The author of A People’s History Of The United States (which should be retitled “A Revisionist History Of The United States, As Told By Socialists, Anarchists, and Other Members Of The Fringe”), says that we should put away flags on Independence Day because nationalism is “one of the great evils of our time”. What a maroon.
For the average American, nationalism, the shared experience of being uniquely American, is what binds us together. In a nation of disparate views, backgrounds, etc. what keeps us whole is the idea that we’re all Americans. And that’s the beauty of our independence day, where no matter how you got here you’re part of the team and part of the fight that makes America better. I hate guys like Howard Zinn. They’re as bad as the nuttiest wingnut. (via)
I am not sure exactly what Zinn has done to you to deserve your hatred.
Nationalism is a bit more complicated than it is described in this article and certainly more complicated than you are using the term. Broadly, there is liberal nationalism which often results in the sense that we are all compatriots, that we must ultimately all work together for our shared good. Some positive fruits of such action have included universal education, but Soviet purges weren’t exactly a positive outcome. There is also conservative nationalism that begat the independence movements of Eastern Europe and Italy but that also tends toward fascism.
You would benefit from some deeper reading into the topic before you start calling someone like Zinn a maroon.
Because Zinn, like many others look at the United States as nothing but an imperialistic war mongering nation, that deserves to be scorned rather than praised. Do we ever see Zinn being thankful that he lives in a nation where he can spout his propaganda without fear of government retribution or punishment? Nope.
There is nobody that will deny our nation is without faults (well, there might be some, but they’re idiots). Shit, we’re told every day on a daily basis. That doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently wrong with celebrating the day our country declared its independence from British rule.
Cautioning against arrogance with regard to nationalism is fine. But the notion that nationalism in and of itself is ‘evil’, as Zinn claims, is just idiotic.
Huh? What’s so great about nationalism? So this country (or that one) is great because you were born here? Please. Nationalism is nearly as evil as religion in terms of its ability to engender war, conflict, and hatred. Whoop-de-do, I’m French, I’m German, I’m Irish. Big friggin’ deal. Everybody’s born somewhere.
You think it’s not a big deal, yet some of us do. We’re not imperialist jackboots because of it. Give me a break. I’ve read deeply into it. Of course it can go wrong, but to be reflexively against it because someone screwed it up in the past is idiotic. I don’t like Zinn because he doesn’t like America.
I think Zinn loves America; he doesn’t like our government. He was a bombadier in WWII (Greatest Generation with oak cluster). He doesn’t think that you are a jackbooted imperialist, but he does think that the current “administration” is full of them. Ease up just a little on Zinn. He’s right more often the wrong, tho’ not as often as you or me.
Right on, OWill:
U S A!
U S A!!
U S A!!!
With all due respect to Howard Zinn, whose revisionist history contains a few moments of brilliant insight and is useful as one example of extreme bias, celebrating independence day is not necessarily about real nationalism or even patriotism. Folks may pay lip service to the founding of the country, but it’s mostly a day off in the middle of summer to eat barbeque, attend carnivals and watch fireworks. Try asking people why we have fireworks on the fourth and see how many of them talk about the symbolism of battle. Ask anyone on July 4th about how they think the country is going, and you’ll get the same answer you would on the 1st or the 10th. Only academics and politicians think of this “holiday” as anything more than a reason to sell things and consume.
“I think Zinn loves America; he doesn’t like our government’
Oh come on.
Zinn has been in LALA land long before either Bush, Carter, Nixon or LBJ. He was a big ’snick’ guy way back when.
Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing, Oliver. I heard Zinn speak in college, and the right-wing caricature of him as seeing America as “nothing but an imperialistic war mongering nation” is simply false.
You want someone who actually hates the USA? Try Powerline, Free Republic, or LGF some time.
While I don’t agree with Zinn’s thought that Americans should put away their flags for the 4th, I agree with his thesis that America’s rationalizations for horrible acts throughout history is often premised on self-deception about what America is actually doing.
I don’t think your characterization of him in this instance is very fair.
As a side note, I thought I’d add that I have a badass poster of Superman holding the American flag in my apartment.
Georg Orwell’s thoughts on Patriotism vs Nationalism
You may not like Zinn or may feel that in this instance he goes to far, but the man has very valid point and given recent history, we would do well to distance ourselves from this kind of runaway nationalistic “pride.”
I think you need to worry about the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
It’s okay to be patriotic. It is not good to be nationalistic because nationalism can be turned from loving your country into hating your neighbours very quickly.
I don’t buy into the right’s caricature of anyone. I’ve read Zinn’s work, and found it ridiculous.
Suit yourself, but just because he’s critical doesn’t mean he hates the U.S. Nationalism is indisputably one of the evils of our time, possibly the worst.
OW - You should realize that it’s not fashionable on the Left to be proud of America. Displaying the flag is jingoistic, after all.
I will say that the core of the traditional democratic base is very patriotic. Unfortunately, their elites in the media, academia, and within the party believe that patriotism (or being proud of America’s history) is one of the worst sins.
Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
i have to agree with the commenters above that Zinn’s premise is not anti-American, at least not opposed to the America of the Founders. But he makes a good case that a lot has been done in the name of America that is not necessarily in tune with those ideals. The examples he cites — wars in Mexico, Cuba, the Phillipines, all the in the name of saving those people from themselves — do not ring true to Washington’s words about avoiding foreign entanglements.
The founding of the US was seen as a repudiation of the politics of empire, of kings, and of institutionalized inequalities. Barring slavery’s long run, it worked pretty well for the first hundred years. And I don’t disagree with the need to America to act in the World Wars. But the Spanish American War? Vietnam? Iraq? Grenada? Panama?
Do you really see those actions and the rise of the corporate state as consistent with the Founders ideals?
I see no advantage based on where you were born or whose passport you carry. What does claiming “my tribe is better” do for you? Better to reflect on what America has done and can do to make the world better than just claiming that “this is the best place in the world and if you don’t agree you suck/are an idiot/hate America.”
This is one reason I oppose naturalization at birth and think everyone should be tested before being granted citizenship.
I dunno, half the people in this country are quick to claim Irish or Italian or German ancestry all the while chanting USA!!11! USA!11!
A little conflicted, dontchathink?
No one who lived through the 20th century could see nationalism as anything other than a plague. It is distinct from patriotism. Blind nationalism was the root of what tore much of the world apart in the last century. For you and I, Oliver, we’re much more isolate from that aspect of nationalism, because we are much younger and grew up in the United States. Maybe I wouldn’t agree with the entirety of Zinn’s specific statement, but I certainly understand where he’s coming from.
Oliver, if you don’t like Howard Zinn, you REALLY aren’t gonna like Mark Twain:
“[Patriotism] …is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn’t a foot of land in the world which doesn’t represent the ousting and re-ousting of a longline of successive “owners” who each in turn, as “patriots” with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of “robbers” who came to steal it and did–and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn.”
Mr Willis, you and I don’t agree on much, but you’re right on with this one.
Here’s the White House phonebook so you can give them a call and share your concerns. I plan to call ’til I reach someone, anyone, and then call again, and again, and again. I mean, it’s not like they aren’t all in it together.
The switchboard will probably be busy, busy, busy tomorrow, but with the directory in hand, you can keep callling ’til you get through.
OW-
Flags have a military history for signals and identifying units. Today nations are simply divisive and dated. Why should it matter where you live or were born? Care what a person believes in not where they believe it. Why devote oneself to a group rather than think for yourself? America, it is a word used to unite people against people (just as all nations do). Even amongst divisive fictions, America isn’t receiving much of my respect lately.
You have chosen to call one of the great historians stupid. It is sad that you lash out at a kind, peace loving, humanitarian because he makes you feel bad. I wish you felt better about yourself.
Zinn isn’t alone thinking poorly of flags and nationalism. Count me as one of the stupid ones…used to read and recommend your site. Hope you reconsider.
Oh, and I believe Zinn’s comments are anti-American in as much that he is criticizing group-think and tribalism. America is a tribe (or a word for a tribe). It’s absurd we still base affiliations on where we live, we’re like packs of dogs still. I like to explain flag veneration as simply dog piss. It identifies for no reason, is based on atavistic paranoia and fundamentally fear; fear of strangers. Dogs aren’t smart enough to appreciate how silly they seem marking their territory, we laugh at them. When humans wave flags why shouldn’t we laugh even harder? Humans realize how preposterous the whole idea is and yet still wave those flags like a dog raising his leg. Go ‘Merica beat evil.
Oliver,
I have been reading your blog on and off for years and just about always agree with you or at the very least see your logic and appreciate your insight.
That said, your comments about Zinn are out of no where! I couldn’t disagree with you more. If I didn’t know better, It would sound like you were wrapping yourself in the flag like a Fox News commentator.
Of all the people to call an idiot… Howard Zinn?
Our history is an ugly one. Thanks to Howard Zinn, we have been given an opportunity to reflect on this without the sanitized version of our history that we’re fed in grade school.
Even if you challenge Zinn’s conclusions, the perspective that he offers is one that is basically not heard anywhere else. If fo no other reason, his words are incredibly valuable.
Love what this country has the potential to be, not what it has been.
Zinn is not a good historian. I read his book (A People’s History) expecting to get some perspective, and for maybe the first third it accomplishes that. It then becomes a tiresome recital of one movement after another that never caught on and was the playground of the left’s version of the America Firsters and the John Birch Society.
I’m not one of these people who see the founders as unimpeachable saints, but I also see the validity and value of their ideas and see this country as a continual work in progress towards those ideals. Zinn sees it as all bad. There are never any good guys outside of the fringes for him, and that’s just crap. It’s an elitist liberal attitude that drives me as batty as its conservative reflection.
I think there’s value in loving your country. It’s not just an accident, or there would never be anything like national pride. I also reject the notion that we Americans are the only ones who do it or are the worst at it. It’s a universal notion, and part of a human sense of belonging. I think America is the greatest. Brits think they’re the greatest. Ditto for French, and I know for sure for Jamaicans and I think that feeling echoes across the globe. Sure, such feelings can be misused and have been - in situations varying from Hitler to Pol Pot to Bush to Hussein to any number of corrupt leaders in varying degrees. But that doesn’t make the underlying feeling wrong. It doesn’t diminish for one bit the sense of camaraderie you feel on Independence Day - in my experience on the Mall in Washington, on the shore of the Charles River in Boston, or sitting amongst thousands in New York City.
We’re Americans, we rock. That’s not a bad feeling to have!
So if you’re going to stop reading this blog because I think Howard Zinn is an ass to pooh-pooh that sentiment - good bye. Because I do. I don’t like guys like him. I don’t like people who gloss over American history to cover up our bumps and bruises like Bill Bennett in order to prove that perfect white christian men made this land great. But neither do I like people who ignore the triumphs and advances of the country in order to push their thesis that only white christian men have ever advanced in America and all is lost.
Bullshit, all of it.
We’re good. We’re bad. We do horrible things. We aspire to great things. It’s all one giant schizo mess of things, and that’s just the way it’s always been and we’re better off for it.
Oliver, you’re young and not that educated. Anyone can tell that from your writing. I like your passion, but face it, you’re no Steve Gilliard when it comes to politics or life. You’re a comic-book nerd with good intentions. Howard Zinn is a radical intellectual with an incredible depth of knowledge which neither you nor I will ever possess. Please cease and desist from insulting people smarter and wiser than you will ever be.
“We’re good. We’re bad. We do horrible things. We aspire to great things. It’s all one giant schizo mess of things, and that’s just the way it’s always been and we’re better off for it.”
What you are describing is patriotism, not nationalism.
There is a difference.
“We’re good. We’re bad. We do horrible things. We aspire to great things. It’s all one giant schizo mess of things, and that’s just the way it’s always been and we’re better off for it.”
I don’t think Zinn would disagree with that.
The number one thing I took away from Zinn is his argument that militarism and imperialism are utterly corrosive to a just, democratic society. Looking at the last two major conflicts we’ve fought, Iraq and Vietnam, I can’t say he’s wrong about that. If you find him too pessimistic, fine, but claiming that Zinn sees America “as all bad” is the kind of distortion of his views that I would expect from a Bill O’Reilly.
You are confusing nationalism with patriotism. Nationalism follows Decatur’s famous quote, “My country, may she always be right, but right or wrong, my country”. Howard Zinn writes American history from the bottom up, exposing the bleaching of the warts on the body politic and the history of this country. American history, indeed world history, as taught in our high schools is a white wash. People like Zinn get ripped because they are simply unafraid to point out the truths that Americans ignore to the point of delusion. I would defy anyone to comb his books for a single deception, false attribution or any of the short cuts that plague the works of many conservative and “liberal” authors. Zinn is one of the few well known individuals who take a cold, hard look at things and those who dislike him are reacting the same way as a parent who is told their little sweetie isn’t as cute as they think she is. He should be required reading in every American History course in our high schools.
radlib, you’re a racist fuck. Why does Oliver have to be Steve Gilliard? because he’s the only other black blogger you can think of? You think a college degree makes you smart? Two Words: Harvard MBA.
Radlib1 wrote:
Please remember that advice next time you feel like criticizing President Bush.
Radlib, that was pretty obnoxious. To cite a different example, Donald Rumsfeld is smarter than me and smarter than most of his critics, but he was still utterly wrong about this idiotic war, and I will not desist from insulting him ever, I imagine.
The difference between Nationalism and Patriotism is worthy of a long debate, and I feel enlightened by the many smart people here who have writen good points and shared their wisdom.
I would like to add two things:
First, that “Nazi” is short for the Nazionalistische party, because right-wingers and fascists always make good use of the natural patriotic feelings of people for their homeland in order to achieve their political goals,
And second, two famous quotes:
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
- Samuel Johnson
“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
- George Bernard Shaw
The difference between Nationalism and Patriotism is worthy of a long debate, and I feel enlightened by the many smart people here who have writen good points and shared their wisdom.
I would like to add two things:
First, that “Nazi” is short for the Nazionalistische party, because right-wingers and fascists always make good use of the natural patriotic feelings of people for their homeland in order to achieve their political goals,
And second, two famous quotes:
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
- Samuel Johnson
“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
- George Bernard Shaw
Being educated does not make one smarter or wiser. It just makes one more knowledgeable. It used to mean one was capable of critical thinking, putting together a coherent position paper and following a project through to the stated goal. I’m not so sure if that’s still true, but I’m optimistic enough to hope that it is.
Earning graduate degrees indicates that one has a deeper knowledge of one particular area. It does not, in any way, indicate wisdom and, in fact, often makes it more difficult for the person to see the larger picture outside of their particular specialty.
I am easily as smart as some of the professors I encounter daily, despite being one class away from finishing my B.A. (in my mid-40s, no less). The observant professors know that.
And the problem people have with Zinn is that, while he does present relevant, necessary and factual information regarding the sorts of history we are not taught in grade school, his conclusions indicate that nothing we are taught early on (or by other academics with a different perspective) is valid because it does not take into account the things it does not take into account. That’s as absurd as someone telling me that history can only be seen through a lens of economics. It’s an interesting view of history, but it’s not the only “correct” view.
In my opinion, Zinn can give very good perspective, especially if one is training history teachers so they can see the bias in the books from which they will be asked to teach. It gives them the opportunity to supplement the whitewash with other perspectives. But Zinn, like any other academic, is not “right” simply because he has a doctorate and his critics are not wrong simply because they don’t.
Wellstone!! Your tag is open!!!
How’s that?
@OW:
It then becomes a tiresome recital of one movement after another that never caught on
It has been a while since I read Mr. Zinn’s book. Refresh my memory, please. What are a few of the “movements that never caught on” that trouble you so?
Revisionist historians, including Zinn, adopt a relative view of history. Zinn would never deny, for example, the US fought in WWI or that Columbus was an early European to visit here. Zinn would argue the traditional narratives of these events is only one interpretation. Further, Zinn would likely claim they are stories told to advance a notion of American greatness, and that these narratives focus far too much on war and the ruling class, while ignoring the great multitudes.
Zinn has taken a stand against recent colonial wars the US has fought, however, I don’t believe I’ve ever read him to say he is anti-american or that patriotism is evil. I do feel that patriotism and nationalism are evils, and I care little for the distinction, Zinn probably would disagree with me (although I am not a Zinn scholar, so I may be wrong). He’d also take issue with my claim his writings are often anti-AMerican. Nonetheless, I congratulate and celebrate the great historian/activist.
Richard Hofstadter is another fantastic revisionist, c. wright mills, although not a historian is also highly recommended.
What is history after all? Simply stories. Even if you believe America is great (presumably based upon some of these stories) why call some one an idiot if he or she happens to draw another conclusion? Of course other countries have their own histories and mythologies. Making a gross generality, all the histories of these other countries paint their society as superior to all others. What disturbs me is how deeply ingrained these notions of American greatness have become. Even a liberal like OW feels great loyalty to the nation cause - even though I doubt he supports much of what this nation has done in the past 30 years. And before that there was segregation, suppression of women, slavery and on and on. Despite all this, OW will not only proudly wave the flag, but he will put down a peace activist and historian for simply not being as excited about the US as he is.
I brought up dogs marking their territory and I believe it really is related. I think we must be hardwired, to some extent, to desire a tribe or nation. I suppose it used to be a selective advantage. Now it’s just sad.
Another comment. OW states the book should be retitled a revisionist history as told by socialists, anarchists and other members of the fringe. I suppose this is meant to belittle Zinn’s work, but all it tells me is that OW doesn’t like socialists, anarchists or members of the fringe. Scary.
OW, you do know that majorities are frequently and often wrong? Famously in Germany’s case, but nearly every war has a majority supporting it somewhere.
Socialism is a problem? I guess you should stop using the internet, created and regulated by tax dollars? Or the roads, or the fire department or the public schools? I suppose they were all bad ideas. Fire departments really did use to be private, I for one, am glad that is no longer the case. Is socialism the cure for everything, no. A regulated capitalist system allows for personal autonomy and freedom to choose. The US has a mixed economy, I think we need more regulation and social welfare.
I’m wondering how much anarchist literature you’re familiar with. Even if I agree that it appears untenable, I certainly understand the questions posed by anarchists. Personal freedom is valuable, why should one need other people to “allow” or “grant” you freedom? I’ll reiterate that it appears necessity to group together to insure individual rights, however one is silly not to question use of nations and governments considering all the ills they have caused.
OW, you’re free to be inconsistent and hypocritical. We all are at times. But I fear your petty name calling of such a good man as Zinn does you a great disservice. I realize this must come off as condescending, but you do seem to have a good heart and have astute commentaries frequently. We all could afford to educate ourselves for the better, I would ask you more deeply consider these issues.
And, no I don’t like that feeling of being part of a large group. Although I’m agnostic, Reinhold Niebuhr’s examination of immoral behavior of groups versus the moral behavior of individuals was eye opening for me. I look around at parades and ceremonies thinking how dangerous and destructive groups have proven. Then I feel myself not wanting to be part of any group which isn’t hard at work addressing these questions.
While you are celebrating and feeling good this holiday. I ask you to think about the half million people this group you’re celebrating has killed in the past several years in Iraq. Why celebrate that?
“Please cease and desist from insulting people smarter and wiser than you will ever be.”
“Please remember that advice next time you feel like criticizing President Bush.”
That’s a joke, right?
Now I understand why OW attracts so many persistent wingnuts. It must be something reactionary in the water…
It’s either a joke, or there are actual fence posts commenting here, C.S.
I ask you to think about the half million people this group you’re celebrating has killed in the past several years in Iraq. Why celebrate that?
That’s not what anyone is celebrating. We’re technically celebrating independence from England. We’re actually stuffing our faces and watching fireworks, possibly buying things or doing something outdoorsy. There may be someone who says “woo hoo! we killed lots of innocent people and that’s awesome!” but the vast majority of people aren’t going to celebrate that sort of thing and it’s disingenuous to insinuate that celebrating Independence Day is the same thing as cheering on insane decisions made by people we didn’t actually vote for.
Or is the practical view that most people just celebrate a day off in summer a bit much for the theorists to deal with?
Reba-
That’s a non sequitur if you’re just having a good time because of the summer or a day off. Why would my comments about nations enter into the equation? Now it may not be a non sequitur if what you’re doing is wanting to celebrate the US but aren’t happy about those 1/2 million Iraqis the US has killed.
I don’t think for a second more than a nutso handful would celebrate the killing of Iraqis. All nations, like all people in prison, believe they act justly. Sure you may allow that this war was bad, but what’s your excuse for the millions killed in SE Asia? How about the untold numbers killed in Central and South America thanks to the coups, dictators and drug laws? How about the support of Suharto in E. Timor and the genocide there? What of the people of Iran who were denied democracy when we reinstalled the Shah in 53? Or the Iranians we helped kill with the support of Saddam? Or the Saudis kept oppressed by the ruling family the US empowers? Or the Palestinian people who face an Israeli colony which still receives military aid.
I’m certain very few Americans are pleased with any of those or the myriad other tragedies the US has either directly participated in, fomented or facilitated. Nonetheless, I’m equally confident the people of Germany did not believe they were evil because they took pride in their country. Nor do I think most Russians backed Stalins Pogroms, instead they looked to the good. There is always some good.
When you celebrate this 4th, if you’re supporting America you’re at the very least passively enabling the killing of those 1/2 million Iraqis. I will probably grill out, just like you. I’ll watch fireworks. What you won’t see me do is salute a flag, wave a flag (hell I’d never own in the first place), sing nationalist songs or praise this country without discussing the many many faults.
Turning a blind eye to enjoy a hot dog doesn’t win you any respect in my book. I’m happy you don’t celebrate the deaths of the Iraqis, I’m sure their families would be deeply moved. But hell, I don’t think Bush, who directly caused their deaths, even celebrates that. No, like you, I’m sure he’ll pick out the nice things to think about and have a good time. There’s nothing more unAmerican than feeling ashamed. Too bad really we could use a little self-reflection and shame.
Let’s just get to the point:
“America can do no wrong. And if we do, so what?”
Oliver isn’t a reactionary, he’s a rational centrist. He’s wrong here, and A People’s History of the United States was a great book (and it inspired the also-great A People’s History of the Ancient Rome), but hey, nobody’s perfect, not even I.
Frankly, Zinn’s suggestion is as empty as the patriotism he decries, because consciously is buying into the whole idea by saying, “Don’t wave the flag.” It’s like a piss-on-prom party: in ritualistically urinating on prom invitations on prom night, I was participating in the whole prom shit as much as those dancing the night away.
Howard, I’m not a joiner either, but I don’t prescribe not joining as a way of life for those who do wish to join. Demanding that folks not join is as silly as demanding that folks join.
I don’t wave a flag. And I don’t think it matters at all.
O Dub, sometimes you make me shake my head in disbelief.
Here’s what Howard Zinn did, besides write crummy books that you probably haven’t read, during the civil rights movement. The movement that allows you to call Howard Zinn an idiot:
“Civil rights movement
In 1956, Zinn was appointed chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, where he participated in the Civil Rights movement. Zinn served as an adviser to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
While at Spelman, Zinn collaborated with historian Staughton Lynd and mentored young student activists, among them writer Alice Walker and Marian Wright Edelman. Although Zinn was a tenured professor, he was dismissed, in June 1963, after siding with students in their desire to challenge Spelman’s traditional emphasis of turning out “young ladies” when, as Zinn described in an article in The Nation, Spelman students were likely to be found on the picket line, or in jail for participating in the greater effort to break down segregation in public places in Atlanta. Zinn’s years at Spelman are recounted in his autobiography You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times. His seven years at Spelman College, Zinn said, “are probably the most interesting, exciting, most educational years for me. I learned more from my students than my students learned from me.” [1]
Zinn said that while at Spelman, he observed thirty violations of the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution in Albany, Georgia, including the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and equal protection of the laws. In an article on the civil rights movement in Albany, Zinn describes the people who participated in the Freedom Rides to end segregation, and of the reluctance of President John F. Kennedy to enforce the law.[2] Zinn has also pointed out that the Justice Department under Robert F. Kennedy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation headed by J. Edgar Hoover, did little to nothing to stop the segregationists from brutalizing the civil rights workers.[3]
Zinn wrote frequently about the struggle for civil rights, both as a participant and historian [4] and in 1960-61, he took a year off from teaching to write SNCC: The New Abolitionists and The Southern Mystique. [5] In his book on SNCC, Zinn describes how the sit-ins against segregation were initiated by students and, in that sense, independent of the older, more established civil rights organizations.”
And you do what? Write a blog?
Come on man. You’re making me miss Steve Gilliard a lot.
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com
So Zinn writes books that point out that America does not behave much better than any other country and OW does not like him.
I agree with Zinn, the only thing “exceptional” about America is over the past 200 years it has given the middle class a bigger piece of the pie than most anywhere else.
The powers that be have been working on fixing that mistake.
Howard Zinn also served in WW2 as a fighter pilot…stunning. Don’t you look at wikipedia? Are there other white intellectuals who worked in the civil rights movement who you wish to call idiots because they’re not sufficiently “patriotic”? Jesus Fucking Imaginary Christ….
Look, are you working for Glenn again? That’s usually his spiel, calling out those dirty fucking hippie socialist anarchist bastards…? Is the instaone, your former mentor and I can see why, off today?
I feel you Oliver, Zinn does nothing for me. I made it through three chapters of the Peoples History and gave it away.
My problem with him is his alternative.
and Phillip, less coffee.
Is there such a book,”A People’s History of Rome?” I’m not familiar with it so it may just be a joke, but whatever is the case it sure sounds interesting. I’ve tried everyone’s favorite Gibbons, but he just bores me.
Spect Con:
A People’s History is actually online. Since I’m a longtime leftie I know a lot of this history already, but Zinn explains his philosophy. I confess that it seems to be well written and not the work of a maroon but you be the judge:
The title of this chapter is not a prediction, but a hope, which I will soon explain.
As for the subtitle of this book, it is not quite accurate; a “people’s history” promises more than any one person can fulfill, and it is the most difficult kind of history to recapture. I call it that anyway because, with all its limitations, it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people’s movements of resistance.
That makes it a biased account, one that leans in a certain direction. I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction-so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people’s movements-that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission.
All those histories of this country centered on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us: in the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers; in the slavery crisis, Lincoln; in the Depression, Roosevelt; in the Vietnam-Watergate crisis, Carter. And that between occasional crises everything is all right, and it is sufficient for us to be restored to that normal state. They teach us that the supreme act of citizenship is to choose among saviors, by going into a voting booth every four years to choose between two white and well-off Anglo-Saxon males of inoffensive personality and orthodox opinions.
The idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics. We have learned to look to stars, leaders, experts in every field, thus surrendering our own strength, demeaning our own ability, obliterating our own selves. But from time to time, Americans reject that idea and rebel.
These rebellions, so far, have been contained. The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased.
There is no system of control with more openings, apertures, lee-ways, flexibilities, rewards for the chosen, winning tickets in lotteries. There is none that disperses its controls more complexly through the voting system, the work situation, the church, the family, the school, the mass media- none more successful in mollifying opposition with reforms, isolating people from one another, creating patriotic loyalty.
One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native-born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country.
Against the reality of that desperate, bitter battle for resources made scarce by elite control, I am taking the liberty of uniting those 99 percent as “the people.” I have been writing a history that attempts to represent their submerged, deflected, common interest. To emphasize the commonality of the 99 percent, to declare deep enmity of interest with the 1 percent, is to do exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them-from the Founding Fathers to now-have tried their best to prevent. Madison feared a “majority faction” and hoped the new Constitution would control it. He and his colleagues began the Preamble to the Constitution with the words “We the people …,” pretending that the new government stood for everyone, and hoping that this myth, accepted as fact, would ensure “domestic tranquility.”
There’s more. You should read it here:
http://historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
And no there probably weren’t any people’s history of rome because commoners probably weren’t allowed to write their own histories…just a guess.
I have to admit I agree with you as well, Oliver. And there’s more than a few commenters on that post you linked to who would as well.
And it’s interesting and instructive to see the backlash against you from your own side of the aisle when you stray off course from the “progressive” themes.
Never forget that this is an imperialistic, warmongering country that has done far more evil in the world than good. /sarcasm
Realist: We just murdered a half million Iraqis in order to steal their oil. I don’t feel patriotic. I feel a deep sense of shame. Howard probably feels it too. When you do imperialistic warmongering stuff its not really a cliche is it? And I’m not being sarcastic…
On the other hand, I’m sure Oliver supports this bill:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38998
Realist, if you think Zinn thinks we’ve “done far more evil in the world than good” you’ve misread him. We’re not objecting because Oliver’s strayed off course from progressivism, we’re objecting because he’s wrong.
I’ve yet to have Zinn come up in conversation EXCEPT where someone is talking about something we have collectively done right.
Zinn speaks little about much other than what we have collectively done wrong, without pointing out the mistakes of the left.
Some of us have had enough of Zinn’s one-sidedness. It is idiocy.
Phillip,
Thanks, but yeah I’ve read his American People’s History several times and own a copy.
Realist-What do I care if you want to celebrate this country. Go for it. You have a problem with criticism of America, that’s your deal. I have no problem bad mouthing America, your assumption is that it is somehow wrong to do so. Your sarcasm has little justification in my view. What are the great services the US has done? The US helped keep slavery going, got in involved in WW I for god knows what reason. The US did good fighting Hitler and Japan, I don’t think people question that. The
Realist, I think you will discover that there aren’t progressive themes. We are free to speak and criticize whomever we want and we openly admit dissent. This is the difference between the Left and the Right.
Sorry I posted before I had finished. Anyway, I was going to say The Bill of Rights is admirable, and initially overthrowing the colonial grip of the UK. But I guess I’m playing your game here. I have no reason to justify my criticism. Your defense isn’t to deny the devastation the US has caused but to question the people making the point, as if critics are too pessimistic. This misses the point altogether.
I would ask you to (if you can tolerate it) listen to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, they use the same arguments to avoid dealing with America’s sordid history. “The hate America first crowd.” No defense of the critique, simply an ad hominum, it’s a complete non sequitur. Presume I’m evil, rotting corpse of Saddam Hussein returned for the grave. Would my point about colonialism, proxy wars and genocide in S.E. Asia be any less valid?
I think it’s interesting that these ad hominums usually DO work to put the critics on the defensive, and I think it shows how inculcated and indoctrinated the US populace is with American propaganda. But I say again, so what. Think ill of me, exaggerate my criticism by claiming I said the US did no good (absurd and pointless to boot). So just assume I think the US is totally evil if it makes you reason more clearly. Now justify the behavior and your continued support of the US.
As far as straying from the progressive path. Well, if that’s how you characterize calling Howard Zinn an idiot, then yes I’m doing just that. When you call a peace loving, activist, intellectual of the left names, I think you can safely assume people on the left will be critical of you.
Mdhatter - Zinn isn’t allowed on netword TV, neither is Chomsky, Amy Goodman is seldom on, same goes for Robert Jensen. One could actually go on for pages and pages about the liberals denied a MSM outlet. Nonetheless you “have had enough of Zinn and his one-sideness.” Are you a groupie, touring his sold out lectures? Where are you getting inundated with Mr. Zinn? I’d like to know.
My experience has been that finding progressive views (even on public radio) is difficult. I’m pleased when I can hear them. I think most would agree, and that being the case, Zinn is supposed to waste everyone’s time speaking about all the good the US has done, despite how easy it is to hear such views? I would agree with you if Zinn and progressives had an outlet, but I’ve yet to discover it except on the web. So when I go to hear Chomsky, I don’t need to hear him give Chris Matthews, Tim Russert militaristic, US glorification I can get multiple times a day from multiple sources.
Finally, as some have posted, Zinn doesn’t say the US is exclusively bad, nor does Chomsky or any other progressive I’ve heard of. I’ll agree he focuses on the bad in public discussions, but , again, why should he repeat the Fox News version when we all were taught it by heart in school? He has limited opportunity.
Realist, if you think Zinn thinks we’ve “done far more evil in the world than good” you’ve misread him.
Let’s look at the Zinn post that Oliver links to, shall we?
Number of bad or evil acts by the US (or early English settlers) noted: 7
Number of good or in some way benign acts by the US noted: 0
Tell me again how I’m misreading him as saying anything other than we’ve “done far more evil in the world than good”.
Realist-What do I care if you want to celebrate this country. Go for it.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t waiting for your approval before doing so.
You have a problem with criticism of America, that’s your deal. I have no problem bad mouthing America, your assumption is that it is somehow wrong to do so.
It’s a free country, so you’re free to criticize anyone and everyone. No one said it was wrong. I just happen to think you’re an asshole for doing so today. And I’m just as free to say so.
You and your “progressive” compatriots have 364 other days to wail about how awful and evil this country is. Maybe you should give it a rest for just one fucking day.
As far as straying from the progressive path. Well, if that’s how you characterize calling Howard Zinn an idiot, then yes I’m doing just that.
Thanks for confirming my observation.
Realist: We just murdered a half million Iraqis in order to steal their oil.
Half a million? You’re obviously referring to the widely questioned and disputed Lancet study. Iraq Body Count puts the current range of reported civilians killed in Iraq as 66807-73120. And how many of those do you think were killed by their own countrymen (i.e. Baathist insurgents, Shiite vs. Sunni sectarian conflicts)? How many were killed by foreign fighters (i.e. Al-Qaeda in Iraq) as retaliation for supporting the US or in an attempt to spread sectarian violence? The remainder can probably be attributed to US or Iraqi troop actions (No doubt all deliberate killings, in your opinion).
And steal their oil? How exactly did we steal it? Last time I checked, all oil is under the control of the Iraqi government and all proceeds from oil sales are held by (or in trust for) the Iraqi government and have been since 2003. Did Halliburton build a secret pipeline to siphon off Iraqi oil to sell it on the side?
“No War for Oil” might look catchy on a bumper sticker or protest march banner, but the reality doesn’t support the rhetoric.
I don’t feel patriotic.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED!
Half a million? You’re obviously referring to the widely questioned and disputed Lancet study. Iraq Body Count puts the current range of reported civilians killed in Iraq as 66807-73120.
Mr. Apple, please allow me to introduce Miss Orange. Lancet used a random sampling technique. IBC uses only news reports.
Lancet used a random sampling technique. IBC uses only news reports.
Fine, different methods. Are you ignoring the criticisms of the Lancet study?
Also, even if the Lancet figure for Iraqi civilian deaths was close to being accurate, you have to be delusional to think that “We just murdered a half million Iraqis” with “We” meaning US troops. As I asked above, how many have died due to sectarian violence? Foreign Fighters?
Also, if accurate, these figures would imply the death of an average 500 people per day, or 2.5% of Iraq’s population. Is Halliburton digging mass graves in secret to hide all those bodies? You’d think that kind of death rate would stand out. You know, overflowing morgues, people digging graves left and right, etc.
Realist,
I don’t speak for anyone but myself. As far as respecting your wishes, I’d like to make you happy, but my conscience won’t allow me to be silent - today especially. You have every right to name call, I expected nothing less…I didn’t assume you’d apologize or try to defend US actions over the past 50 years.
Yes the 500,000 number is most accurate estimate that has been arrived at. It has been widely criticized, its authors have as well, however its methodology hasn’t been widely questioned. The very first estimate the Johns Hopkins team came up with was criticized for its methodology. The authors widened the sample surveys and addressed several other concerns. The numbers they arrive at are not exact, they are estimates. 500,000 was the mean if I remember right. It is just as likely the number is higher than that (and it would be higher now since the data is old).
However, what are you trying to do? The morgues are overflowing, bodies are dumped in rivers etc. Even MSM American media reports these things. And, what’s more, what if you’re right, despite yourself, and there are 60,000 dead Iraqis. For what? Over what? Why did they die? The staggering numbers of needless deaths perhaps can be put in perspective of the US. You, no doubt, were upset about 9/11 and the nearly 3000 dead out of a country of about 300,000,000. That’s roughly 1/100,000 th of our population. Iraq is roughly 25,000,000, with the most conservative of all possible numbers, 50,000 dead or 1 in every 500 Iraqis is now dead. In America it would be like losing 600,000. Can you imagine that? And remember those numbers are preposterously low. The Johns Hopkins study is .02 of the Iraqi population or the same as 6 million in America. FYI, the Bush administration criticized the Johns Hopkins study but used their same methodology to arrive at their Darfur genocide numbers. No matter how you slice it, it’s terribly sad and pointless.
Stealing their oil. Why yes that is exactly what the US is up to. Now we’re not a communist nation, so the US won’t own the oil, it’s actually Western oil companies. The oil legislation, which Iraqis won’t pass, actually establishes a 30 year board where western oil companies get to sit at the table and “help” the Iraqis bring their crude to market. The US controls the entire process as they do the government who would be killed if they didn’t have 24/7 US protection in the Green Zone. The Constitutional officers were “elected” in the first bogus “election” we staged. In that one we kicked a great many parties right off the ballot (we wrote it), we didn’t allow any parties to campaign more than two weeks I believe, and we didn’t allow any party to state their position on US occupation, 1/3 to 1/2 the country didn’t have voting available, the sites were secret until usually the day of the “election” and the ballots were “counted” by the US military.
The Sunnis boycotted the “election.” Since there were no Sunnis we simply appointed some Sunnis patsies ignoring democracy. This group was given a constitution written by US lawyers. The “elected” established rules for the first real election, but again it was simply the US drafting it for them. Many walkouts. Meanwhile the oil ministry was given to Chalabi to run *the same guy we had on the pay roll all these years. The US then ran the next set of elections much like the first, except this time the Sunnis did vote in some numbers. Nonetheless, the “vote” was conducted by the US military. It took this groups about 6 months to finally elect the ineffectual puppet we have in Maliki. Despite it being the number one priority (according to the US) the oil law will not be passed by the people arranged to be elected. (Shia and Kurds have the oil and see little reason to split revenue with the Sunnis.) This is where we stand now. Our own bought and paid for gov’t, only existing under our constant protection, will not pass our oil law. The country fights on.
That is how we’re stealing their oil. I’m sick of dealing with people such as yourself who are either truly ignorant of EVERYTHING or (more likely) choose to look at the situation in a light that makes the US look good. I have real trouble believing anyone with an average IQ and any education whatsoever honestly doesn’t know why we’re in Iraq. If there was oil in Africa we’d be fighting wars there. Richard Perle, one of the war’s architects, admitted the war was illegal as early as November of 03. Many other conservatives have admitted it is a war over resources. It is now 2007, there is no reason for any thinking person to question the true motivating factor behind this, it is and was oil.
Surprising when you elect two oil men for President and VP you get a war over oil? Shocking! And of course, I’m all ears to hear your thoughtful explanation about what this is truly about if not oil….non-existent WMDs? Democracy we don’t support in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or even for Iraq previously when we dealt with Saddam? The 9/11 Islamo fascists who hated Saddam’s secular gov’t? Realist is an ironic moniker don’t you think?
Are you ignoring the criticisms of the Lancet study?
Not all them. Just yours.
You’d think that kind of death rate would stand out. You know, overflowing morgues, people digging graves left and right, etc.
You mean like this?
you have to be delusional to think that “We just murdered a half million Iraqis” with “We” meaning US troops.
Ooops! Sorry.
Well, geez I was going to let this alone but you see I’m a true patriot…
No, US soldiers didn’t put a bullet into 500000 Iraqis personally, but the chaos and the civil war that came after the invasion that killed those people is our fault. Really it is.
I can live with a more conservative number by the way. How about 100000 Iraqi dead>? Are we more comfy with that? Let your sparklers fly this day then…
It’s over a million dead Iraqis now. That Lancet study came out a while ago. It’s