I would like to add that a lot of time is spent on various labor and union-related issues, such as:
etc, etc, etc.
However, the OP referred specifically to labor-related violence.
I learned nothing about any of these. (I’m envious.)
Didn’t know that about Zinn. I’m glad for him that there was some point in his life that he was working for the betterment of his country.
Haymarket Square is all I remember of this subject being mentioned in high school.
Not mentioned was the violent 1934 textile workers’ strike, which resulted in the deaths of two people at the textile mill in our very own county. I was very surprised to learn of this incident later in life, because no one in my hometown ever discusses it.
I doubt my high school history teachers were even aware of the incident.
Second Lieutenant Howard Zinn, US Army Air Corps.
Howard Zinn at Vietnam War protest.
According to Wikipedia, anti-communist liberal writer Michael Kazin describes Howard Zinn as “an evangelist of little imagination for whom history is one long chain of stark moral dualities.”
Could you elaborate on your view of Zinn as a historian? Specifically, what do you think he has done against America? Is your criticism in line with the ones above, or is it about something else?
I’ve heard him speak in interviews and early on bought a copy of The People’s History, which I found to be nothing but an attack on America and quit about a third of the way through. He, along with people like Chomsky and Gore Vidal, I have no use for. I do agree that he divides issues into black and white. He then writes about those areas where he sees America with the black hat. I’ve no use for the man.
Be assured, however, that if there are any violent massacres of striking American laborers in the future, the dynamics of the Information Age will assure that future generations of American students will learn all about it.
OTOH, if there are any violent massacres of foreign striking laborers in the future, the dynamics of the Information Age do not guarantee that future generations of American students will learn anything about that. Not even if such massacres can be laid at the feet of the U.S. government or U.S. corporations.
So it goes.
I was hoping there would be at least one answer of this sort. I had an education that WAS extremely good… but the base American History class that I had was lucky to get through the Civil War. If you’re going to do American History on a level where you’re trying to understand why things are happening, even only the major things, it’s very difficult to get through even that “first half” in a single high school year. I know about all the later stuff because I had the opportunity to take various more contemporary and/or specialized classes in both high school and college, but the standard U.S. History class at my (private, college prep) school was notorious for being Really, Really Good, one of the best classes at the school… and also for never getting much past 1865.
I have read the Zinn book, and frankly I think it would be a waste of time for any standard-level high school history class, or even any more advanced classes that don’t have the luxury of meeting on weekends (I envy you and your ilk, Scribble!). That has less to do with the quality of the book - though, if I were adding books to a standard HS curriculum, I would stay away from texts quite so ideologically influenced - than with the fact that I think the list of things we expect the students to learn in that one year of U.S. History is already too long.
It comes down to educational theory more than ideological feelings about unions. Although I, for one, don’t know why we don’t celebrate violent massacres of striking laborers more often… 
Don’t you realize? Good Americans avoid the military when they are young enough to serve. Then they grow up, start wars based on lies & gladly send the younger generation off to die.
I went through small-town Ohio public schools through eighth grade, and then a very good prep school near Pittsburgh through twelfth grade, where I took the AP U.S. history course (back when the AP was a big deal and relatively rare; now I understand it’s practically required by selective colleges).
Labor unrest didn’t get a lot of attention in any of my American history courses along the way, probably just because of the sheer volume of stuff that had to be covered. I remember learning about the Haymarket Riot and the Pullman Strike, but not much else - these were emblematic of larger and broader problems. There are lots of sidelights to American history that simply can’t be covered in most general history courses. How much attention do the Zoot Suit Riots get? The “mutiny” of black sailors during WW2 who were loading ammunition? Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner or the Amistad uprising? The political upheaval caused by reformist vets returning after WW2? Not a whole lot, I suspect.
Someone once criticized how U.S. history is taught by describing a teacher shouting after the fast-departing kids as school lets out for the summer, “By the way, we won World War II!”
I didn’t learn about all the specific instance cited in the OP, but several of them indeed were taught/discussed (briefly) in my US history class in high school…and of course we did go over the various tensions between big business and labor during various periods of US history, discussing some of the violence aspects on both sides with a general overview of the big picture of how things happened. I’d say that it was a decent (though brief) touch on such a subject…perfect for high school history. If one wanted more, one could and should take history in college where you could get into more specifics and depth.
While I think that its possible that not everyone DID cover this subject in high school (curriculum varies after all), I’m guessing that by and large people simple ignored the subject. I noticed in my own history classes that my fellow students weren’t exactly enthralled by the subject and could very well see some of those fellow students completely missing the fact that it WAS covered…especially after 20 odd additional years to forget. I WAS interested in the subject…which is the only reason I remember that it was taught.
-XT
Sounds like if I want depth I have to educate my kids myself …
We learned about the Pullman strike, the Haymarket Massacre, and the Homstead strike. The significance of strikes and labor unions was an extended response question on the test last week, and knowledge of the Knights of Labor and the AFL was expected. We’ve also got Zinn as a supplement and were required to read and analyze the chapter that focused on labor unions and corporations of the late 1800’s (ch 11? Robber Barons) for homework. Zinn’s only broken out every once in awhile though, probably because not everyone does the readings.
It’s AP U.S. history, and sometimes I feel as though we don’t learn enough, but the honors curriculum is a joke in comparison and I doubt they cover anything more than the Haymarket Square Massacre and the fight for eight hour workdays. I should mention that the honors curriculum is tailored to the NYS U.S. History Regents.
I like Zinn (he’s refreshing and his name reminds me of orange juice), but I think the book that has left the biggest impression on me as far as unions go is a YA novel, Lyddie by Katherine Paterson. I think I read that novel three or four times over in middle school.
Thanks to the current trend towards “teaching to the test,” yes. A teacher has a choice of either hitting everything lightly and making it to the end of the 20th century by May, or dealing with issues in depth and never getting past World War One. Since the tests cover it all and the Administration lives or dies by the tests, the choice is obvious. Or you can make sure your kid gets into a good AP class and does all the reading.
Wonder why there aren’t any customer reviews for the second one?
Because the link was to the brand-new paperback edition.
Here is a link to the hardcover edition, with customer reviews. There are probably not as many as for Zinn’s book, because this book is a much more recent publication.
Thanks. For a second, I was afraid that Amazon was eliminating reviews.
This was on The Simpsons. I believe the teacher shouts “Wait, I didn’t tell you how WW2 ended!” There’s a pause as all the kids look questioningly at him. “We won!” The kids cheer and run off chanting “USA! USA!”.
There are so many examples of American laborers being mistreated by the government and their employers–on the full spectrum from getting shorted on lunch breaks to being shot at–that it would be impossible to cover all of even the most heinous ones in high school classes. Speaking as a man who has been out of high school for fewer than three years, I don’t think kids under 16 can really appreciate the intricacies of the worker-employer-government relationship, or the magnitude of these massacres. And, sure, it’d be great for high schools to get under the surface and deliver hard-hitting history to the kids, but in reality there are some things that are just too hot to touch at that level. I was lucky that my high school invited college teachers to teach college history classes, and I learned the bitter truth about American history in my junior year. But my HS has enough private backing that the county gives them the option of dispensing with some conventional curricula. At public high schools it’s just the nature of the beast that history students can’t get much more revolutionary than reading Orwell unless they do it on their free time. Believe me, I’d be happy to see every American high school student learn the cold reality of what their government was really built on, but we’ve got more pressing issues to tackle in the public education system itself, let alone the government as a whole.
Instead of going into minute detail of every atrocity the haves have ever perpetrated on the have nots, I say give the kids this simple assignment:
1: Locate the nearest National Guard Armory to the school.
2: Find out who the armory was built to arm the town against. (Hint: It ain’t the Russians or Al Qaeda!)
That should bring the lesson home pretty quickly.
