Pay in installments of $6.09 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 4 - Aug 9
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
small prickly pear cactus Buy Cinnamon Prickly Pear Phoenix, AZ | O. microdasysPhoenix's Warmest Bunny Ear Cactus Cinnamon Brown Dots That Glow in Desert Light Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear (Opuntia microdasys 'Cinnamon') is the warm toned sibling of the classic Bunny Ear Cactus family and one of the most unique small cacti you can grow in the Phoenix Valley. This compact Mexican native forms neat, bushy clumps of bright green pads covered in dense clusters of reddish brown glochids that give the plant a warm, cinnamon speckled
Phoenix's Warmest Bunny Ear Cactus — Cinnamon-Brown Dots That Glow in Desert Light
Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear (Opuntia microdasys 'Cinnamon') is the warm-toned sibling of the classic Bunny Ear Cactus family — and one of the most unique small cacti you can grow in the Phoenix Valley. This compact Mexican native forms neat, bushy clumps of bright green pads covered in dense clusters of reddish-brown glochids that give the plant a warm, cinnamon-speckled appearance. Growing just 1–2 feet tall and 2–3 feet wide, it's perfectly sized for containers, rock gardens, and accent plantings. In late spring, it may produce yellow to orange blooms that complement the warm-toned dots beautifully. Whether you're building a desert container collection in Scottsdale, adding warm texture to a Gilbert rock garden, or creating a unique indoor display in Tempe — Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear adds warmth, character, and zero-fuss charm.
Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear Plant Details
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|---|
| Scientific Name | Opuntia microdasys 'Cinnamon' |
| Common Names | Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear, Cinnamon Bunny Ear Cactus |
| Mature Height | 1–2 feet |
| Mature Width | 2–3 feet |
| Growth Rate | Moderate — 1–2 new pads per season in Phoenix |
| Sun | Full sun to partial shade (6+ hrs ideal). Handles reflected heat. |
| Water | Very low once established. Highly drought-tolerant. |
| USDA Zones | 9–11 (Phoenix is Zone 9b–10a) |
| Soil | Well-draining sandy or loamy soil. Adapts to Arizona caliche with added drainage. |
| Foliage | Evergreen — bright green pads year-round |
| Bloom Color | Yellow to orange, late spring to early summer |
| Special Feature | Dense cinnamon-brown glochids create a warm, speckled appearance |
Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear Uses in Phoenix Landscapes
Container and Patio Gardens
Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear is one of the best cacti for decorative containers. Its compact size and warm-toned dots make it a conversation piece on any patio, porch, or pool deck. Use a wide, shallow pot with well-draining cactus mix and a gravel top-dressing. Pair with its White Dot sibling for a stunning warm-and-cool contrast in matching pots on a Scottsdale courtyard or Chandler front entry.
Rock Garden Accent
The cinnamon-brown dots create beautiful warm contrast against gray decomposed granite, flagstone, and light-colored boulders. Plant among a curated desert bed with Agave, Golden Barrel Cactus, and Desert Spoon for a textured, low-water rock garden. The compact form means it won't outgrow its space — perfect for small planting pockets and garden vignettes.
Indoor Desert Display
Like its White Dot cousin, Cinnamon Dot does well indoors near a bright, south-facing window. Its small size and moderate growth make it ideal for windowsill collections, sunroom displays, or as a living sculpture on a desk or shelf. Just ensure good drainage and minimal watering indoors.
Color-Contrast Companion Planting
Plant Cinnamon Dot alongside White Dot Prickly Pear for a striking warm-and-cool pairing. The cinnamon-brown and white glochid clusters create visual contrast on otherwise identical plant forms — one of the most eye-catching combinations in desert container and rock garden design. Add a Purple Prickly Pear behind them for a three-color desert palette.
Best Time to Plant Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear in Phoenix
Fall (October–November) is ideal for planting. Warm soil promotes root growth while cooler air reduces transplant stress, giving the plant 6–8 months to establish before its first Phoenix summer. Spring (February–April) is the second-best window. Avoid summer planting when possible — the extreme heat makes establishment harder for small plants.
How to Plant Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear
- Dig wide, not deep — excavate a hole 2x the root ball width but only as deep as the root ball itself.
- Check for caliche — break through any hardpan layer for drainage. Standing water will rot cactus roots quickly.
- Backfill with amended soil — mix native soil with 30–40% pumice, perlite, or decomposed granite for sharp drainage.
- Spacing — 2–3 feet apart for a grouped planting; 3–4 feet for standalone specimens.
- No water basin needed — keep the grade flat or slightly mounded to prevent water pooling around the base.
- Gravel mulch — 2–3 inches of decorative gravel around the base keeps moisture away from the crown and prevents rot.
Watering Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear in Phoenix
First Year Watering Schedule
- Weeks 1–2: Water deeply every 3–4 days to settle soil around roots.
- Month 1–3: Every 7–10 days, deep and slow.
- Month 3–6: Every 2–3 weeks.
- After Year 1: Little to no supplemental water needed. Once a month during extreme summer heat is more than sufficient. No winter irrigation required.
Drip Irrigation
If using drip, place a single 0.5–1 GPH emitter 8–12 inches from the base. Run it very infrequently — overwatering is the most common mistake with this cactus. Once established, it can survive on rainfall alone in most Phoenix Valley locations.
How fast does Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear grow in Phoenix?
Moderately. Expect 1–2 new pads per growing season. A 1 gallon plant will fill out to its mature 2 foot spread in about 3–4 years with minimal care.
Is Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear drought tolerant once established?
Extremely. This is one of the most drought-tolerant plants you can grow. Once established, it thrives on rainfall alone and needs almost no supplemental water.
What's the difference between Cinnamon Dot and White Dot Prickly Pear?
Both are varieties of Opuntia microdasys with the same growth habit and care needs. The difference is the glochid color — Cinnamon Dot has warm reddish-brown clusters while White Dot has white clusters. Both make excellent companions when planted together for color contrast.
Can Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear grow indoors?
Yes — it's one of the few prickly pears that does well indoors. Place it near a bright south or west-facing window, use well-draining cactus mix, and water sparingly. It makes an excellent desk or windowsill plant.
Will it produce flowers?
It can produce yellow to orange blooms in late spring to early summer, though flowering is less consistent in cultivation than in wild plants. The warm cinnamon-dotted pads are the main attraction regardless of bloom.
You May Also Like
- White Dot Prickly Pear — Same adorable bunny ear shape with bright white dots instead of cinnamon. Plant them together for beautiful warm-and-cool contrast.
- Beavertail Prickly Pear — Spineless pads with stunning magenta-pink spring blooms. Another compact, pool-friendly prickly pear.
- Baby Rita Prickly Pear — Compact purple-tinted pads with bright magenta flowers. A colorful dwarf prickly pear perfect for small spaces.
- Blind Prickly Pear — Smooth, virtually spineless pads with a clean modern look. Great for pool areas and high-traffic landscapes.
- Purple Prickly Pear — Dramatic purple-tinted pads that intensify in cold and drought. Pairs beautifully with both Bunny Ear varieties.
How Many Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear Do I Need?
Cinnamon Dot is a compact prickly pear that matures just 2 to 3 feet wide, so it shines in containers and small planting pockets rather than long runs. Plant single as a container or rock-garden accent, or in a small cluster of 3 spaced about 2.5 feet apart for a fuller low mound. For a low accent border, figure roughly 2.5 foot centers:
| Border Length | Plants Needed (2.5 ft spacing) |
|---|---|
| 5 ft | 2 to 3 plants |
| 10 ft | 4 to 5 plants |
| 15 ft | 6 to 7 plants |
| 20 ft | 8 to 9 plants |
The reddish-brown glochids detach on contact and are tedious to remove from skin, so keep pots and plantings off the edges of walkways, patios, and pool decks.
Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear Season-by-Season in Phoenix
- Spring (Feb to Apr): New pads flush as soil warms, and the plant may open yellow-to-orange blooms in late spring. A strong second planting window once frost risk passes.
- Summer (May to Sep): Tough in heat and reflected sun, though in the most brutal west-facing spots a little afternoon shade keeps the pads from scorching. Monsoon humidity (Jul to Sep) is the time to back off water so the fast-draining mix never stays soggy.
- Fall (Oct to Nov): Prime planting season. Warm soil and mild air let this small plant settle in before winter.
- Winter (Dec to Jan): Evergreen green pads hold, but this is a frost-tender Mexican species. Expect damage in the mid to upper 20s°F: site it in a warm microclimate, grow it in a pot you can move, or cover it on hard frost nights.
At a Glance
✔ Heat-Loving (Reflected-Heat Tolerant) ✔ Drought-Tolerant ✔ Evergreen ✔ Low-Maintenance ✔ Deer & Rabbit-Resistant
Plant It With
- Crested Microdasys: a crested cousin in the same Opuntia microdasys family, perfect alongside for a collector's container grouping.
- Baby Rita: a compact purple-tinted dwarf prickly pear that adds color contrast next to the warm cinnamon dots.
- Beavertail Prickly Pear: a low, magenta-blooming prickly pear that fills the next size up in a small desert bed.
- Blind Prickly Pear: a smooth, fuller prickly pear that anchors the back of a rock-garden vignette.
Is Cinnamon Dot Prickly Pear Right for Your Yard?
Cinnamon Dot is an ideal fit for containers, rock-garden pockets, and small warm-toned accents in a bright spot with sharp drainage, and it is one of the few prickly pears that also does well indoors at a sunny window. Give it fast-draining soil and protect it from hard frost. It is not a fit for an unprotected, frost-exposed bed or for a low-spine planting near a pool deck or busy walkway, where the fine detaching glochids become a nuisance.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.5 ★★★★★
Based on 27 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
“This country is not in good condition.” Calvin Coolidge, 1931. (p. 387).
Apart from his unique view of American history and of his treatment of many of the landmark events of that history, Howard Zinn gives us any number of interesting and noteworthy observations in the course of this 700-page text. I beg your indulgence while we look at just a few….
On p. 73, “(t)o say that the Declaration of Independence, even by its own language, was limited to life, liberty and happiness for white males is not to denounce the makers and signers of the Declaration for holding the ideas expected of privileged males of the eighteenth century. Reformers and radicals, looking discontentedly at history, are often accused of expecting too much from a past political epoch – and sometimes they do. But the point of noting those outside the arc of human rights in the Declaration is not, centuries late and pointlessly, to lay impossible moral burdens on that time. It is to try to understand the way in which the Declaration functioned to mobilize certain groups of Americans, ignoring others. Surely, inspirational language to create a secure consensus is still used, in our time, to cover up serious conflicts of interest in that consensus, and to cover up, also, the omission of large parts of the human race.”
And then, on p. 96: “(t)he problem of democracy in the post-Revolutionary society was not, however, the Constitutional limitations on voting. It lay deeper, beyond the Constitution, in the division of society into rich and poor. For if some people had great wealth and great influence; if they had the land, the money, the newspapers, the church, the educational system – how could voting, however broad, cut into such power? There was still another problem: wasn’t it the nature of representative government, even when most broadly based, to be conservative, to prevent tumultuous change?”
For the answer to that last question, we can, of course, always turn to the pleasantly incendiary words of no less than Thomas Jefferson, which Mr. Zinn naturally and deftly does: “‘I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing…. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government…. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. The Tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.’”
One can only imagine how Jefferson would’ve reacted to the following open letter penned by Ralph Waldo Emerson to President Van Buren in 1838 as the still young nation hung its head in shame for the Trail of Tears it had just blazed: “(t)he soul of man, the justice, the mercy that is the heart’s heart in all men, from Maine to Georgia, does abhor this business…a crime is projected that confounds our understanding by its magnitude, a crime that really deprives us as well as the Cherokees of a country for how could we call the conspiracy that should crush these poor Indians our government, or the land that was cursed by their parting and dying imprecations our country any more? You, sir, will bring down that renowned chair in which you sit into infamy if your seal is set to this instrument of perfidy; and the name of this nation, hitherto the sweet omen of religion and liberty, will stink to the world” (p. 147).
Was the very noble Van Buren at all distressed by the death of thousands of Cherokee Indians along this Trail of Tears when, at the end of the same year, he spoke to Congress? “It affords sincere pleasure to apprise the Congress of the entire removal of the Cherokee Nation of Indians to their new homes west of the Mississippi. The measures authorized by Congress at its last session have had the happiest effects” (p. 148). (Emphasis is mine.)
And if you think that all of the wars the U. S. participated in right up to Vietnam were “good” wars (as I did until now), consider what we have in the way of a diary entry from a certain Colonel Hitchcock: “I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors…. We have not one particle of right to be here…. It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses, for, whatever becomes of this army, there is no doubt of a war between the United States and Mexico…. My heart is not in this business … but, as a military man, I am bound to execute orders” (p. 151).
As I’ve already said, Zinn has a singular way of characterizing some of history’s more significant events. As yet another example, I give you the following from p. 171 (on the first page of Chapter 9, titled “Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom”: “…it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves, not John Brown. In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small-scale violence what Lincoln would do by large-scale violence several years later – end slavery.”
And lest there still be any doubt about Abraham Lincoln’s position on American blacks and the issue of slavery, Zinn gives us these two very telltale quotes:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people….
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race” (p. 188).
Moreover, and in direct response to the Editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, we find this (on p. 191): “Dear Sir: … I have not meant to leave any one in doubt…. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union…. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln.”
But history (and human “progress”) moves on – and so, we have this: “(i)n 1877, (the year, according to David Burbank, in his book REIGN OF THE RABBLE, ‘no American city has come so close to being ruled by a workers’ soviet, as we would now call it, as St. Louis, Missouri’ – p. 250), the same year blacks learned they did not have enough strength to make real the promise of equality in the Civil War, working people learned they were not united enough, not powerful enough, to defeat the combination of private capital and government power” (p. 251).
And Zinn then opens Chapter 11 (“Robber Barons and Rebels”) with this: “(i)n the year 1877, the signals were given for the rest of the century: the black would be put back; the strikes of white workers would not be tolerated; the industrial and political elites of North and South would take hold of the country and organize the greatest march of economic growth in human history. They would do it with the aid of, and at the expense of, black labor, white labor, Chinese labor, European immigrant labor, female labor, rewarding them differently by race, sex, national origin, and social class, in such a way as to create separate levels of oppression – a skillful terracing to stabilize the pyramid of wealth” (p. 253).
For those who think the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of the new millennium was a singular invention of the millennial generation, you might want to consider what Mary Ellen Lease, of the newly formed People’s Party, had to tell those assembled at that party’s first convention in 1890 in Topeka, KS: “Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street…. Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags…. The politicians said we suffered from overproduction. Overproduction, when 10,000 little children … starve to death every year in the U. S. and over 100,000 shop girls in New York are forced to sell their virtue for bread….
“There are thirty men in the United States whose aggregate wealth is over one and one-half billion dollars. There are half a million looking for work…. We want money, land and transportation. We want the abolition of the National Banks, and we want the power to make loans direct from the government. We want the accursed foreclosure system wiped out…. We will stand by our homes and stay by our firesides by force if necessary, and we will not pay our debts to the loan-shark companies until the Government pays its debts to us.
“The people are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us thus far beware” (p. 288).
For those (like me until now) who’ve always thought only the best of Teddy Roosevelt, the following two direct quotes – not to mention William James’s rejoinder – might be a bit of a news-breaker: “(i)n strict confidence…I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one” (p. 297). And in his address to the Naval War College, he has this to say: “(a)ll the great masterful races have been fighting races…. No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war” (p. 300). Thankfully – and from James – comes the sobering suggestion that he (Roosevelt) “gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life…” (p. 300).
For those who think Obama’s recent initiative at a rapprochement with Cuba bodes well for that impoverished Caribbean island, you might want to consider what another historian, Philip Foner, writes about the last time (towards the end of the nineteenth century) this country took a keen interest in Old Havana: “(e)ven before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U. S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began … commercial occupation” (p. 310).
But it gets even better on the other side of the planet, and the same William James who pronounced upon the clearly bellicose character of Teddy Roosevelt has the last word on American behavior in the Pacific: “God dam* the U. S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles” (p. 315).
And on that same subject, consider what none other than Mark Twain has to say: “(w)e have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that sway.
“And so, by these Providences of God – and the phrase is the government’s, not mine – we are a World Power” (p. 316).
Where, by the way, was all of this war-mongering and industrial development at breakneck speed headed? Zinn’s choice of a quote from Sinclair Lewis’s BABBITT couldn’t be more appropriate: “(i)t was the best of nationally advertised and quantitatively produced alarm-clocks, with all modern attachments, including cathedral chime, intermittent alarm, and a phosphorescent dial. Babbitt was proud of being awakened by such a rich device. Socially it was almost as creditable as buying expensive cord tires.
“He sulkily admitted now that there was no more escape, but he lay and detested the grind of the real-estate business, and disliked his family, and disliked himself for disliking them” (pp. 383-384).
Two more brief quotes from Howard Zinn himself, and then I’ll conclude. On p. 636, “(w)e may, in the coming years, be in a race for the mobilization of middle-class discontent.” And almost immediately following, on p. 637, “(c)apitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes.”
I suggested, at the beginning of this review, that Howard Zinn had a “unique view of American history.” That suggestion was in no sense ironic or tongue-in-cheek. After a couple of weeks and 700+ pages, I can only say that this is some of the most valuable reading time I’ve ever spent.
I’m humbled – and yes, also somewhat ashamed – that I’ve discovered this historian and his work at the very ripe old age of 64. I obviously wish it could’ve been sooner. But as it was not, the next best thing I could do was give my copy of A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, still slightly warm to the touch, to my daughter on the occasion of her 21st birthday.
God willing, she’ll grow up better informed than I – at the very least, about the country whose passport she carries.
RRB
06/08/15
Brooklyn, NY
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on June 9, 2015
★★★★★ 5
A must read
Format: Paperback
Great book! Show what you should eat to help yourself. Everyone should read this book.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 30, 2026
★★★★★ 4
Worthwhile Read
Format: Hardcover
Extremely insightful.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 11, 2026
★★★★★ 5
Beyond the Usual Left/Right bifurcation
When thinking about Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States, I am reminded of E.H. Carr's seminal work "What is History?" whereby he stated: "The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate". As Carr famously stated, millions of people had crossed the Rubicon, but only Julius Caesar's crossing in 49 BC has been given normative value by historians. For those familiar with the philosophical treatment of historical understanding in Tolstoy's War and Peace, this sentiment will ring true. A People's History is designed to give voice to those millions who passed the rubicon but never found their way into the annuals of history.
A couple of points. This book was intended to be a supplement as opposed to a strictly chronological account of history that will give you the bullet points for the most important people, dates and events. [sic] It is not meant to be a replacement for a more standardized textbook.
Secondly, Zinn did not hate America, and he in fact stated:
"I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which was that all of us have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality-and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that."
Regardless of your political position, between the Great Recession and the Iraq war, there is a relevance to this sentiment that cuts across political lines.
Now, what one will notice in the bulk of the one star reviews is the sense that either the reviewer has not read the book, they copied and pasted their criticism from another source or they have strictly given the book one star because it does not conform with their view of reality. "Blame America first", "socialism", "communism", "Marx, "liberal propaganda", you can easily get the gist of the talking points because many American conservatives apparently got the same memo in dismissing anything they don't agree with. The disservice they do to themselves and the sphere of ideas in the outright dismissal of any perspective which does not conform to their own is truly sad. When someone gives a book one star merely for not conforming to their view of reality,they have obviously lost the plot.
In university I knew many conservative history professors who liked and used Zinn's work. They believed it was important to incorporate and deal with the claims that Zinn made. You cannot whitewash history and blindly stick by the most comforting narrative. That does not mean that one should agree with Zinn's conclusions or think that he has a monopoly on the truth. Zinn himself would not have wanted that.
For those who claim Zinn is a socialist or any other kind of -ist, that he is not completely objective, they have obviously never done any research. Pure positivism was dismissed long ago. Even Max Webber started that our subjective bias comes in the moment we choose to study something, for by seeing the subject matter as valuable, we have placed a normative value on it. There is no pure value objectivity, stating one's position and bias from the outset is what responsible social scientists do these days. A dryly academic text with an obvious bias concealed by a detached form of writing gives a falsely omniscient perspective whose reality is psychological but not objective. However they write, they are just a person, and without expressing their biases it will inevitably turn up in their work without necessarily being obvious. This is far more dangerous than what Zinn does in stating his bias from the outset. So it is a red herring to dismiss Zinn for having a perspective. We all have one and it will come into whatever we do.
There is no knowable, objective reality (for humans) living in the Platonic world of perfect forms. History was a puzzle of immeasurable size that was blown apart and the pieces scattered over the cosmos. The vast majority of the pieces are gone, never to return. We are stabbing at an imperfect speculation, not ultimate truth when we engage in historical study. Any physicist will tell you that the particle wave duality of light has pretty much closed the book on the notion that we can objectively, perfectly know anything.
This book is important because the poison of partisan politics has come to dominate even the dialogue of academic research. If the sole criterion for giving a book one star is the notion that you don't agree with its thesis, then you obviously live in a fragile world and are incapable of being challenged intellectually. This book is of the upmost importance for the conservative to read and digest. In developing a coherent narrative of the United States, you need to wrestle with its sins and determine, despite our historical shortcomings and transgressions, what is it that makes this imperfect union the pinnacle of nation states if one agrees with that prospect. For the liberal, you should not view Zinn's work as the last word on anything, but rather use it as a stepping stone to further develop your own historical understanding and consider how well has American done on a relative scale in light of the political, societal and human failings that have marred all human civilizations. This book is well worth the challenges it presents, and should be a 5 star treat for the conservative who loves his country and wants to develop the most cogent and nuanced argument as to why that is the case despite those unsettling realities to be found in this book as well as the liberal who wants to give voice to his disaffection with certain aspects of American society and the reasons why we need to change it. This is not another tool in the mindless and poisonous Manichean bifurcation of American politics. It is a vehicle to help you strengthen and deepen your understanding of US history, regardless from which direction you are coming. Recommended to all who are interested in the journey of learning as opposed to a presupposed outcome that serves a vested interest.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 13, 2010
★★★★★ 5
A 50 carat learning gem
The teaching of American history in elementary and middle schools reminds one of the cleaning of a commode: any rings or crud are removed and the bowl is disinfected. It then looks shiny and pretty, as if no foul stuffs were ever deposited in it. The tall tales and antiseptic methodologies employed in the teaching of American history in these citadels of bias are finally being countered by some historians, who are also clearly biased but self-consciously so. They do not hesitate to study the foul stuffs that have been part of the history of the United States, and are willing to put up with the strong odors thereof. What results in their writings is a compilation of the facts that are left unreported by the sycophants of established educational hierarchies. The picture they paint is not a pretty one, but for those who desire the bare, naked truth, and not the stale platitudes of whitewashed historical analysis, it can be a grand viewing.
The author of this book is one of these new historians, and he does not hesitate to dig deep into the real stories that have remained hidden for decades. Historical analysis of course is more then muckracking, and requires an accounting of what has occurred in the past without blinders. It also must put to rest the notion that historical events are controlled by a ruling elite, and the latter are not the distinguishing features of history. History is not a history of kings, queens, and princesses. They play a role but it is an ancillary one. The title of this book refreshingly reminds us of this. History is governed and directed by the actions of many individuals, known and unknown. The author calls them "the people", and their story is told unabashedly in this book.
The author is clearly a socialist, but his attitude is one of a healthy skepticism towards government, and justified distrust of the military establishment. He reminds us that the draft was in place as early as the Revolutionary War, as were the exceptions granted for avoidance of it. For example in Connecticut Yale students and faculty were exempted from the draft, as were ministers and various government officials. There was also the familiar schism between officers and "ordinary" soldiers, and any in the latter class who chose not to respect this distinction were whipped severely. Wealthy individuals dominated the Continental Congress, but most "ordinary" soldiers were not getting paid. Some groups of "ordinary" soldiers rebelled and some executed by firing squad when the rebellion was suppressed (in one case by soldiers of George Washington himself who led the suppression). The author's commentary and documentation on the Revolutionary War certainly act as a counterexample against the belief that this war had universal support and thought of as a noble cause by the general populace of the time. The Revolutionary War, like all other wars, was an ugly, messy affair, and had its share of false patriotism, brutality, and cowardice, and it affected many other peoples that had no interest or stake in it: native American tribes such as the Iroquois and the Mohawk. These tribes did not come under the umbrella of the Declaration of Independence. Some of these tribes therefore launched, with complete justification, a guerilla war against the new American citizenry, especially when the latter decided to push westward and indulge itself in the forced acquisition of land.
The author tells us of the smallpox biological warfare launched against the Appalachian tribes by the British, causing a major epidemic. He tell us of the thousands of black slaves who fought with the British in the Revolutionary War, as did the majority of the Indian tribes. He tell us of the keeping of slaves by Thomas Jefferson throughout his life, of the fact that most of the authors of the Constitution were men of wealth, and none were slaves, indentured servants, women, or men without property. He tell us of Shay's rebellion and its counter, the Riot Act, which allowed authorities to keep people in jail without trial, and of the defiance of Anne Hutchinson against the church fathers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He tells us of New Jersey's rescinding of women's right to vote in 1807, of a "feminist" movement as early as the 1840's, and of the founding in 1821 of the Troy Female Seminary by Emma Willard.
The author reminds us that the war of 1812 was a conflict waged for expansion into Florida, Canada, and Indian territories, that Congress deliberately and without hesitation appropriated money for war against the Seminoles, and that President Van Buren openly bragged to Congress about the forced removal of Cherokees from lands east of the Mississippi. He reminds us of the doctrine of "manifest destiny" and its justification of the brutal war against Mexico waged by President James Polk in the 1840's with the jingoistic assistance of the newspapers (no other course would be rational some of them reported), with Mexico losing half its territory in the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. He reminds us of the Anti-Renter movement in the Hudson valley of New York, and that the Renssalaer family at one time ruled over eighty thousand tenants. He reminds us of Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island that attacked the idea, and its perpetrators, that only landowners could vote.
So yes, there is much in this book that is fascinating and that is food for a hungry and inquisitive mind. It certainly goes against the mainstream view, and any teacher of history will probably come under fire from those who employ them if they decide to discuss the facts and analysis in this book. The history of the United States has been one of brutality mixed with brilliance, the former of which is emphasized in the pages of this book. A future treatise might emphasize the latter, and together they can give a more accurate picture of what the United States is, what it has been, and its future potential.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2006