Howard Zinn: what's the deal with that guy?

[illram]

But, um, those aren't the only People in the United States. Far from it.

The idea is that "the people" connotes the working or middle class, or the everyday joe-shmo. It is a perspective shift. Yes, Rockefeller was a person too, but knowing Zinn's perspective and reading the book I think it becomes clear what he means when he says "people's history."

I am aware that Zinn was well regarded among a lot of people who got their academic training in history thirty or forty years ago, and I've read a few excerpts from the book, but never anything that struck me as particularly notable one way or the other. It's certainly not enough to form an opinion on him, and my experience with American historiography is low to nonexistent on anything approaching a level that would permit me to feel comfortable commenting.

On the topic of objectivity, I commented in the previous thread and was summarily ignored:

Objectivity is only desirable to the point of actually having facts straight, not the opinions one draws from them. Even the choice of facts destroys any presumption of objectivity. There are a near-infinite amount of known facts about many events in modern history, and it is impossible to include them all; the historian must make judgments as to pertinence, and therefore by necessity injects subjectivity. But this subjectivity is desirable, because otherwise we would be left with nothing but the vast ocean of sources and no filter, no way to make sense of any of it. So claiming that Zinn is a poor historian because he does not include all of the facts is silly, because he cannot have done anyway. And the fact that Zinn admits to his lack of objectivity - like virtually every decent historian who has commented on historiography in the past eight decades or so - means that he is at least self-aware enough to be potentially worth a read.

I would, however, think that Zinn's book is not particularly useful on subjects that don't directly deal with the history of activism in American society; it would be like citing John Lewis Gaddis on Turkish history when he offhandedly mentions factoids about the Straits crisis of the late forties in his Cold War writings. If you slavishly employ Zinn's books as catchall references without employing other works, especially more pertinent ones, then you miss the point and the criticism of employing grossly biased sources becomes a relevant one.

I read your first comment, and I read this comment, and as before, I agree with you. My issue is more with those who dismiss Zinn outright rather than those who look to both Zinn and other sources for their particular historical record.

 

[galdre]

It is rather difficult these days to rationalize slavery and sweatshops. Fortunately, the "oomph" wasn't taken out of those particular struggles.

it's easy to rationalize sweatshops - I believe they call it "best sourcing" now

 

[Gooblah]

Read several chapters of Zinn, tempered with Garraty's The American Nation for my american history course two years ago. I enjoyed it; I think he does a good job of bringing to light facts and opinions left behind by the usual textbooks, but by itself isn't the best source.

it's easy to rationalize sweatshops - I believe they call it "best sourcing" now

Presumably another Dilbert fan!

 

[illram]

You don't think that mentioning any of the positive progressions for worker rights, lower class citizens, women, minorities, etc. whatsoever, is important? Because that's exactly what he did. The task he set out to do was to uncover the glossed over portions of history and illuminate them, which is an important and noble goal, however he went the extra mile to make the most pessimistic and disgusting view of the US as possible. He accomplished this by focusing on all of the negative traits of the country and none of the positive traits. The book is a borderline hack job or assassination piece, which is sad because it had the potential to be so much more valuable.

In People's History though (and again, I am almost a decade removed from reading it so the memory is foggy) Zinn does mention these progressions--however he points to the struggles of the early labor movements, or the civil rights movements, (or whichever movement you want to focus on) as central to these developments. He highlights the struggles they went through and points out that obtaining these rights was a dogged, knock down drag out fight. Which was true! For instance, workers did not obtain all the labor protections we take for granted today thanks to the benevolence of their bosses. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It sounds like more public schools should be using Zinn's book as an adjunct reference outside of the AP curriculum. They don't appear to be the ones who espouse USA #1.

I actually read it after someone here posted a video of Howard Zinn lecturing:

MIT: The Myth of American Exceptionalism

Americans have long embraced a notion of superiority, claims Howard Zinn. Governor Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony described establishing “a city on a hill,” to serve the world as a beacon of liberty. So far, so good. But driving this sense of destiny, says Zinn, was an assumption of divine agency—“an association between what the government does and what God approves of.” And too frequently, continues Zinn, Americans have invoked God to expand “into someone else’s territory, occupying and dealing harshly with people who resist occupation.”

Zinn offers numerous examples of how the American government has used “divine ordination” and rationales of spreading civilization and freedom to justify its most dastardly actions: the extermination of Native Americans and takeover of their land; the annexation of Texas and war with Mexico; war against the Philippines; U.S. involvement in coups in Latin America; bloody efforts to expand U.S. influence in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The battle against Communism, often bolstered by arguments of America’s divine mission in the world, was merely a convenient excuse to maintain U.S. economic and military interests in key regions.

Today, says Zinn, we have a president, who more than any before him, claims a special relationship with God. Zinn worries about an administration that deploys Christian zealotry to justify a war against terrorism, a war that in reality seems more about establishing a new beachhead in the oil-rich Middle East. He also sees great danger in Bush’s doctrines of unilateralism and pre-emptive war, which mark a great leap away from international standards of morality.

 

[Aegis]

In People's History though (and again, I am almost a decade removed from reading it so the memory is foggy) Zinn does mention these progressions--however he points to the struggles of the early labor movements, or the civil rights movements, (or whichever movement you want to focus on) as central to these developments. He highlights the struggles they went through and points out that obtaining these rights was a dogged, knock down drag out fight. Which was true! For instance, workers did not obtain all the labor protections we take for granted today thanks to the benevolence of their bosses. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It has been awhile since I too have read the book, and I only made it halfway through, but I do remember the blasting he gave Theodore Roosevelt. He characterized him as a warmonger, and then ignored all of the corporate reform that Roosevelt pushed for. Roosevelt broke up monopolies and forced corporations to adhere to federal standards & regulations, yet I found no mention of these in his book. I only found him attempting to demonize the man for our exploits in South America & the Philippines.

[Edit:] I'm actually looking some of his accomplishments up now:

Determined to give Americans what he called "a Square Deal"; i.e., a more just and equitable society, TR worked to increase the regulatory power of the federal government. He persuaded Congress to pass laws that strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission and established a new federal Department of Labor and Commerce. Under his leadership, the federal government also brought forty-four suits against corporate monopolies. In addition, TR was instrumental in the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Long concerned about the environment, he encouraged the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902 to promote federal construction of dams to irrigate small farms and placed 230 million acres under federal protection.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-theodore.htm

You would think that Roosevelt would have been one of Zinn's champions of the people, based upon his accomplishments and advocacy towards their goals, but I didn't see that. What I saw was "he's a warmonger, blahblahblah, massacred people in the philipines, blahblahblah." Zinn's statement that those rights were fought tooth & nail for by the people against the begrudging establishment does not jive with what officials like Roosevelt did for them.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Who could possibly demonize those responsible for the wholesale slaughter of Philipinos and others to spread American imperialism?

Mark Twain:

(I used to be) a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific ...Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? ... I said to myself, Here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American Constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves.

But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris [which ended the Spanish-American War], and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem.

It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. [12]

Comments on the Moro Crater massacre:

Contrast these things with the great statistics which have arrived from that Moro crater! There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred -- including women and children -- and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.

They were mere naked savages, and yet there is a sort of pathos about it when that word children falls under your eye, for it always brings before us our perfectest symbol of innocence and helplessness; and by help of its deathless eloquence color, creed and nationality vanish away and we see only that they are children -- merely children. And if they are frightened and crying and in trouble, our pity goes out to them by natural impulse. We see a picture. We see the small forms. We see the terrified faces. We see the tears. We see the small hands clinging in supplication to the mother; but we do not see those children that we are speaking about. We see in their places the little creatures whom we know and love.

The next heading blazes with American and Christian glory like to the sun in the zenith:

"Death List is Now 900."

I was never so enthusiastically proud of the flag till now!

 

[civver_764]

I have his book. It's good stuff. If I ever forget why I'm a leftist I just open up to a random chapter and remember that the left wing are almost universally the good guys. Same with Chomsky.

That sounds like sarcasm but it isn't. I can see where people would run into problems if they're conception of history was only based on his book, but other than that it's a very good starting point for any good dissident. I like to think of it as an encyclopedia of America's dirty secrets.

 

[Aegis]

Who could possibly demonize those responsible for the wholesale slaughter of Philipinos and others to spread American imperialism?

The villagers first attacked US troops, and the massacre happened afterward when the US troops retaliated. The General who ordered the attack was reprimanded and forced to retire. Not really Roosevelt's fault.

Downplaying Roosevelt's accomplishments and advocacy because he disagreed with the man's foreign policy is a dick move. Attributing those accomplishments to "the common man" is an even bigger disgrace.

I have his book. It's good stuff. If I ever forget why I'm a leftist I just open up to a random chapter and remember that the left wing are almost universally the good guys. Same with Chomsky.

Just off the top of my head, but Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were both Republicans. They did as much, or more, for the "liberal" agenda than any Democrat.

 

[galdre]

The villagers first attacked US troops, and the massacre happened afterward when the US troops retaliated. The General who ordered the attack was reprimanded and forced to retire. Not really Roosevelt's fault.

Downplaying Roosevelt's accomplishments and advocacy because he disagreed with the man's foreign policy is a dick move. Attributing those accomplishments to "the common man" is an even bigger disgrace.

it wasn't just one incident - it was a whole policy

we went into the Philippines telling them we were liberating them from the Spain, then we brutally put them down and took over ourselves. Hell, we had camps there that we stuck families in

 

[Formaldehyde]

We have the right, as well as the duty, to massacre women and children hiding behind dangerous men trapped in a crater equipped with machetes? But as you pointed out, the general was eventually "reprimanded" for that particular incident, so everything is just fine?

How often have we heard that particular excuse throughout American history?

Who was responsible for American imperialism? Who is the scapegoat for all those similar atrocities?

 

[civver_764]

Just off the top of my head, but Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were both Republicans. They did as much, or more, for the "liberal" agenda than any Democrat.

Hey guess what!?!! None of the presidents were left-wing in any meaningful sense of the term, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt were mass murdering douchebags(as well FDR).

Also, pro-tip: Someone place on the political spectrum is not determined by what party they're a part of.

 

[Aegis]

it wasn't just one incident - it was a whole policy

we went into the Philippines telling them we were liberating them from the Spain, then we brutally put them down and took over ourselves. Hell, we had camps there that we stuck families in

We weren't "brutally putting them down" while in the act of defeating Spain. No, we liberated them from Spain, and then decided to stay put because if we weren't there, another European nation would have simply taken over again. The natives then rebelled and we put the rebellion down. The decision to colonize the islands and the ensuing rebellion began before Roosevelt even became President. He ordered the pacification of the islands. He did not order them to "take no prisoners" like the offending General ordered.

 

[civver_764]

Stupid asian people needed the white man's protection, amirite?

 

[galdre]

We weren't "brutally putting them down" while in the act of defeating Spain. No, we liberated them from Spain, and then decided to stay put because if we weren't there, another European nation would have simply taken over again. The natives then rebelled and we put the rebellion down. The decision to colonize the islands and the ensuing rebellion began before Roosevelt even became President. He ordered the pacification of the islands. He did not order them to "take no prisoners" like the offending General ordered.

wow... thank you for justifying colonialism, that was very interesting

 

[Aegis]

wow... thank you for justifying colonialism, that was very interesting

Explaining the course of events =\= approval/justifying of events

 

[galdre]

Explaining the course of events =\= approval/justifying of events

true, but take a look at the pacification of the islands before you want to declare Roosevelt's innocence in the matter

 

[Aegis]

true, but take a look at the pacification of the islands before you want to declare Roosevelt's innocence in the matter

Fair enough. Mistakes were made, for sure, but nothing that should prompt Zinn to ignore Roosevelt's social accomplishments back home and attribute them instead "to the epic struggle of the common people." Roosevelt did not begrudgingly acquiesce to the demands of the rioting people. He fought for the people. He's the reason why those accomplishments were completed. This is about the time I realized Zinn had no interest in a fair presentation of the social evolution in the country and stopped reading.

 

[Cutlass]

So is Zinn worth reading? His book is among my father's stuff that I never got to. But I've never read anything by him in the past.

 

[Azale]

You don't think that mentioning any of the positive progressions for worker rights, lower class citizens, women, minorities, etc. whatsoever, is important? Because that's exactly what he did. The task he set out to do was to uncover the glossed over portions of history and illuminate them, which is an important and noble goal, however he went the extra mile to make the most pessimistic and disgusting view of the US as possible. He accomplished this by focusing on all of the negative traits of the country and none of the positive traits. The book is a borderline hack job or assassination piece, which is sad because it had the potential to be so much more valuable.

Zinn made me realize just how widespread the campaigns of "resistance" I guess you could call it really were. He brought down the mythological figures of American history but simultaneously brought the other 99%+ of the population up.

Did he romanticize the latter and overly demonize the former? Maybe, but I prefer it to glorified American history fanfiction (I'm looking at you David McCullough).

Downplaying Roosevelt's accomplishments and advocacy because he disagreed with the man's foreign policy is a dick move.

Foreign policy, that's quit the euphemism for wholesale murder and destruction you have there. I think if Zinn wanted to disregard Roosevelt as a human being because of what he did in the Philippines, I would not have much of a problem. I would have a problem if he attempted to detract from his successes against the trusts, but I think you misrepresent Zinn here.

I am slightly out of my depth here, but I think you are attributing too much to TR.