霍华德·津恩博士的《美国人民的历史》应该被命名为《美国无产阶级的历史》。在前三章中，津恩不仅研究了征服者、统治者和领袖的历史;还有被奴役、被压迫和被领导的历史。就像任何一本从1492年到18世纪60年代早期的美国历史书一样，《人民史》讲述了美洲的“发现”、欧洲列强的早期殖民、殖民地的统治以及殖民者对其领导人日益增长的不满。
然而，津恩强调了许多群体和观点的作用，而这些群体和观点大多数书都忽略或略过:美国原住民的困境
由于欧洲人的入侵，他们的数量减少了90%，这些民族在许多方面与他们的欧洲同行是平等的，奴隶进口到美国，他们难以形容的旅行条件和待遇，围绕这些奴隶的农业经济的无情建立，不满的殖民者的困境被统治的资产阶级所忽视，最重要的是，美国不断上升的阶级和种族斗争，津恩正确地认为这是我们作为一个国家今天所面临的许多问题的根源。看到一本围绕着这段历史上的人物展开的太空之旅令人耳目一新。
当哥伦布到达海地时，船上只有39人，而海地上有25万印第安人。如果白人在岛上人口中所占比例不到百分之一的百分之二，那么当地人得到的句子比大多数历史书中的两三个句子还要多，这才是公平的。津恩引用人口数据、第一人称叙述以及他自己对其影响的解释，准确而公正地描述了欧洲人在北美大陆上最初两个半世纪的生活。历史书的核心显然是历史。在这本书的前三章中，津恩介绍了从1492年10月12日克里斯托弗·哥伦布的Niña、Pinta和Santa Maria登陆巴哈马群岛开始的美国前250年的主要历史事实。正是在那里，欧洲人和美洲原住民第一次接触;阿拉瓦克土著人出来迎接白人，而白人只对寻找金子感兴趣。从巴哈马群岛，哥伦布航行到古巴和Hispañola，现在的海地和多米尼加共和国的家。115年后，在向北1500英里处，由约翰·史密斯领导的一群英国定居者建立了詹姆斯敦殖民地;不久之后，马萨诸塞湾殖民地由一群我们今天所知的清教徒建立。 Because of uneasy and hostile relations with the nearby Pequot Indians, the Pequot War soon started between the colonists and the natives.
不用说，殖民者赢了，但这是以他们自己的几十个人和成千上万的皮科特人为代价的。尽管印第安人经历了冲突、暴露、饥饿、饥荒、疾病和其他困难，英国人还是不断地来到美洲。1619年，他们定居下来，开始把非洲奴隶带到中部殖民地。在求助于非洲人之前，殖民者曾试图征服印第安人，但这种想法在形成之前就失败了。津恩写道:“他们不能像哥伦布那样强迫印第安人为他们工作。他们寡不敌众，虽然有了先进的武器，他们可以屠杀印第安人，但他们也将面临屠杀的回报。他们不能抓住他们并奴役他们;印第安人顽强、足智多谋、目中无人，在这片树林里如鱼得水，而移居此地的英国人则不然。“白人仆人的数量还不够....至于自由白人殖民者,他们中的许多人是熟练的工匠,甚至男人休闲回到英格兰,他们倾向于工作约翰·史密斯的土地太少…不得不宣布戒严,组织成团伙工作,迫使他们生存的领域…… “Black slaves were the answer. And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves, even if the institution of slavers would not be regularized and legalized for several decades” (25). Black slavery became an American institution that the southern and middle colonies began to depend on for their economic success.
最初的怨恨开始不是来自奴隶，而是来自以边境白人为代表的无产阶级。纳撒尼尔·培根领导了一场反对维吉尼亚州州长威廉·伯克利和他的调和印第安政策的革命。培根和其他生活在西部边境的人想要更多的保护来抵御印第安人的攻击。伯克利和他的亲信们只顾自己的经济和政治利益，以至于他们忽视了培根的叛乱，继续他们的政策。最后，培根自然死亡(他感染了一种讨厌的病毒)，他的朋友们被吊死，但有生以来第一次，政府被迫倾听下层阶级的怨愤，在那之前，这些下层阶级在很大程度上都是被忽视的。与此同时，阶级差别越来越明显，穷人越来越多。市民们因为欠债而被关进劳改所，偶尔还会发生反对富人的暴动。然而，愤怒越来越多地从一场阶级战争变成了一场民族战争。英国的印象和其他政策分散了殖民者的注意力，使他们从对资产阶级的愤怒转向对自己祖国的愤怒。在第三章的结尾，紧张局势加剧，美国人反对英国人，工人反对富人。 The atmosphere was ripe for revolution. The reason that this book might be better titled A Proletarian’s History of the United States is that Zinn’s main focus on the book besides the actual history is the effect of the history on the common people and the workers, or proletarians as Marx and Engels referred to them. While most history books focus on the dominating Europeans, Zinn focuses on the dominated Native Americans, who Zinn holds to be at least as advanced as their European masters.
他写的是“哥伦布和他的继承者没有进入空旷的荒野，而是进入一个在某个地方的世界就是如此
人口密集的欧洲，文化复杂，人际关系比欧洲更平等，男人，女人，孩子和自然之间的关系比世界上任何地方都要完美。“他们是一个没有书面语言的民族，但有他们自己的法律、诗歌和历史被保存在记忆中并流传下来，他们的口头词汇比欧洲的更复杂，伴随着歌曲、舞蹈和礼仪戏剧。他们非常注意个性的发展、意志的强度、独立性和灵活性、激情和潜能，以及他们与他人和自然的伙伴关系”(21-22)。在第一章的中间部分，津恩用对哥伦布的历史处理来说明自己对历史教学的看法。五百年前，欧洲人入侵美洲印第安人定居点的历史就这样开始了。当你读到[Bartolomé de]拉斯·卡萨斯时，开头是征服、奴役和死亡。当我们读历史书给孩子们在美国,这一切都始于英雄冒险,没有流血,哥伦布日是庆祝”(7)。他继续谩骂历史学家塞缪尔·艾略特·莫里森的短暂和埋提到哥伦布的原住民的种族灭绝。津恩说，这是历史学家所能犯下的最令人发指的罪行之一，因为“公然撒谎或默默隐瞒有被发现的风险，一旦被发现，可能会激起读者对作者的反叛。”
To state the facts, however, and then bury them in a mass of other information is to say to the reader: yes, mass murder took place, but it’s not that important… it should effect very little what we do in the world” (8). Zinn says that “selection, simplification, [and] emphasis” (8) are necessary to the historian, but he chooses to take a different stance in his writings. “…I prefer to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish… of the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by the blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America. And so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can “see” history from the standpoint of others” (10). Zinn continues his identification with the oppressed as he discusses black-white relations. He says that blacks and whites are not naturally prejudiced against each other as some would have us believe; he points to the fact that laws actually had to be passed to keep blacks and whites from fraternizing. Servants and slaves of different races saw each other as oppressed workers first and as members of a specific race second. On the topic of slavery, Zinn berates the American system, calling it “lifelong, morally crippling, and destructive of family ties, without hope of any future” (27).
Some argue that African tribes had slavery of their own so it was a part of their culture to begin with, but Zinn says that “the ‘slaves’ of Africa were more like the serfs of Europe — in other words, like most of the population of Europe” (27). Zinn commiserates with the plight of the oppressed frontier whites, making Nathaniel Bacon out to be a hero. Over the course of the next 80 years, Zinn cites routine injustices against the working and under classes, saying that it “seems quite clear that the class lines hardened through the colonial period; the distinction between rich and poor became sharper” (47). It is refreshing and commendable to see a history text that takes a stance on the side of the peoples that seldom get represented. Columbus’s treatment of the Native Americans was atrocious, abominable, and abhorrent, yet most history texts treat him as one the greatest men to have ever lived. If your value as a human being is measured by the number of lives you ruin, people you kill, and civilizations you destroy, then Columbus is on par with Josef Stalin. This example may seem extreme, but both men were directly responsible for the deaths of millions on innocent civilians and caused sheer terror and panic among millions of other people. The difference is that Columbus did it in the name of exploration and human progress, which Zinn correctly calls a bit of a misnomer, while Stalin did it to achieve his political ambitions, which Columbus was certainly not without himself. Columbus committed horrible atrocities, and Zinn accurately portrays them from a unique standpoint, which gives long overdue respect and recognition to the millions of Indians who died in the name of progress. Equally accurate is Zinn’s portrayal of colonial relations.
非洲奴隶和无产阶级白人都为资产阶级的利益而被摆布、折磨，并被当作政治博弈的棋子。辛声称有明确的种族之间的竞争,最终导致了革命群众的愤怒时,最初主要针对资产阶级是重定向的形式对英格兰言论,让步,和宣传呼吁效忠美国的上层阶级和反抗,先是安静，然后大声，对阵英格兰。“(忠诚的束缚)是自由和平等的语言，它可以团结足够多的白人，在不终结奴隶制或不平等的情况下，发动一场反对英国的革命”(58)。津恩完全正确地看到了我们开国元勋们不可告人的动机;他们意识到脱离英国在经济、社会和政治上对他们都有好处。他们所做的就是利用人民的愤怒来对付他们，非常讽刺的是，他们利用这些愤怒来促进自己的进步。最终，在美国历史的头250年里，存在着传统历史教科书通常忽略或不强调的各种规模的压迫和阶级战争，但津恩巧妙地表明，读者是美国历史中重要的、有影响力的部分。忽视被征服和被压迫者的困境，就是忽视了不可忽视的历史的一部分。
用你的旧作文帮我们修复他的笑容，这只需要几秒钟!
-我们在找你以前的论文、实验和作业。
-我们会审查并发布在我们的网站上。-AD收入用于支持发展中国家的儿童。
-通过“微笑手术”和“微笑列车”支付腭裂手术的费用。
