American History vs Howard Zinn
Skins deliberate criticism of the foundation of the A Rican Republic effectively revealed the corrupt society Of colonial America in the 1 8th century ; however, Zion’s writing exposed only one side of these historical events in a biased ma inner. He ranted about the significant separation between the rich and the poor class, the lack of patriotism during the Revolutionary War, and the idea that the American Constitution WA s written to solely benefit the wealthy.
Following Britain’s victory over France in the French and Indian War, the British h began o place taxes on the colonists in order to pay for their extensive war debt. HTH s undoubtedly set set fire under the colonists who were now very eager to rebel against the English Wealthy political leaders began to emerge in the colonies and took leadership in direct ins this rebellious energy. Zinc claims that these uppercases politicians used the lower class energy for their own benefits creating a substantial economic gap between the two CLC asses.
He supported this claim by stating, “The Regulators saw that a combination of we alt and political rower ruled North Carolina, and denounced those officials ‘whose highest SST day if the promotion of their wealth”‘ (Zinc 63). He exclusively gave facts about the riots of the rich versus the poor and made it clear that the wealth of America was using the p or to benefit them. Despite the evident issue between the prosperous and he needy, Zinc undermine the big picture throughout his argument.
He left out the fact that it was the wealth why politicians who left American to independence and set an example for the future politicians o f a counteroffer country. Nevertheless, the colonists, both rich and poor, went to war with the British a ND their victory did not come easy. Only about a third of the colonists actually support deed the war and the other thirds were either against it or didn’t really care. Although most white men ended up serving in the military at some point in the war, most did not reenlist t due to the poor conditions and low pay.
George Washington and other war leaders were desk rate for recruits and had to resort to forcing people onto the side of the Revolution. C incontinence even eased a law that required all men between the ages of 1660 to join the militia ray. Zinc saw this effort by American leaders as, “what looks like the demagnification of the military forces in modern times shows up as something different: a way of forcing large number RSI of reluctant people to associate themselves with the national cause, and by the end of the process believe in it. Here, in the war for liberty, was conscription, as usual, cognizant of wealth h” (Zinc 79).
It;s easy for Zinc to say in hindsight that commanding the poor to fight a war t eye didn’t know much about was wrong in many ways; he makes it clear that the American’s vi story was hard fought and if it weren’t for their alliance with France then they most likely woo old have never won the war. But Clan fails to mention that if it weren’t for those wealthy lead errs who made sure a Revolutionary army actually existed, then the Americans would have SE mingle lost war as well. Despite the issues during the war, the Americans came out on top and were now ready to create a constitution that laid out the rights of the American people.