A Patriot's History of the United States

Imagine if a conservative read Howard Zinn and then thought, "I could make something equally as horrible". This is a stocking stuffer your grandfather would give you in the waning years of the Iraq war. If you are opposed to liberals' non-stop focus on abuses, here are some whataboutisms and excuses. All are surface level complaints and extremely boring.

It got right that there's history that happened pre-colonially, colonially, and post-Revolution, and that's kinda where it ends. Elsewise, this book is propaganda. It's full of hot takes, rhetorical contortionism, and in some cases outright lies. It's no wonder it sold as much as it did and still does. I wager it was in part motivated by Zinn's "People's History", which was also quire frequently less than scholarly.

This book is unapologetic in its conservative interpretation of history and provides an excellent counterpoint to the Progressive leaning histories that have been taught in schools for thirty years or more. It is well researched and interesting to read. One benefit of reading a 900 page history from the discovery of the continent through to 2004 is that it becomes easier to understand the cyclical nature of American politics and how it affects everything from our economy to foreign policy. Five stars

We read this as an example of bias in nonfiction. In that way, it was perfect. As a spine for a secular homeschool, I would not recommend it.

4770. A Patriot's History of the United States From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen (read 1 Nov 2010) This book should be entitled 'A far right-wing history of the U.S.' It makes no effort to be objective but relies on books with which the authors agree--all secondary sources, very little attempt at original research. In the earlier part of the book sometimes the authors agree with non-right-wing historians, but as we get nearer to the present it more and more sounds like unadulterated Fox News--totally biased, totally unbalanced. They even say things that George Bush admits are baseless--such as that Saddam Hussein had links to the 9-11 terrorists. But I did like that the authors show more blame Hoover for the Depression--which I grew up knowing. And they approve of Truman firing MacArthur, as I did when it happened. Anything good that happened when Clinton was president they give Reagan credit for--an irony when today the same crowd blames Obama for everything from Jan 20, 2009 on, and even for things that happened before that date. Not a good book and not recommended except for folk who want to see how biased some 'historians' can be. show less

The purpose of this book is to counter all the anti-Americanism inherent in many US history textbooks, perhaps they do that too well in places. They show some warts, but are not above trumpeting the good things a bit too loudly. Still, this is a good text. It's not as artfully written (or as good) as Paul Johnson's A History of the American People, but it is way better than the somewhat insipid text by William J. Bennett.

The purpose of this book is to counter all the anti-Americanism inherent in many US history textbooks, perhaps they do that too well in places. They show some warts, but are not above trumpeting the good things a bit too loudly. Still, this is a good text. It's not as artfully written (or as good) as Paul Johnson's A History of the American People, but it is way better than the somewhat insipid text by William J. Bennett.