The US foreign policy for the Americas in the early 20th century is something that tends to be thoroughly ignored.

Treatment of indigenous peoples around the world is also another big blinders, although the US has done one of the better jobs of being forthright about poor treatment (compared to Canada, say).

Try "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler, USMC major general.

And let's not forget how the US rolled all over latin America during the cold war...

The problem with that book is so much of its unverifiable and unsourced or a gross exaggeration of the actual facts. It is not an accurate representation of history, and seems to just try and shock the reader.

I googled around a bit, and it appears that most of the criticism comes from those on the right who aren’t a fan of the narrative.

Regardless of who the criticism comes from, the point still stands. Also, one of the first results that came up: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-histor...

I don't know if that guy is a liberal or conservative, but he is a Stanford professor, and that seems like a pretty reputable source. At least more than Howard Zinn.

I read that, and it isn’t exactly a scathing critique. He appears to recognize at least some value in it.

Do you by chance consider yourself a conservative?

No I am not a conservative. I have read that book, and the first time I read it I liked it a lot. I thought it was the definitive book on US history. However, I have heard from many reputable sources about the problems that the book has, and Howard Zinn himself has an obvious agenda. Regardless of ideology, a book that paints itself as nonfiction history book should be objective and unbiased. The Peoples History of the United States is undeniably biased in my opinion, and for that reason I do not recommend it except for someone's own personal enjoyment.

Isn’t that sort of debate pretty common when it comes to history books? The entire point of the book was to write about history from the point of view of those who “lost.” Of course it’s biased in that respect, and it was on purpose.

Even though I'm inclined to beleive you, that's not really a rebuttal to what the parent comment said.

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen talks a lot about how whitewashed, and classist history text books are, and why that is the case.

A summary of the book is that history textbooks have a tendency to avoid showing anything negative done by great American historical figures because they are held up as heroes for people in imitate. There is a narrative of constant progress that is told in the textbooks that does not match with actual history. History textbooks avoid talking about class struggles altogether, because if they did they would be labeled as Marxist. There is a general avoidance of discussing immoral foreign policy. The book backs up these claims by citing many popular textbooks and how they cover, or don't cover, historical events.

(The following summary of the book is my own understanding of the book's opinions and not necessarily my own. I haven't studied history enough to hold my own opinion.)