Re: 4: Tyranny is Tyranny
It is interesting, with such an approach, to consider the chain of reasoning. Does Zinn start from righteous indignation at the inequality and injustice and oppression of the world, and develop his theory of socialism as a response to these problems? Or does he start from the principle of the ideal socialist society, where government enforces equality of outcomes, and then use these examples of outrage from history to justify his principle?
I agree that socialist politics is simplistic, given its syndrome of failing to deliver on its promises. If you look around the world to see which societies have succeeded in reducing poverty, the common factor is the creation of wealth through free enterprise. Even the Scandinavian social democrats have relied on having a strong capitalist wealth creating sector to generate the resources for redistribution.
It is often the case that the wealthy are actually more talented and capable than the poor, with greater courage and willingness to take risks, and these traits have much to do with their success. Zinn seems to reject that possibility out of hand, due to his socialist values which assume Jack is as good as his master. In principle, it is entirely just that the best citizens should rule, but the problem is that we do not know who the best are. Even the most ethical person requires democratic constraints in order to prevent them from abusing their power.
I think that there was little prospect of long term British control of the USA. Even if things had gone better for the crown it would only have delayed independence. That is partly because there were already a lot of Germans in America who would never submit to rule from London.