|
September 20, 2005
Teach your children (about where they don't belong . . .)
Howard Zinn (author of the People's History of the United States -- "a standard text in many U.S. high schools") was interviewed by Tom Engelhardt of Mother Jones magazine, who wanted Zinn to explain the reluctance of Americans to see their elected leaders as the war criminals they so obviously are: Zinn: I would guess that a very large number of Americans against the war in Vietnam still believed in the essential goodness of this country. They thought of Vietnam as an aberration. Only a minority in the antiwar movement saw it as part of a continuous policy of imperialism and expansion. I think that's true today as well. It's very hard for Americans to let go of the idea that we're an especially good nation. It's comforting to know that, even though we do wrong things from time to time, these are just individual aberrations. I think it takes a great deal of political consciousness to extend the criticism of a particular policy or a particular war to a general negative appraisal of the country and its history. It strikes too close to something Americans seem to need to hold onto.Which means 9/11 was a good thing, right? I have to disagree with Zinn. I know his history book is a standard high school text and everything, but by his definition, "places where we don't belong" include much more than Iraq, Vietnam, or support for Israel. His textbook (which I've read, BTW, and which I think every American who cares about this country should read) contains statements like this: The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks) the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress-is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they-the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices of the Supreme Court-represent the nation as a whole. The pretense is that there really is such a thing as "the United States," subject to occasional conflicts and quarrels, but fundamentally a community of people with common interests. It is as if there really is a "national interest" represented in the Constitution, in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass media.It's pretty clear to me that when Zinn refers to "places where we don't belong," he means right here. Whether it's reasonable to teach children that they don't belong in their own country is a good question. Among the more catchy of Zinn's slogans is this one: But in the places where Zinn's ideas hold sway, wouldn't patriotism be the highest form of dissent? MORE: As Dean Esmay reminds (via Glenn Reynolds), the "America Sucks" left (which Howard Zinn epitomizes) faces competition from the "America Sucks" right: We talk a lot about the Hate-America Left. There's no doubt that they do exist--the Michael Moores, the Noam Chomskys, the Howard Zinns, and the other members of the fascist and communist apologist left. But one of the reasons I turned my back on conservatism was the dour Hate-America Right.Dean also reflects on a favorite topic of mine -- the laughable tendency of moral conservatives to misattribute the fall of Rome to things like homosexuality. A must read! (Although in fairness to La Shawn Barber, she didn't explicitly state that Rome fell because of homosexuality -- to which I'd gratuitously add that I've never explicitly stated that it fell because of Christianity....) MORE: Regardless of political perspective, I think it's fairly easy to drum into people's heads the idea that the country is falling apart. That's because it's a small (small but not logical) mental step from "life sucks" to "America sucks." From there, simply fill in the blanks with favorite political solutions, and favorite enemies to blame. Many people don't have time for reflection, want simple answers, and want to feel empowered. Thus, the unreasonable voices are over-heard. posted by Eric on 09.20.05 at 08:33 AM
Comments
To turn Zinn on his head: It's very hard for leftists to let go of the idea that we're an especially bad nation. It's comforting to know that, even though we do right things from time to time, these are just individual aberrations. I think it takes a great deal of political consciousness to extend the reason or result of a particular policy or a particular war to a general positive appraisal of America and its history. It strikes too close to something leftists seem to need to hold onto. Raging Bee · September 20, 2005 01:12 PM Surely you're joking - Zinn's book is a standard high school text????? Say it isn't so..... Mike · September 20, 2005 03:27 PM Howard Zinn is a historian in the same sense that David Irving (Hitler admirer, Holocaust denier) is a historian. That Zinn's book is being used as a textbook in public schools shows once again the need for local and parental control of public schools, and for private schools, for vouchers, and to abolish the teachers' unions (public employee unions in general), and (I have increasingly come to agree with Professor Camille Paglia) to abolish tenure. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 20, 2005 05:32 PM Excellent post. You said everything I was thinking about Zinn's false "history" and ideology. That comment I wrote was only a little addendum. Indeed, in any milieu where Zinn's views are accepted, patriotism is the highest form of dissent. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 20, 2005 05:35 PM Darleen: Excellent once again. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 20, 2005 05:36 PM Thanks for the comments! As to Zinn's book being "a standard text in many U.S. high schools," that's what it says here: http://www.answers.com/topic/howard-zinn I wish I could say it isn't so, but it's confirmed elsewhere and I have no reason to doubt it. Maybe they're exaggerating to pump Zinn's book. I hope so! Eric Scheie · September 20, 2005 10:55 PM As a past bookseller, I can confirm that Zinn is on many reading lists. Whether it is used as a textbook (i.e. paid for by the public) is a question I cannot answer. B. Durbin · September 20, 2005 11:08 PM Back when I was in high school (1970-1973), Howard Zinn was very far to the Left of anything we were being taught. I found his book Disobedience and Democracy in a library and liked it, as it seemed to be quite libertarian, opposed to the emphasis on law and order and authority which was the prevailing thought in much of our milieu. I was at that time becoming as anarchist and anti-authoritarian as I had previously been socialist and anti-capitalist. Zinn's book was a reply to Justice Abe Fortas's book on civil disobedience. While Justice Fortas did seem somewhat a law-and-order conservative when compared to Zinn (who was actually advocating violent revolution), he was in fact a quite liberal Justice who consistently upheld the First Amendment against censorship of "obscenity". Many conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly disliked him for that. He was in line to be Chief Justice, but he was forced to resign over some trumped-up financial scandal and we got the truly authoritarian and pro-censorship Warren Earl Burger instead. I must add that Justice Fortas's position on both issues was identical to that of Ayn Rand, who also opposed censorship of "obscenity", and who had also opposed the mass civil (or uncivil) disobedience of the New Left (which was nothing less than mob rule). She argued that, as long as the country is still basically free, civil disobedience is proper only to bring a test case before the courts. The question of when it is proper to openly disobey certain laws or governments is indeed a difficult one to which I have no easy answer (certainly not the kind of easy answer I would have given in my high school days). The Declaration of Independence itself recognizes that rebellion against a government should not be for "light and transient causes", so ordinarily civil obedience is the norm as one seeks to change laws through Constitutionally established processes. E.g., Rand paid her income taxes while at the same time arguing for their repeal. As a conservative once wrote, the solution is difficult. The "constrained vision"....? Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 21, 2005 01:59 AM I wrote: Once again, that takes me back to the good old days. Reminds me of the following dialogue between my father and my grandfather (my mother's father, as my father's father had passed away before I was born) as they were coming back from the store: My Grandfather: "The police sure are reactionary, aren't they, Sam?" My father: "Yup. Law and order, authority." The style of that! None of the men (I know, I know, Transcendental Science....) teaching political science, history, or economics in our junior high school or in our high school would have ever dreamed of using a book such as Zinn's. In 7th grade, our teachers in those departments, both male and female, were stringently anti-Communist. In 8th and 9th grade and then in high school, while my female teachers were more liberal (e.g. Ms. Bounds admired Thoreau), the male teachers tended to be quite conservative, on the side of law and order, authority. Mr. Teal, Mr. Bearse, Mr. Drill, Mr. Newkirk, were all endomorphic men. They embodied Authority. I liked all of them. My favorite was Mr. Drill, who was anything but boring. He was also stringently anti-Communist. He had a style very much like that of Archie Bunker in many ways. The liberal kids ridiculed him but I liked him. Even a more ectomorphic teacher, Mr. Schimp, leaned rather to the conservative side, at least in contrast with his more liberal and libertarian students. He was anti-Communist, though not as stringently, but he liked to emphasize the less libertarian aspects of American democracy, and he stressed some of the good things about fascism. In this, his approach rather resembles that of Carl Cohen who, in his excellent Four Systems, gave the case extremely well for Communism, for Socialism, for Individualism, and for Fascism. Mr. Schimp gave me an award at the end of that final year for my performance in his political science class, though I must confess that I, as I am today, would be much harsher toward the me of that day. As Dawn would say, I needed much more discipline. More style. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 21, 2005 03:39 AM Once again, the style of your posts, and of the titles of your posts! "As Dawn would say, I needed much more discipline. More style." Is Dawn a young muscular fascist youth? Norma? Wanda would say so. "I found his [Zinn's] book Disobedience and Democracy in a library and liked it" Funny, though, I can't remember which library. Our high school library? Our Monmouth city library? The big college library? Hmmm.... Anyway, three good libraries they were.... How many hours, days, weeks, months, years, I spent in them.... I heard again of Howard Zinn sometime in the mid-1980s, when I read of a conflict at Boston University between Zinn and some other professors there vs. the new President, John Silber, who was breaking a strike there. He was an old-style New Deal Democrat but he opposed the New Left and he believed in law and order, authority, and was represented as a fascist. He had an interesting style. I don't know whether or not he is related to the very interesting blogger Arthur Silber, but they seem to be ideologically diametrically opposite in every way I can think of. Hmmm.... Their styles.... Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · September 21, 2005 04:09 AM Great stuff, Steven! It should all go into the book.... Eric Scheie · September 25, 2005 06:58 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
:::sigh::: I guess I should grit my teeth and go back and actually read the whole Zinn tome. It's just anything that starts out labeled "the People's ..." gets the hackles up because I know it's going to be an exercise in allowing every non-Western, non-capitalist collective full glowing legitimacy and the US as the most evil movement in the history of mankind.
Your quote from his "history" doesn't disappoint in this regard.
As if the Indians at the time of Columbus' arrival were engaged in a loving, peaceful, healthy, nationwide kumbya collective.
DAMN those Founding Fathers, talking about 'inherent rights' ...nothing irks a closet totalitarian more than a successful experiment in individual rights and responsibility.