This has been said by several other reviewers, but obviously it needs to be said again, because people aren't getting it. Stop calling Howard Zinn BIASED ! One of the central insights Howard Zinn has always tried to share with us is that EVERY HISTORIAN IS BIASED. There is simply too much history for any signifigant amount of it to be written down ever. Therefore, the historian, no matter how long his book is, must be very selective in what events he/she chooses to record. By choosing some events and leaving out other he/she is making a tacit value-judgement ( "these events are important and these aren't" ). Now, Howard Zinn's point of view is that the suffering of the masses is more important then whether or not so-and-so was really good at making money and/or killing people. That's why Howard Zinn's heros are the defender's of personal freedom ( Harriet Tubman, Eugene B. Debs, etc. ), not military heros and rich white men that happened to be elected president. Now, if you see Howard Zinn as biased, but think that the history books that everyone reads in school aren't biased then congradulations!, you've been successfully brain-washed. The difference between Howard Zinn and most historians is this: Most historians are biased in favor of the rich and powerful; Howard Zinn is biased in favor of everybody else.