Talk:People's history

I tried to clarify the general theory as opposed the the Great Man theory. Altontacoma (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) i want complete details for world history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.212.38 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Place Text?

"In his book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn..." This is the last paragraph on this page. I don't quite understand what this paragraph, which discusses community and nationalism, has to do with subaltern studies. I think it should be taken out. Does anyone else agree?

All of the last few paragraphs are a mess, but this one is by far the most irrelevant piece of information in there -it's EXTREMELY reminiscent of black hat marketing tactics. 24.143.243.7 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's history or social history?

My view is that social history is the field of history that people's history belongs to. Some argue that it is a seperate thing altogether but this is to do with how one sees Howard Zinn, either as a historian or as a political scientist. Similarly A. L. Morton]'s people's history from the 1930s is often overlooked or shunted. It should be seen as a prototype for the social history being developed by the Communist Party Historians Group - which Morton belonged to and helped to create! - which wanted to introduce historical materialism to the UK. People's history really came into its own with Zinn's 1980 book. While Zinn was not a Marxist as such fundamentally his conception of people's history described in The Politics of History is a variant of social history, probably one that can be called American social history or at least a variant popular within US historiography. I propose the people's history page be edited to reflect this, leaving social history to be the more general page. Yes or no? The River Bytham (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]