identify their subjective nature.

evaluate them as sources of history for this time period The authors subjective nature comes from their family history and their heritage. Both Paul Johnson and Howard Zinn have very different roots, which are inevitably subconsciously incorporated in their writing. Having read some of their work in Paul Johnsons A History of the American People and Howard Zinns A Peoples History of the United States, one as the reader can tell that there are differences in the writing which could be due to the differences in their personal lifes, which is their subjective nature. Johnson is a British journalist that was raised Roman Catholic and tends to incorporate religion into his writing. Early in his life he had very leftist views and held a prominent role in the New Statesman newspaper. In 1970 he joined a conservative group and later became a close advisor of Margaret Thatcher, who was a conservative prime minister. He criticizes the concept of modernity and the theory of knowledge. Apart of being an American historian and writer, Howard Zinn is also socialist, anarchist, playwright, intellectual activist and a professor of political sciences at Boston University. He was born in Brooklyn to a Jewish family. His parents were unskilled factory workers. This is a probable reason behind his strong feeling towards fairness and equality. After having fought in World War 1, he took an anti-war stance and possessed a devotion to acknowledge civil rights and liberty. All of these factors could have affected the way in which they write. They both have different styles and are able to state mostly the same information but in very different ways. They both have an interest in American history and have written about the same occurrences but the way in which they write are different from each other.

identify where they corroborate, complement and contradict each other Both Paul Johnson and Howard Zinn are very candid about their opinion and views. This leads to inevitable contradictions within their works because Paul Johnson is a religious Roman Catholic and Howard Zinn is liberal. This means that they have a different opinion which leads to different point of views and this is expressed in their writing. This leads to contradiction between the two because their different point of views can make them analyze what occurred differently. They have biased opinions on some matters which affect the way in which they write about events. For this same reason they might also mention the same topics, but one might focus more on one event than another because they might find it more interesting. They both mention who seem to be the most important people, such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gould and Morgan, but Johnson focuses more on them throughout his writing and Zinn seems to focus less on the individual people and more on the unfair treatment of immigrants, farmers and colored people. Johnson also focuses a lot on the discrimination that the

Native Americans had to face during this time and Zinn just barely mentioned them by saying that it was something that the United States did wrong during the expansion to the west. However they both focus a lot on the United States government at the time and their role during this time. They focused on the acts that they passed to protect certain people and how the government reacted to the monopolies, because in reality they seemed to have been running a large part of the country. As historians they have agreement on certain things because it is clear to everyone that certain events were more important than other, but due to the fact that they were raised in such different ways they have differences and contradictions. identify and support why and how johnson and zinn's opinions and interpretations are different As historians Paul Johnson and Howard Zinn have some agreements as well as disagreements regarding historical events. This all has to do with the way in which they were raised and the family history and heritage. One is raised with certain ideas and beliefs and they can and will affect ones opinion on certain things and this happens to historians as they study past events. One could have a different opinion and interpretation regarding a certain occurrence. Since Johnson grew up to Roman Catholic, he will have a different opinion regarding some things than someone from another religion. Howard Zinn grew up with liberal ideals which could certainly make him have a different opinion regarding certain things than Johnson. Due to Howard Zinns liberal mentality, he writes more about events in which civil rights was a big focus. This is why in A Peoples History of the United States, he focuses a lot on the unfair treatment of people during the time of industrialization and expansion in the United States. He puts a lot on emphasis on the fact that the immigrants, farmers, women and colored people were discriminated during this time and they were not regarded, even by the government. At the time it was more convenient for those groups of people to be treated the way in which they were treated for the country to advance economically. Paul Johnson on the other hand does not seem to care as much about the unequal treatment of certain groups at the time, but he seems to focus more on the important people of the time and the inventors, such as Carnegie, Morgan, Gould and Tiffany. He also goes on and talks about the different religious at the time and which ones were more dominant, but Howard Zinn did not put any enfaces on it. Paul Johnson and Howard Zinn's opinions and interpretations are different due to the different lives that they lived. Their lives made them who they are and what believes they have and they subconsciously express those believe and opinions when they write about history. They obviously cannot write about every single detail and event that occurred during the history of the United States, so they have to choose the most important to mention on their books and they choose what they believe to be the most important and it can be different for every person.