historians to get things right.
Native American history:
Robert W. Venables, “American Indian History” (2004) – it goes on and on about treaties, but that is to be expected.
Black American history:
Lerone Bennett, Jr, “Before the Mayflower” (1962) – I no longer have this book and it appears to be out of print, but it was where I learned the basics of Black American history. It is more or less burned into my brain. Especially the part about the bodies of slaves at the bottom of the Atlantic.
Nell Irvin Painter, “Creating Black Americans” (2006) – a good, solid, up-to-date overview.
Henry Louis Gates, Jr, “Life Upon These Shores” (2011) – Gates is pretty whitewashed and his fact checking is not always rock solid, but the book has tons of stuff I never knew about. Knowing Gates, though, most of the book was probably written by whites.
White American history:
Peter N. Carroll and David W. Noble, “The Free and the Unfree” (1977) – race and class conscious, helps you to understand broader patterns, tends not to sugarcoat, knows about Cointelpro. Now in its third edition (2001).
Howard Zinn, “A People’s History of the United States” (2003) – openly left-wing but has much of the stuff they do not teach at American high school. There is an edition for young people.
James Loewen, “Lies My Teacher Told Me” (2007) – not a history but a look at the holes and biases in history as taught at American high schools. I always check what Loewen says.
Asian American history:
Ronald Takaki, “A Different Mirror” (1993) – talks about all races but seems to be best on White and Asian Americans. Not so good on Blacks and Natives. Still, if I had to recommend a single book to someone who did not know much, it would be this one. There is an edition for young people.
Iris Chang, “The Chinese in America” (2003) – I have not read any of this one yet, but it looks good. She is best known for “The Rape of Nanking” (1997).
Latino American history:
Rodolfo Acuña, “Occupied America: A History of Chicanos” (2004) – If you read only one book on Chicano history, this is the one! Acuña is a highly respected Chicano historian. His book is now in its seventh edition. Banned from Tucson schools, so you know it must be good!
See also:
I wonder if we also need some books that discuss interracial and interethnic relations, America abroad as well as multiracial American history. I am afraid that all the historians above would skip most of it or focus on relationships with white people.
LikeLike
I heard Iris Chang was murdered by the CIA, they probably didn’t like what she was writing about.
LikeLike
Abagond said:
xPraetorius:
That’s a good start. However, based on that premise, really the best American History book (there could be no perfect one) would be five books each with five different authors from the five races, and each with a different ethnicity as the head.
However, the premise itself is fatally flawed. Yes, “race” is a factor in history, but your selection of historians by race guarantees that your method would produce a history through the lens of race. Race is hardly the only driver of history, and not even the most important one!
Furthermore, in my experience with this particulargroup, the selection of historians would be sure to include those with a heavy bias toward the idea: “white people bad; non-whites better; blacks best; and non-whites are victims of whites.” Why would the victims’ perspective be superior to that of the non-victims? Of course, it isn’t. They’re just two different perspectives. To force an agenda on a history book is to render the credibility of the history book deeply suspect before it’s even written.
This is the fatal flaw of, for example, Howard Zinn’s book. I’ve forgotten where I read his quote, but in response to a question, Zinn said something like: “I wrote The People’s History…’ because I wanted to tell the story of… [some victim group or groups].” Well, he really confessed up-front that he wasn’t going to write “history,” but a “story.” Well, ok, but in Zinn’s book, there’s no easy way to tell where “story” ends and “history” begins.
Back to your orifinal premise: Economics is at least an equal driver of history. So: now we need to read more books, by economists instead of representatives of ethnicities. Therefore we need representatives of capitalists and socialists and communists and libertarians and anarchists. Free marketeers and proponents of central planning, and all identifiable points in-between.
Pure hidebound ideology is another driver of history: So now, we need to read books by theoretical communists and fascists and monarchists and islamists and zionists and white racists and black racists and other racists and on and on.
However, all that would be wasted effort, because each of the aforementioned “historians” would write “history” to support an agenda. Abagond’s list of history books does the same. I noticed that Larry Schweikart’s “A Patriot’s History of the United States” is not in the list. Nothing by Paul Johnson is in the list. Two historians extremely highly respected by other historians of all stripes. And, why should they be on the list; it simply wouldn’t support Abagond’s purpose to suggest the output of these authors. However, “history” in support of an agenda is, of course, no history at all, but rather polemics.
You can imagine “history” as like a planet in space. Imagine a moon orbiting the planet in such a way that it sees only one hemisphere of the planet. The moon is a like a historian. The moon-historian can see a lot of the subject — the planet, or my analogy for history — but he can’t see all of it, and he can see what he does see only from his perspective. Now, imagine other moons arrayed in different places in orbit about the planet, but still able ever to see only one hemisphere of the planet. The best perspective you could possibly gain is from books written by all these historians. To torture the analogy just a bit further: Really the best possible understanding you could get of history would be if each of those “moon-historians” were really a whole group of historians giving you different perspectives from their group’s particular angle.
Historians orbit about history, after a fashion, but always seeing only an incomplete part of history, and always from only their own perspective.
The absolutely best possible history book would be written by an honest historian. A historian needs, first and foremost, to be honest, else he’s not a historian, but a polemicist. That was the real fatal flaw of books like Zinn’s. The last word that really anybody uses to describe him or his output is: “honest.” That’s why Zinn is mostly viewed these days as a polemicist, rather than as a historian.
Look: all “history” — even from the most scrupulously honest historians — comes from a “perspective,” and therefore has a bias. It is incumbent on the person who wants actually to understand history — not just read books that support preconceived notions — to read history from all perspectives.
Well, looking back at all that, who has time first to locate all such books — even if they exist — then to read them all? Probably very few people. That’s why I seek out as many different perspectives as possible for a topic that interests me, and approach all these perspectives with an open mind. I think that’s the only way one can hope to delve into history of any kind, with any hope of obtaining an accurate understanding of it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Abagond,
Let me know if you’d like my copy of Beyond the Mayflower.
Justgrace1975
LikeLike
[…] The perfect American history book would be produced by five historians: a Black American, a Native American, a White American, an Asian American and a Latino American. They would each have equal editorial control, with the Native American as the head. […]
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
The fate of Iris Chang is still a mystery to me. I met her in 1998 at the Organization of Chinese American Women banquet which featured her as the honored guest following her book “The Rape of Nanking”. But I never got the story behind the official account of her death.
She was buried in Cupertino. I wondered if people there know what happened. Her mother is writing a memoir to restore her reputation. But thanks for reminding me that I need to read that book.
In addition to these books written by Americans, maybe we should also look at some US history books NOT written by Americans, or perhaps not even written in English. I am always interested in seeing a different point of view.
LikeLike
xPreatorius
Still on cloud nine I see……..
LikeLike
All history is biased because all historians are biased. Some strive to write unbiased accounts but there’s no way to write without any perspective at all. The authors Abagond chose all have an extreme bias and deliberately so. Some as in the case of Zinn even admit to it. That’s why Abagond chose them. It’s confirmatory bias on steroids.
This isn’t a history book per se but it would go a long way towards debunking what Abagond’s authors have deliberately sought to misrepresent. My nomination would be Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? by Dr. Walter Williams.
LikeLike
So one bias for another then Da Jokah?
LikeLike
I am interested in “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” Looks to be quite an interesting read.
LikeLike
Great post!
I also saw some of the book recommendations on Open Thread.
Thanks guys!
LikeLike
@ Lonely Voice: I hope my selections were helpful.
LikeLike
I suggested “Beyond The Mayflower”, that means I suggested a good choice of book.
LikeLike
I was interested in “Lies My Teacher Told Me”.
LikeLike
@Da Jokah
“All history is biased because all historians are biased. Some strive to write unbiased accounts but there’s no way to write without any perspective at all. ”
I don’t have a problem with your opinion that “all history is biased,” but it sounds like you’re equating “bias” and “perspective.” And they’re not quite the same. Obviously everyone has a perspective about things, but that does not necessarily mean they are biased (although in many cases they are).
Historians only become biased when they show unfair or unreasonable inclination.
“The authors Abagond chose all have an extreme bias and deliberately so.”
Can you give an example of this “extreme bias?” And what makes it “extreme” as opposed to normal “bias?”
“This isn’t a history book per se but it would go a long way towards debunking what Abagond’s authors have deliberately sought to misrepresent. ”
How does Williams debunk the authors Abagond listed?
LikeLike
@DJ – Walter Williams is an excellent thinker and writer. He and Thomas Sowell are great skewerers of sacred cow myths of all kinds.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
“A Patriot’s History of the United States” has five words on its cover that greatly annoy me: “Patriot”, “Rush Limbaugh”, and “Iraq’s Liberation.”
I’m seriously considering reading it. It’s a cold night, after all. I could use some righteous hatred to keep me warm.
LikeLike
resw77
Can you give an example of this “extreme bias?” And what makes it “extreme” as opposed to normal “bias?”
Are you expecting me to point to a specific example from one of their books and exclaim. “A-ha! Here it is! On page 119 the author incorrectly says ‘2+2=5’ !” Of course, history (like propaganda) is an art not a science. As long as one gets the basic facts correct there are no provably false examples. But that’s far from a reasonable accounting of history.
Zinn, in particular, was not a historian so much as an activist. He wrote with an agenda and never denied it. He even actively participated in many of the events he wrote about. Now, you may well agree with the positions he took but it’s NOT unbiased. I’ll leave it to Kazin to give more specific examples, describe Zinn’s bias and explain why he’s wrong.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/howard-zinns-history-lessons
How does Williams debunk the authors Abagond listed?</i?
Read it and see for yourself.
LikeLike
@Praetorius
“Why would the victims’ perspective be superior to that of the non-victims? Of course, it isn’t. They’re just two different perspectives.”
Except one perspective is likely to downplay, or even ignore, particular facts that contribute to the past and present conditions of the victims. It’s why Jews, for example, were (and in some cases still are) hated for practicing banking, even though banking was the only trade they were allowed to practice for centuries in many Christian and Muslim lands, so naturally they’d become very, very good at it. But did Christians and Muslims take this into account while contextualizing their present? Of course not.
To use a more relevant example, seeing as it’s the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, let’s talk about MLK and how his history is selectively forgotten and remembered to serve the conservative agenda. There isn’t a conservative alive who doesn’t rush to put MLK’s name in their mouths to silence the, “Race Baiters”. Naturally, they use “I Have a Dream. . .” to bludgeon their opponents, but let’s see what else is in that speech:
Now lets observe and contextualize, particularly the parts in bold. MLK comments on the poverty and segregation of Black people in America. He notes the irony of the former in the midsts of the wealthiest nation in the world, and for that America has failed to hold up its promise to its citizens. He also rejects gradualism as a means of progress, which puts the idea of the Civil Right Movement being an example of “Magical Progress”, as Abagond puts it, to a sound and sudden death. Finally, he offers a cryptic warning of what would happen if his demands are not met.
MLK’s rhetorical style, his blunt approach to race and racism, and scathing rebukes of America are repeated and reused almost verbatim by the so-called “Race Baiters” of this day, and why not? Many of the issues that plagued the Black community then continue to plague it now: the poverty, de facto segregation, and economic isolation persist if they haven’t gotten worse. Violence and single motherhood were problems then as it is now, and alcohol was the drug of choice of the day and every bit as destructive as the drugs used in the present. The Drug War, courtesy of Reagan, is responsible for imprisoning more Black men in 2013 than were enslaved in 1860. And what do these Black men have left to do with their lives after their future employment prospects have been all but destroyed? Back to a life of crime to make ends meet, and the repeat offender phenomena is exacerbated.
An honest appraisal of history would reveal that MLK was one of the biggest, baddest, and radical American “Race Baiters” in history by contemporary conservative standards, second perhaps only to Malcolm X, but because the King is dead (killed for the words he uttered, I might add) and belongs to a victimized group, his memory was distorted and dismembered until it fails to resemble the truth in any meaningful way. Forgotten is the excessive surveillance, slander, and sabotage of MLK by the FBI. Forgotten are his socialist leanings. Forgotten is his proclamation that America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world in protest to the Vietnam War. Forgotten is his bold statement of being “Black and Proud”. Forgotten is that the same unfounded criticisms that were levied against him are levied against Black Activists now. No, all the history texts we used in school have reduced his story to “I have a Dream”, and ever since 2 generations of Americans, especially White Americans, are under the illusion that the struggle ended in 1963. It has only been postponed and muted by the millions of dollars the Federal Government spent to derail the movement.
LikeLike
@Da Jokah
“Are you expecting me to point to a specific example from one of their books and exclaim. ”
Yes. Yes I do, or at the very least a general summary. You made a pretty big claim and yet you’re surprised that someone asked you to support such claim?
“Read it and see for yourself.”
I have read Race and Economics as well as others. But since it isn’t necessarily on the same subject as the books Abagond listed, it begs the question in what way it goes ” a long way towards debunking” them. If you can’t explain how (even without giving specific examples), then just say you can’t, and I’ll assume you’re speaking out of you rear. No need to get testy.
LikeLike
[…] Books on American history (abagond.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
Any history is going to have some bias. The best ones make their biases clear – like Zinn and Churchill. Or even The Economist.
The main bias in history is that it is told by the winners. In the case of America that means white people. So instead of just reading history by white people, I try to read history by others as well. And among whites I go for authors who do not merely repeat, for the gazillionth time, what I was taught at school.
Paul Johnson – I read his American history back when it came out in 1999. Very readable but pretty much the White Version of Events. Nothing on, say, Cointelpro or the Tulsa Riot. His fact checking is shockingly bad.
Walter Williams – I read his columns sometimes. From what I have seen he pretty much just tells white Republicans what they want to hear. Maybe he skewers some liberal sacred cows, but in effect he upholds white supremacy. He makes the mistake of thinking that white liberals speak for black people. Even The Economist knows better than that!
LikeLike
In regard to Latino history, may I recommend MEMORY OF FIRE, by Eduardo Galeano? It is a lyrical three-volume history of America. Being about America, it focuses on the part south of the United States, since that is the largest portion of the continent. The titles are GENESIS, FACES AND MASKS and CENTURY OF THE WIND. They are translated into English by Cedric Belfrage. It also overlaps a lot with indigenous history.
LikeLike
Neely Fuller’s work is HIGHLY recommended, Aba. Nay, its required.
You can YouTube him as well.
LikeLike
[…] Books on American history (abagond.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
I found a video where Iris Chang discusses her book.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h8LVorTecE)
LikeLike
Watched Iris Chang’s video. She also suggested what I had already believed, when she brought up how Chinese-Americans used the courts and legal system and labour strikes to fight for civil rights from 1860s-1940s. She suggested that they set the precedents for methods used by other groups using the legal system to fight for civil rights decades later. It came to mind that the NAACP didn’t really start using the legal system to fight for civil rights until the late 1910s.
She also mentioned how Chinese-Americans did not speak out when Japanese-Americans were incarcerated (I mean “interned”). They could have said something instead of wearing those “I’m Chinese, not J*P.”
She also mentioned about how laws are quietly and incrementally added to erode people’s civil rights until it becomes serious, leading to situations such as slavery and genocide. I suppose that is what happened with Jim Crow. We need to look at what is going on now.
Also I cannot help but wonder if the US govt tried to tear her down, leading to her suicide.
LikeLike
[…] The perfect American history book would be produced by five historians: a Black American, a Native American, a White American, an Asian American and a Latino American. They would each have equal editorial control, with the Native American as the head. […]
LikeLike
[…] The perfect American history book would be produced by five historians: a Black American, a Native American, a White American, an Asian American and a Latino American. They would each have equal editorial control, with the Native American as the head. […]
LikeLike