Reading and Discussion Questions for Schweikart/Allen and Zinn

Discussion #1 – PAT, ch. 12, and PHUS, chs 11 and 13

What does Zinn mean by referring to industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller as “robber barons”?  What did they do to deserve that name?  Why do Schweikart and Allen refer to them as “titans of industry”?  What good do they think they did?

Which of the two narratives best explains the role of the country’s industrial elite in late nineteenth-century American history? What makes it most compelling?  Does it stand on logic, evidence, or some other quality?

How do Schweikart and Allen and Zinn describe urban-industrial life for the mass of Americans, immigrant and native born?  What are the main differences between their accounts?  What does this say about their understanding of American history in general?

What distinguishes Zinn’s interpretation of late nineteenth-century labor unions and strikes from Schweikart and Allen’s view?  How do they differ in the facts they use and the conclusions they develop?

How does Zinn portray Socialists, Wobblies, and other radicals?  What role did they play in making history?  How were they treated?  Why do you think Schweikart and Allen generally ignore them? 

Discussion #2 – PAT, chs. 13 and 14, and PHUS, chs. 12 and 14

How does Zinn explain the increase in overseas military intervention by the United States at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century?  What was its cause?  What did it achieve?  How does this compare with Schweikart and Allen’s interpretation?

Which of the two narratives best explains United States involvement in the Spanish American War?  Does one or the other explain the reasons, fighting, and outcome better?  What makes the interpretation more compelling?

Why does Zinn give Wilson so little attention?  When he does mention him, how does his characterization differ from Schweikart and Allen’s view?  What does this say about how the historians understand the first two decades of U.S. history?

What explanations do Schweikart and Allen and Zinn provide for US entry in World War I?  Are there any similarities?  Do they agree on the precipitating events, underlying reasons, and purpose of the war?  How do they portray its costs and benefits?

How does Zinn explain wartime restriction of civil liberties?  Does he think they were militarily necessary, legally valid, and politically sound?  Why or why not?  How does this compare with Schweikart and Allen?

Discussion #3 – PAT, chs., 15 and 16, and PHUS, ch. 15

How do Zinn and Schweikart and Allen portray the 1920s?  Was it a decade of increasing prosperity and leisure or a decade of growing inequality and misery?  What historical facts do they use to make their specific claim?

What distinguishes the historians’ portrayals of Andrew Mellon and taxation?  What does that say about their broader understanding of1920s politics, society, and economy?

According to Schweikart and Allen and Zinn, what specifically caused the Great Depression?  More generally, what does Zinn mean by saying that the American economy was “fundamentally unsound”?  Do Schweikart and Allen agree?

How do Schweikart and Allen characterize the policies of Herbert Hoover?  Do they think the president had the correct response to the economic downturn?  What do they think about Roosevelt ’s “New Deal” legislation?

Do you think Zinn agrees or disagrees with Schweikart and Allen about the origins, purpose, and impact of the New Deal?  What do their interpretations of the various agencies and programs have in common?  How do they differ?

Discussion #4 – PAT, chs. 17 and 18, and PHUS, ch. 16

How do Zinn and Schweikart and Allen explain U.S. participation in World War II?  What do they think led the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor ?  What were the motives for the U.S. to respond with war?

Do the two narratives differ in their account of U.S. mobilization for war?  What do Zinn and Schweikart and Allen concentrate on when discussing the homefront?  What does this tell you about their larger view of American history?

According to Zinn and Schweikart and Allen, why did the U.S. drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima ?  What explains use of the second bomb?  Who do you agree with?  Why?

What were the origins of the Cold War?  What distinguishes the two narratives on this subject?  How do Zinn and Schweikart and Allen explain U.S. military intervention abroad during the early Cold War era? 

Do Zinn and Schweikart and Allen have the same view of the Red Scare?  Do Schweikart and Allen justify the actions of the U.S. government in identifying and punishing Communists and fellow travelers?  Does Zinn completely object?

Discussion #5 – PAT, ch. 19, and PHUS, chs. 17 and 18

Why are Schweikart and Allen so critical of JFK?  What do they claim were Kennedy’s main failings as a person and political leader?  Do you think this is a fair interpretation?  Why or why not?

Does Schweikart and Allen admire LBJ?  What do they think of the Great Society legislation and programs?  Why?  How does this agree or disagree with Zinn’s account?

How do Schweikart and Allen’s version of the mid-twentieth century black civil rights movement compare with Zinn’s narrative?  Do they talk about the same events, individuals, and groups?  Do they have different interpretations of the movement?

What is Schweikart and Allen‘s explanation for the US war in Vietnam , the growing opposition at home, and the US defeat?  How does this compare to Zinn’s history of the war, anti-war movement, and the defeat?

Discussion #6 – PHUS, ch. 20

How does Zinn portray the Nixon presidency in general and Watergate affair in particular?  Does he think Nixon was involved in “dirty tricks”?  What evidence does he provide?

How is Schweikart and Allen interpretation of this period in Americana history (their chapter 19) different?  What do they think about Nixon and the events known as “Watergate”?

What do the authors say about Nixon’s resignation?  How do they characterize the end to his presidency?  What is the larger significance of this view?

Does Zinn think corruption was rooted out of government through congressional investigations during the Watergate affair? 

In the end, which of the two narratives do you find most persuasive as an interpretation of the past?  Why?