4 ms·
> But in the last 30 years, during which A People’s History has arguably had a greater influence on how Americans understand their past than any other single bo
by RodericDay 11y ago
> But in the last 30 years, during which A People’s History has arguably had a greater influence on how Americans understand their past than any other single book, normally voluble scholars have gone silent.
This doesn't ring true at all. If the influence of People's History was as large as this author suggests, America would be nowhere as jingoistic as it is today.
- danso 11y agoThe claim doesn't necessarily mean that it has dominated interpretation of American history, just that it "arguably had a greater influence...than any other single book". Much of how we think of American history is still influenced by school curriculum (i.e. textbooks). After school, we're still influenced, even if only subconsciously in the way we're influenced by Coca-Cola ads, by decades of traditions and status quo interpretation. The fact that Columbus Day is celebrated as a federal holiday -- and that many of us get the day off -- is going to be a persistent influence to the average American, including those who vote.
- Avshalom 11y agoEven still Guns, Germs and Steel probably beats it handily.
- arbitrage 11y agoIt takes a while for the effects to bubble up. Assume that the children taught with this book were 15-18 years old. Add 30 years to that, and you get ... 45 - 48. Prime time to enter politics. So, if the effects are going to be seen, they should start hitting right about now.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoBooks probably don't influence people's understanding of history all that much. It's pretty unusual for people to read nonfiction at all, much less history.