“A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn is a textbook used in as many as one in four high school history classrooms. Its unassuming title makes it hard to differentiate it from other literature that could be found on the shelves of nearly any school. And yet, as a report recently found, this textbook was inspired by the controversial German philosopher Karl Marx and “misinforms students” by presenting American history as a “conflict between capital and labor.”

Zinn is a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” who “believe[s] in the wiping out of national boundaries.” As The College Fix reported, his textbook “has become one of the most widely used history textbooks in American education, both at the high school and college level.” Concerned by the number of Americans who are reportedly not proud to be American, Goldwater Institute chose to compare Zinn’s history textbook to a lesser known (but significantly more conservative-based) textbook created by Hillsdale College Professor Wilfred McClay entitled, “Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story.”

The report was written and released by Goldwater’s Tyler Bonin and Matt Beienburg. “Americans’ civic memory is fading,” they wrote. “[T]he share of adults who can name even the fundamental rights of the First Amendment has dropped by as much as half in recent years,” which is in addition to the decreased number of citizens proud to be American — a percentage that went from 90% to 67% in 2004.

But what the authors discovered is that, instead of “renewing civic literacy and enthusiasm among the rising generations, many instructional programs and school resources are actively compounding the erosion of confidence in our constitutional republic.” And their report only seemed to prove that as fact.

Zinn’s heavily utilized textbook, when compared to McClay’s, presents two radically different narratives of American history. Goldwater’s researchers felt it was important for parents, teachers, and school leaders to understand how a textbook’s underlying motivations can drastically affect how a student learns of the world around them. Concerning American history, the report states that McClay’s text specifies that the primary objective is to “offer to American readers, young and old alike, an accurate, responsible, coherent, persuasive, and inspiring narrative account of their own country.” On the other hand, Zinn shared that, in the crafting of his book, “Marx’s Communist Manifesto was … immensely useful and inspiring.”

“This report provides merely a few snapshots of the competing versions of American history told through each work,” the researchers wrote. And “these differing accounts are likely to leave students either inspired or embittered in their attitudes toward the United States, depending on which text they receive.”

For example, Zinn presented the American Revolution as a result of “economic manipulation and political oppression perpetrated by wealthy elites at the expense of the poor.” McClay explained that this war was “a historically unprecedented advancement in declaring and securing liberty, equality, and self-determination advanced by flawed but extraordinary figures.” Concerning the Civil War, Zinn emphasized “resentment toward Abraham Lincoln and the people of Northern states … for insufficient opposition to the institution of slavery.” Comparatively, McClay highlighted “an appreciation for the extraordinary arc of history advanced by abolitionist leaders against anti-capitalist apologists of slavery.”

Zinn’s text seemed to support the spread of communism under the USSR, while McClay offered “a sober assessment of the threat, duplicity, and illiberal designs of the communist totalitarian regime, even while acknowledging the excesses of McCarthyism.” Zinn’s text even goes as far as to portray the Constitution as “uniquely responsible for legitimizing slavery, even as its framers had scrupulously crafted the document to avoid even recognizing the terms ‘slave,’ ‘slavery,’ ‘master,’ or ‘owner,’ and even as many of the framers expected slavery to die out.”

The report highlights that “while McClay makes no attempt to shield students from the horrors and hypocrisies of slavery — nor deny the unequal treatment endured by many of the groups living within the new American nation — he ensures that students are not left cheated of the surrounding historical backdrop as they are with Zinn.”

The full report goes into fine detail on how these texts compare, but in summary, the authors concluded:

“Howard Zinn’s A People’s History advances misrepresentations, lacks nuance, and aims to misinform our young people about landmarks of American history. The book has a near-exclusive focus on understanding every major event as a conflict between capital and labor, borrowing from Marx to scrub individual actors’ motivations free of all principles beyond greed and economic exploitation.

“The reason to oppose Howard Zinn’s book in school curricula is not because it criticizes the United States or even solely because of its ideologically driven narrative. The reason to oppose it is because it flattens America’s dynamic history into a simplistic and repetitive thesis of oppression that engenders skepticism and contempt for American institutions within our students. … Textbooks presented to high school students need not ‘whitewash’ American history — indeed they should make apparent the periods of our past in which the peoples of this nation have failed to live up to the ideals on which the United States was founded. But trying to convince students that the American republic is thus fundamentally corrupt is an entirely different — and toxic — message.”

As Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand, “Mary Grabar wrote an excellent book debunking Howard Zinn that I recommend to people interested in this topic.” At the end of the day, “The anti-American, anti-capitalism animus in Zinn’s work should have long ago disqualified it for purchase with public dollars.” Especially since now, Kilgannon pointed out, “we are … blessed with many truly excellent and accurate historical curricula for use in schools that will encourage a love of country and appreciation for the important contributions America has made to the world.”

Ultimately, the report emphasized that students must be reminded “that ideas and decisions matter” — reminders that should “encourage them toward responsible citizenship. In an age of increasing cynicism, stilted portrayals of history, and faltering civic literacy, the richness of texts like Wilfred McClay’s offer a much needed glimmer of hope.”