HOWARD ZINN’S LEGACY: In His Own Words
by Larry O'ConnorLast week, Howard Zinn passed away. It was only a few weeks after the History Channel had premiered the film “The People Speak” honoring his controversial book “A People’s History of the United States.”
Prof. Zinn never hid the fact that he wrote “A People’s History” not as a reference book to collect dust on the shelf but as a field guide for the re-making of our society. In a 1988 interview with the University of Georgia, he summed up the legacy of his work better than anyone.
A quiet revolution is a good way of putting it. From the bottom up. Not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions. In the workplace, the workers would take power to control the conditions of their lives. It would be a democratic socialism.
In the wake of his death, conservative commentators who had been critical of Zinn’s lifework were accused of “spitting on his grave” when responding to interview requests about Zinn’s legacy. At Big Hollywood we have less interest in trashing Howard Zinn, the man, as we have in shining a light on what his actual beliefs and agenda were, and still are.
Yes, his agenda lives on in the form of the Zinn Education Project (ZEP). And if there was any reluctance to expose the true agenda of Zinn and the Education Project that bears his name it was absolved with this bold statement on the ZEP website issued on the occasion of Zinn’s passing:
Howard Zinn, in honor of the marvelous victory of your life, we will act in defiance of all that is bad around us and attempt to spin the world towards justice.
In the war of ideas our nation is currently waging, unilateral disarmament for the sake of respect for the dead is not an option. Especially knowing that our opponents “will act in defiance of all that is bad around (them) and attempt to spin the world towards justice”.
The attempt at Zinn hagiography is in the works and when big celebrities come out to embrace him as an intellectual and humanitarian they must also take responsibility for the entirety of his legacy. A legacy that he, himself, in his own words laid out just eight days before his passing.
On January 19th, Blog Talk Radio presented an interview with Professor Zinn. This interview is a great chance for us to really hear Zinn describe, in his own words, his world view, what motivated him, his views on America, and to hear his advice to history teachers all across our country.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The first fifteen minutes were spent discussing the tragic events in Haiti and how, ultimately it was America’s historic neglect and imperial stance toward the tiny nation that led to its poverty and despair. It seems that no world event ever took place without Zinn jumping to the fore and blaming America for it.
Next, after some self-serving discussion about what set him apart from his peers when he was a teen (Zinn claimed that what made him different was that he read books) he then revealed his early influence in the realm of class and economic disparity.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Then we get to the crux of the real reason behind Zinn’s book and the film “The People Speak”: To promote the Zinn Education Project (ZEP). The host of the show, Bill Bigelow, explains why ZEP was created. “To offer teachers around the country alternatives to the official story that was being presented in text book…”
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The naïve among you might ask yourselves “History is history, what do they mean by ‘alternatives to the official story’?” Well, my “sheeple,” Bigelow explains it all for you in this remarkable and revealing clip:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This all sounds like Zinn’s history is anti-American and biased, right? Zinn’s response to that charge might surprise you.
Here was his response to the Anti-American charge:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
And here he responded to the idea that his version of history is biased:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Later, Zinn was asked what he thought the singular narrative of American history is. His answer, “the continual struggle of people for their rights”:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Later, a caller asked how the ZEP materials were making their way into the public school curriculum:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
There will be more than enough time for our commentary on these words. For now, listen and learn what ideas are behind the trendy Hollywood movement to help educate your children.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
149 Comments
Another great post, Stage.
Has a Historian, and especially in light of the Progressive/Socialist criticisms to "spitting on his grave", I can only say one word to sum up Zinn's work. Bullsh*t. His work is at best is a cherry picked narrative, designed to highlight the experience of people who were, and could be, classified as Progressive/Socialist statist malcontents. Sadly, his views are being accepted as the correct historical narrative by the main stream historians. Hopefully, this tide will be turned. In passing, here is a big loogie for Zinn.
I can't wait for the Revolution. It's time we lubricated the engine of liberty, by greasing these Progressive/Marxists.
On a human basis, God Bless him, his family, and his military service!…”I say that to piss his minions off!”
It is the responsibility of real America to push back on his drivel, and indeed render his horse squeeze irrelevant, so that our children’s children can grow up in the greatest country since the dawning of civilized man…the USA!
You people remind me of the outer party in the book 1984. Blind allegiance to the piece of land that you reside in (Although in 1984 they were forced into that allegiance and in this country it is done freely). This is not some trendy Hollywood movement, Larry, this movement has been going on for a few hundred years. Zinn is just one of many to articulate this part of history and I am glad that he did or I would be a blind robot like the "ilk" on here who spread this "drivel".
"…or I would be a blind robot like the 'ilk' on here who spread this 'drivel.'"
I think Brandon has just exposed the TRUE appeal Zinn has for certain people. They get to be *special* – not "blind robots," not part of the unwashed, uneducated, unenlightened herd, but the smart ones, the ones who know the *real* deal. You get to be part of a movement, on the right side of history, one of the *good* guys. In short, it's pure, old-fashioned fucking EGO. Intellectual snobbery for non-intellectuals.
There are TONS of actual history books out there that anyone with a genuine interest in history needs to read. But once you discover Zinn, you realize that all those books are just establishment propaganda. No need to read them after all. In fact, NOT reading them makes you smarter than the people who DO read them. Because they're all brainwashed drones, aren't they? You don't want to end up like THEM, do you? Much more satisfying to the ego to remain in your little radical coccoon where you're special.
I try not to speak ill of the dead.So I'll settle for stating Matt Damon is an ass,
First let me say:
MATT DAMON!
Second, please Brandon read another book besides 1984, or better yet, get someone other than your ultra-liberal college professor to interpret Orwell's work for you.
The true identity of the "ilk" may surprise you.
Not to mention boring. Before I read Zinn, I had no idea history could be so dull.
that is one of the greatest things about the masterpiece that is 1984.
all sides can read it and say "See! that is what those _____ b@st@rds will do if they get in charge."
i think there are cautions for every ideology in 1984.
Once again, the left's hypocrisy would be laughable if it wasn't so infuriating. Progressives/liberals (as Coulter puts it) "manufacture their synthetic outrage" and claim that criticism of Zinn is now "spitting on his grave." Yet what was so much of the liberal response when Charlton Heston, Jerry Falwell, and Tony Snow died? Utterly gleeful. The level of vitriol in these nasty epithets hurled at conservatives was matched only in its volume, the norm, not the exception. Once again, the liberal establishment proves itself "Guilty…" claiming to be the victims of hate and intolerance when really they are the purveyors of it. Like Coulter, Andrew Klavan (as always) encapsulates what they're doing here brilliantly: http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klavan_on_Culture/Klava...
Nice try, Brandon.
But like Robert Reich…who claimed that the Republican takeover of Congress was spurred on by a cable news network that wouldn't exist for another two years…you insist that you & others of your ideological "ilk" claim to be part of a "few hundred years"-old movement that was founded on the denunciation of a country that wouldn't exist until July 4, 1776.
Your "movement" has existed for barely a century. A century that has resulted in (arguably) between 250,000,000 and 500,000,000 human lives being exterminated…from the Eugenics Movement to The Final Solution…from the starvation of the Ukraine to The Great Leap Forward…from North Korea, Cuba, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia to Margaret Sanger's present day Planned Parenthood clinics.
The closest thing to your "movement" that existed before 1776 were the elitist aristocracies of Europe…and even more blood was spilled by both sides on behalf of your "movement" in those days.
The Constitution was written by dead, slave owning, white men—PERIOD. No arguments allow.
But socialism is hip, cool, and chic! But socialism, and its associated ‘isms,’ is constantly getting repackaged. Slap a young face on it and people will buy it. Put a face on a t-shirt, Che for instance, and people will by it.
But the fact that Che was a mass murdered, and for all Karl Marx’s talk of the proletariat, he never did a days work in his life and was never in the same room with a working class man, let alone talk to one.
The young and the old buy bad ideas all the time, and for Socialism it’s made easy because it’s away wearing a mask.
Amen! We call it "Neo-Feudalism" -its all about putting the serfs back where they belong and the few number of lords in their castles…funny thing is people like Brandon think they will become one of those little lords just by spouting support. Can Brandon say "useful idiot"? I think not.
How about all the US history professors who blindly assign Zinn's POS work as the textbook for their class? Zinn and his ilk had and have a blind allegiance to Marxist ideology. Did Zinn ever speak out against the crimes of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? At least many of the European Communists when exposed to Stalin's crimes in the 1950s had second thought about following that ideology, How else can you describe how Zinn trashed FDR accusing him of getting the US into World War II because he was a tool of the military-industrial complex.
What is this thing about speaking ill of the dead? One thing we Christians are taught is that we shall be known by our fruits…if the fruits of our life have been death, deception, ugliness, and lies, should we not be able to say this about them when they die? Point to them and say to the Living : is this what you wish to be remembered for? Zinn apparently took great pride in infecting education with his hatred. Let us continue to remember that about him and cast the scorn he deserves on his name. That is his legacy.
While Mr. Zinn has some salient points the basis for his philosophy would be that we "fundamentally transform" our nation into …what? While our system is imperfect, and yes, we as a people will always struggle to ensure our liberties, he misses the point entirely as to what life is. It's not the destination, it's the journey. Following his ideology to it's illogical conclusion would take us forward into the past. It's far better to have struggled as a free man than to have dreamed into serfdom.
I'm consistently amused that Zinn's disciples seem to think that mainstream historical study is somehow homogeneous and uncontroversial. That there is somehow one "mainstream" narrative that must be countered. Only someone who has never studied history could think this. Historical study is full of controversy and vigorous argument. There is no one perspective on any historical event that isn't contested. Zinn is offering some sort of gnostic secret knowledge when it comes to history. No big surprise there, since Marx was in the same camp. Only he and his ilk knew the true course of history, that is, it's inevitable embrace of socialism. But Marx was wrong. And Zinn has been wrong as well. Zinn is not a historian. He took marginalized voices (so marginalized that he couldn't even prove his sources were actually real) and tried to inflate them into a movement. At any given moment there are always people with ideas that are outside the mainstream so far that they are ignored. Zinn tried to make them into more than they were, and historians laughed at him. He was never taken seriously except by a narrow group of ideologists on the far left who are so disconnected from reality and scholarship that they didn't even realize Zinn was feeding them a line of bullshit. Even now, they try to convince themselves that Zinn had something important to say. But he didn't.
Well said, sir. This is a point I hadn't really thought about much, but it makes a lot of sense. To be a liberal means to feel superior, without going through the hard work to actually become an intellectual. I've found it frustrating when I discuss issues with liberals and I find that they haven't done any research or read anything about their topic, but still seem to believe they know more than I do.
The combination of a superior attitude and ignorance is a hallmark of the liberal. Now I know why.
Why do we continue analyzing these traitors? Let's put their beliefs to the test.
Start first with Matt Damon. Maybe we should start a movement where we take his house, money, cars and all his "stuff" sell it and/or give to those who are "down on their luck" i.e. veterans wounded in combat, people who got "predator" loans from Fannie and Freddie. Force Damon to live in a small apartment with one room for him and his wife and one room for his kids.
Cap his salary at $71,000. That's roughly the average pay for a FEDERAL employee. You want socialism then get paid like a socialist. Nobody should make multiple millions for "playing pretend". That's ridiculous!
He's not to drive! Public transportation. Him and his family is to live on a government health care ONLY.
He's no longer allowed to have a "star" billing. The movie posters are not to have the names of those in it. No credits either. Besides movies are a "collective" effort right? It's not fair that John Doe working in Tupalo, Mississippi doesn't get "star" billing when he works on trucks.
Every weekend he's to go to foreclosed homes and clean them up. When his children get of age. They are to be drafted for Federal service i.e. military or something tough and dangerous. They are to serve 10 years. If they qualify for college then they may go after their service is done.
His children when they get married, if allowed, are to have one child each all others are to be aborted. The same with Damon and his wife. No more children.
Sounds brutal right? Is this really anything different than what these pricks are putting on us?
"…spit on his grave…"
If I ever find myself in the area, I hope they have good drainage over his hole, because I intend to bring quite a full bladder…
Socialism has never been "from the bottom up." And I'd be willing to bet Zinn knew that when he told his whopper. Socialism is always institutionalized theft with a clever gloss on it, but not so clever that ordinary people can't smell a rat. The problem is that large segments of the ordinary see an advantage for themselves in socialist redistribution, and being human they get on board.
"A quiet revolution is a good way of putting it. From the bottom up. Not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions."
Hey Howie, that is exactly what we Tea Partyers are doing!
"I would be a blind robot like the "ilk" on here who spread this "drivel". "
—
Careful, you just spilled some Starbuck's on your Che t-shirt. But enough about your group-think.
Lenin was the same way – never</n> spent a moment with workers or farmers, never did anything resembling "prole labor". While he railed against the aristocratic class, he lived a rather comfortable life before the revolution, even in exile (his father had been awarded a minor aristocratic title). While Stalin was blamed for eliminating the "kulaks" – the so-called "rich" peasants – Lenin initiated the campaign, exhorting the Party to hang as many kulaks as possible. The drive against the kulaks only served to eliminate the successful farmers, exacerbating starvation in the then infant Soviet Union.
Back in the '80's when I was a naive leftist college student I suffered through reading Zinn's book. Thankfully, before then I had read more objective history books that had been given to me by my Grandfather, and so I already knew about the greatness of American Exceptionalism. And so while reading Zinn I saw that it ignored much of American history–especially of course the great accomplishments of people like our Founders, Lincoln, etc., and that it was extremely biased. Liberal idealist that I was then, I was stunned that Zinn's drivel could be accepted at truth.
I shudder, though, when I think about how the Zinn perspective is often the norm of what today's students are taught in many public schools and in "higher education." And many of those students haven't been blessed enough to have been exposed to other points of view.
Sometimes, in my pessimistic moods, I think I should bury copies of our Founding Documents and other written evidence of America's greatness in a sturdy metal box, so that some archaeologist or curious kid poking around with a stick will uncover it someday.
People like that are always dull. Back in the 70s I attempted to read Communist Manifesto (just out of curiosity) and biographies of Lenin and Stalin (assigned by a professor.) Also, just a cursory reading of the wisdom of Mao will dry up your brain. I doubt that all of those students, Chinese or otherwise, who were seen waving around his book actually read it.
Well you have a way with words that I don't so I'll just add a big AMEN!!
Yvonne
Excellent!
A openly socialist sociology professor (faculty sponsor of the communist student group at the community college where I teach) posted a campus-wide email that expressed his loss of hope and despair at the death of Zinn. This man is tenured and will spend years tainting the minds of the students on that campus. The only antidote is to keep the truth of Zinn's fiction/venom out there. Keep it up.
How to you "attempt" to read the Communist Manifesto. It takes about an hour to finish.
I was assigned it back in high school for my European History course. One can obviously see the flaws with it but you can see how it appealed to the starving working class of the time. I have never read Das Capital, though.
http://attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=20100...
Bravo! Basal head shot from 1000 meters.
In the wake of his death, conservative commentators who had been critical of Zinn’s lifework were accused of “spitting on his grave"
I fail to see the problem with this. Some people don't deserve any better.
"There are TONS of actual history books out there that anyone with a genuine interest in history needs to read. But once you discover Zinn, you realize that all those books are just establishment propaganda"
Could there be a more perfect example of the snotty adolescent mindset of those who gobble up Zinn's pseudohistory?
And I do mean pseudohistory, Zinnian dupe. Do you have any idea how many misstatements, fabrications and misrepresentations Zinn stuffed into his, yes, propaganda piece? (Here's one to start with: George Washington not only wasn't the richest man in America, he wasn't even in the top ten richest in Westmorland County).
I regret having only one thumb-up to give to you…but know this, the body and soul attached to said thumb feels the same!
"Larry, this movement has been going on for a few hundred years."
Why, yes it has Brandon. From the hundreds of thousands of dead in the reign of Terror to the tens of millions murdered in the Great Leap Forward, the fruit of the Enlightenment has been harvested in human lives.
I'd much rather retain my "blind allegiance to the piece of land that (I) reside in" which piece of land, BTW, has produced prosperity and the highest degee of liberty extant not just here, but world-wide, than sell my soul to an ideology which has always promised Heaven on earth while delivering Hell.
The great Roger Kimball writes about Zinn at: http://article.nationalreview.com/423758/professo...
Kimball makes the following, very sadly true point: "Given a choice between a book that portrayed America honestly — as an extraordinary success story — and a book that portrayed the history of America as a litany of depredations and failures, which do you suppose your average graduate of a teachers college, your average member of the National Education Association, would choose?"
Zinn, Chomsky, and their numerous acolytes in Hollywood, D.C. and college campuses indulged in the fruits of the greatest engine of liberty and prosperity ever devised by man, while denouncing it as the greatest evil ever inflicted upon mankind. From the comfort and security of their lofty seats of influence, they fearlessly denounce as fascist everyone and everything which they are reasonably certain are safe targets, while scrupulously avoiding angering any REAL fascists, who have a tendency to retaliate in really nasty ways.
The Zinn/Chomsky technique is really quite simple: simply leave out all the bits of the record which don't fit your narrative of America's evil deeds. Flog the best with the flail of perfection.
It is interesting to note that most of those who had the courage to follow their ideological convictions and actually leave the hated shores of Amerikka to live in their utopias invariably return with new-found appreciation for the USA.
Boy oh Boy, McNamara,Cronkite,Zinn…I'm going to be drinking a lot of tea this year.
Like I said, it was just out of curiosity. I'm sure I could have read it if it had been compulsory. Thank God it wasn't. And, yes-the power of Marxism is that it appeals to people who have real needs, promising to address the wrongs that they suffer. By the time that they realize that it doesn't work they are already under the boot. Just like we will be if we don't wake up and unite against it.
Thanks. It's little details like you bring up – things that don't quite fit the Zinn narrative – that REAL historians are interested in.
Zinn's real enemy isn't the Establishment. It's human nature. Or rather, the Establishment IS human nature. No matter what political/economic/social system you look at, there's always somebody at the top, running or at least coordinating things. And most of us don't care unless those at the top make it difficult for us to live whatever we regard as reasonably good lives. Sometimes the leaders are doing fine – it's our definition of "good lives" that change. It's not a big mystery, it's not a big conspiracy – nobody *forces* it to be that way against somebody else's wishes. It's just the way people are.
I think I'll buy one of his books and use every page as toilet paper. But I doubt the quality of paper that his words are printed on are even worthy of that use. it would be redundant anyway since the pages are covered in shit anyway.
And a lowly revolutionary became the figurehead and point man for a new tyrannical regime.
Inspiring stuff.
And I will load up on enchiladas before my visit to same.
I find Zinn to be the epitomy of hubris, not surprising celebutards gravitate to his skewed nonsense.
Yes, I've certainly noticed! And as some others have remarked, as it gets more leftist, it also cares less about actually showing history.
I remember the glory days of The History Channel, when it had decent shows like "History's Mysteries," "Decisive Battles," "Vanishings," etc. Many of those shows would be considered quite clunky in their production values, but anyone who actually cared about history wouldn't mind! They were so much more informative than the slicker recent shows.
I was also happy to learn that Edward Herrmann, who was such a great narrator and host, had conservative sympathies. I wonder what he thinks about all this.
That's just NASTY…wish I had thought of it first…
Howie's such a genius. And after "the people" take power from within the institutions, "the people" will give rise to natural leaders – or at least more ambitious, ruthless, selfish "people" – who will take power from *them*. (All for the Cause, of course…) And then we'll have…something different. But not too much different from what we've had throughout all of history. Something not even close to Utopia.
*EG* indeed, but no more nasty than he and his kind have been giving us for decades.
The Constitution was written by dead, slave owning, white men—PERIOD
Wait, the founding fathers were zombies?
Make sure you bring plenty of Matt Damon's headshots for TP….
Outstanding Stage!!
You ever notice these brain dead cult members like Damon and all those that buy into this A-hole's Ziinn crap are a small group of people out there. This stuff never sticks to the to what is the truth out there. We all know the truth of this country. These malcontents have a self-loathing that is unequal in any other time in history. This all TOO SHALL PASS. Matt damon is a pathetic joke and a bad actor. He comes from big money, he has made his own fortune and now he thinks he's America's Voltaire, because he is a zealot of ZINN. This whole thing is a joke, Zinn is a joke, his book is a joke all we must do is hold their feet to the fire and expose these losers for what they are.
What's wrong with acknowledging class, Mr. Zinn?
I've noticed that there is a working class and a parasitic class, both of which exist among the rich and the poor. There are rich parasites as well as poor parasites. There are rich workers as well as poor workers. I've also noticed that the rich parasites tend to vote liberal democrat.
The adherents to the same philosphy that brought this world incalulable death and misery once again show their lack of intellectual depth and mindless fascination with vacuous ideologues. Proof that education and intelligence are mutually exclusive.
I've read them too. Sun Tzu: know your enemy. I took a break half way through Stalin.
If for no other reason, its great to be able to toss out some quotes from Marx, Engels and Lenin at wanna be chic communists. They haven't a clue what I'm talking about, and I make sure they and every one realizes it.
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
- Ronald Reagan
All depends upon the teacher. My daughter told me her Global Studies teacher has a strict rule: the only people his students are allowed to call worse than Hitler are Stalin and Mao.
There's hope out there yet.
I believe it started in a German beer hall around 1858.
The interesting thing about that date is its just before the Civil War. I don't remember if Marx explicitly called out America in the manifesto, or maybe it was some other essay he wrote, or maybe he just eluded to it, (its been some time since I've read them) but when comparing and contrasting the various forms of government, he dismissed America out of hand, saying capitalism was too weak a form of government and it's inability to deal with the slavery issue was proof.
It's amazing how some one who was so wrong about so many things, is held up as anything other than a prime of example of ridicule.
Of course not. In the left's twisted view of history, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pot were wonderful comrades who loved humanity, puppies, and butterflies. They were forced to become mass murders because the US. So its really all our fault, not communism.
The circular thinking of these people causes migraines.
Agreed, they believe its not the ideology, its just the person trying to implement it.
All they need is their own messiah, the perfect 'dear leader.'
Agreed, here's a good place to start:
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Works-Marxism-Art...
In their own blood soaked words.
The most accurate and succinct explanation for the Zinnbots that I've read.
You certainly hit the nail on the head on this one.
Clap, clap, clap, clap!
I would also add that if he wins an Oscar for best actor, then EVERYONE who had anything to do with the film he won for should receive an Oscar…and have the same privileges and benefits thereof. And if people like Ian McKellan (who is a RAVING marxist) gets dubbed as knight, then EVERYONE he has EVER worked with should become knights.
Heck. If Damon and McKellan get prizes, I want one too! And Im not into acting! (Although I have been in a play or two in my time) What happened to everyone getting the same thing?!
You're a despicable human being, par for the course in this nuthouse of commenters.
I'm glad to hear of the exception, EdSki, and I agree that there's hope out there yet. But I've worked in higher education for 19 years, and also with public school teachers during much of that time, and I'm convinced that until the stranglehold of teachers' unions and college education departments are broken, our education will continue to slide way down into the abyss. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at education. The general quality continues to slip.
When I was in high school in the 70's, I had history textbooks that were already pushing "Multicultural" and other leftist agendas, at the expense of teaching the facts and the ideas that moved our founders and others. Its only gotten worse since then.
Adopt Walter E. Williams' motto: Pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.
Let the battle start here and now.
Yup, we are ceasing power from the democrats. Comes Nov. 2 every democrats will be VOTED OUT of office.
No, I hadn't noticed, when they stopped doing history a couple of years ago, I stopped watching.
It's just as bad to overlook the war crimes of Nixon, Kissinger, and Bush, which is continually done by the right in this country. Zinn's contentions are, of course, debatable, but they need to be a part of the debate in order to have the full spectrum of ideas on the table. If you take him off the table, you have to eliminate Buckley to balance the scale, and then you get rid of Chomsky, and counter it with Coulter, etc…etc…. and then we're left with the watered-down middle. What's the point? Let's examine the whole pile of dirty laundry and be as unafraid to criticize those outside the country as we are to criticize those within.
Zinn specialized in a fairly obvious and ubiquitous tactic the left loves to use. Take everything out of context, put it in an opposite context, ridicule it, then feel self righteous smugness over their monumental accomplishment.
If you look at George Washington in the context of his times and surroundings, there's not a lot of controversy over owning slaves. Many of his contemporary Americans did likewise. Now lets remove Washington from 1776 and deposit him in modern America, and judge him by today's standards: no good, slave owning, rich white male.
By see how smart and cool I am now?
His followers are even worse. They don't want to learn all the various contexts of different eras of history. They want something simple, easy, quick, and in steps Zinn with his product. Read his book and now you too can be a master of history in 2 easy hours.
Forget about the hard stuff, and just remember the quick easy sound bytes, and you too can amaze your friends and influence uncles! Who needs to understand the significance of the Magna Charta, when you all you need do is say it was racist!
Be the first on your block!
I'll be happy to have debates about Nixon, Kissinger and Bush, provided the premise of the debate is not that any actions taken by a president that my debate partner does not support constitutes a war crime.
Not worth the time or effort.
Certainly not…. that's why I chose those three specifically. Nixon/Kissinger's bombing of Cambodia and Bush's war against Iraq are pretty much textbook cases for war crimes. If they had been committed by any other country, we wouldn't even be having this debate. I'd even be willing to throw in Truman's use of atomic weapons against Japanese citizens, considering it wasn't a political necessity and the human cost was beyond appalling. I know I'll get crucified for saying that, but I'll take my lumps if I have to.
they still got history: the history of cutting down trees last month, the history of driving across a frozen lake the week before last, the history of maybe possibly seeing a flying saucer a couple of weeks ago…
and History Channel is owned by A&E, who is owned by Universal, who is owned by NBC who is being driven into the ground by Jeff Zucker which explains a lot. (Zucker is an old Yiddish word; it means "Room Temperature IQ")
You only thought the history channel was conservative because it once stuck to creating programs based on historical fact. The facts of life, and the flow of history, are all conservative. What we call conservatism is just the recognition of the way the world works and the ordering of government around those principles. What we now call liberalism is a rebellion against reality, facts, and logic by an overly sentimental feeling (at best) or a cravenly calculated lust for power (most politicians). Liberalism is the expression of humanity's worst instincts, the temptation to lie, cheat, and steal to thwart reality, in politics.
Okay, lets start with Truman.
Military estimates of the cost of invading Japan were upwards of 2 – 3 million American military casualties. I've never seen any official estimates of Japanese military and civilian casualties – but I'd guess another 3 – 5 million if not more, nor infrastructure destruction to the entire island-nation.
Japan's government was warned repeatedly about America's nuclear weapons. They chose not to believe it. Hiroshima. Japan was again repeatedly warned of a second strike. Japan ignored. Nagasaki.
War itself is beyond appalling. I've heard it described as controlled chaos. Why is saving the lives of some where between 2.8 and 4.8 million people a war crime?
Ah… but the thing is, Japan was willing to offer a conditional surrender earlier in the year, with the only condition being that we recognize their emperor as their spiritual leader. We could have left it at that. The war was already won by that point. The bombings of HIroshima and Nagasaki were far more to do with the post-war economy and world power structure. We knew by that point that Russia and the U.S. were going to emerge as the two superpowers, and that southeast asian resources were up for grabs once the dust settled. Truman's administration was keenly aware of this, and recognized the impact that the atomic attacks would have on the psyche of our soon-to-be rivals. In essence, it gave us the leg up, and our continued involvement in southeast Asia over the next several decades was as thinly transparent as our involvement in South American politics in the early 20th century. They had stuff we wanted.
You're begging the question by using the term "war crimes" to characterize the actions of Nixon, Kissinger and Bush. Nobody is overlooking their actions. Some people just don't consider them war crimes. It may seem self-evident to you, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you. And the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're not in possession of the relevant information. It also doesn't mean they're trying to keep your interpretation of that information from being heard. It just means they disagree. No conspiracy required.
What I mean is, all sides of your (and Zinn's) issues ARE being heard. The information is all out there for anyone who cares to look for it. Nothing is being hushed up or overlooked. The real story is, only politics junkies and activists give a crap about Nixon, Kissinger, Bush or "people's movements." The rest of the world just wants the politics junkies, activists, Nixons, Kissingers, Bushes and "people's movements" to leave them the hell alone.
Excellent reply, I thank you for your reasonable and intelligent opinions.
Yes, there is no doubt the USSR was heavily on Truman's mind at the time. Remember, Patton wanted to take Berlin and Moscow.
I haven't seen any evidence that that was Japan's only objection to surrender, because it sounds to me like the same thing as an unconditional surrender, MacArthur is still going to making the rules.
I do know the emperor wanted to surrender unconditionally after Nagasaki and the army staged a failed coup. Which kind of indicates a significant number were still willing to fight on.
But I also add this, and I admit its purely my own opinion. I don't think it's accomplishes much to take historical events out of their context and judge them by today's standards. Arm chair quarterbacking is easy 65 years later.
In the context of the time, when the decision was made, WWII had been raging for 6 years. Europe was in ruins, along with a good swath of the Pacific rim. Estimates of 50 million dead world wide. Over 400,000 Americans soldiers.
I'm not going to morally judge the people who lived through all that, who fought through all that, and we're staring down the business end of between 2 to 5 million more dead, bringing an end to the war, all over the world.
On this one, I defer to their own personal judgment, which I can't even begin to fathom what it must have been like to make that decision.
Agreed. I'm glad I wasn't in charge either! To be sure, post war armchair quarterbacking is a far easier task. If anything, I think the whole episode speaks to the failures of American isolationism which allowed people like Hitler to rise to power far faster and far more significantly than they would have if we'd actually been engaged in the 1930's (or 1910's for that matter). Remember, something like 80 percent of the population was against intervention up until Pearl Harbor. Convenient pretext event, which, based on the files that have been declassified in recent years, paint a much cloudier picture about how much FDR knew about the threat of an attack. In any case, had we leveraged a more unified world effort in, say, 1935.. who know?
Onto Japan…. there was definitely acrimony between the army and the emperor. The army wanted one more effort, the emperor wanted it over, and the government worked with the Soviets to work on peace negotiations (until the Soviets broke their peace treaty, of course). I perhaps over-simplified the unconditional surrender scenario, and admit it was certainly more complicated than that. Ultimately, it was up to the emperor, but the threat of a coup was omnipresent too. The fact remains is that surrender was on their mind and they were beginning the process, making the vaporization of several hundred thousand women and children, at the very least, controversial.
For the record…. thanks for your thoughts too! Always nice to have civilized discourse here. =)
Thank you…!
Anytime I can help you out, just let me know…I am available for parties of two or more Dimocrats, just let me get a soft drink or two first…
But can't all of this be applied to right-wingers like the Big Hollywood crowd? You appear to believe that liberals/radicals are uneducated, unenlightened blind robots who don't know the *real* deal, while you're the good guys and on the right side of history. And while A People's History is pretty one-sided and intellectually undemanding, you could say the same of everything that's ever been written by Ann Coulter, who is quoted approvingly on this thread. Plus, unlike Zinn, she's just a venemous asshole.
I'll admit that some of the discussion here is much less stupid than what you'll find on most right-wing sites–that Monster from the Id guy seems pretty smart.
Ah, Andrea, haven't seen you around recently.
So, tell me, what were the war crimes you claim we are overlooking, and even if we accept that they WERE war crimes (which is disputable in and of itself, given the refusal of their armed enemies to obey the rules of war in the first place), can we not point out that they were almost entirely in reaction to even greater war crimes by the enemy, and that this fits with our strategy of escalation against enemies that refuse to play by the rules?
Firstly, the only people the Japanese had offered the limited surrender to were the SOVIETS, who kindly did not inform us. As such, we did not even know there was another offer on the table, and so we cannot be faulted for going on ahead with what we previously knew.
Secondly, even if we HAD known, I would still have advocated a fight until unconditional surrender. We had made that mistake while dealing with the Kaiserreich in WWI, and we had been rewarded with the perfidy and crimes of Hitler and with the annexation of roughly half of Europe by the Soviets. We had EVERY reason to not want to repeat that mistake in the Orient, particularly since- like the German militarists twenty years prior- the Imperial Junta would doubtless have used it to claim some perverse victory in defeat and thus allow the myth of Japanese invincibility to fester like the German one prior.
Thirdly, YES, the war was all but one. But what you and your ilk NEVER seem to address is that THE JAPANESE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT, and as such we had every reason to believe we would be looking at a massively bloody amphibious assault on Tokyo or a brutal blockade against the Home Islands. To say NOTHING about the Japanese armies on the mainland and the fact that as long as they refused to lay down their weapons, hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese civilians were at risk.
And fourthly, we by no means had anticipated the Soviet threat to NEARLY the extent you and your fellows believe so. The revelations of Igor Gouzenko- which largely touched off the Cold War- would happen only days after the Japanese surrender, and much of the Western PUBLIC thought they were loyal allies, to say nothing of the large numbers of potential sympathizers that did so much damaged in the interbellum and postwar years. We vaguely recognize a potential Soviet threat, but save perhaps Churchill, nobody, and PARTICULARLY not Truman- as you would know if you read his correspondence- believed they were a threat.
And firstly, our "thinly transparent" interventions in Latin America and Southeast Asia both had VERY valid reasons: namely Berlin (on one hand), and Moscow and Beijing on the other. The Kuba Memorandum of 1898 solidified German imperial hostility towards us, and began what I can only call a "proto-Cold War" in Latin America, which manifested in (to name the obvious) Hispaniola, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, and Colombia, and had the Germans succeeded, they could well have turned the tide of WWI, cut the Panama Canal, and threatened American safety at home.
Southeast Asia was largely motivated by our desire to contain the spread of Communism Southwestward and to prevent any Communist power from gaining dominance in the Straits of Malacca, and what most fail to notice when overviewing the Indochina war was the similar threat faced by Britain in Malaysia leading up to our involvement in Vietnam, the insurgency in the Philippines, attacks by Viet Minh, Communist Chinese, and Malaysian communists on the Thai frontiers, and the general open chaos of the region. To say nothing of the fact that Uncle Ho's behavior in the region made our puppets look positively saintlike (to not mention gentlemen such as Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge).
So yes, it WAS because they had stuff we wanted and stuff we wanted to keep out of enemy hands. But if you REALLY think that is so ignoble or wrong, just think about how Berlin would have acted had they gained dominance in Latin America or any one of the numerous Communist parties had if they had been able to cut off one of the most crucial trade routes in the world (case in point: see the considerable worries nowerdays about the actions of the Vietnamese and Indonesian navies in the region and just look at the potential damage if the straits were closed).
Well, Cambodia wasn't fighting us, and Iraq wasn't fight us, yet we bombed their citizens…. unprovoked in both cased. It's hard to spin it any other way. I'm not arguing that all military action is grounds for such accusations, but in those cases, I have yet to hear a defensible, objective defense for the way we conducted ourselves. Your last sentence is worth discussing however, because the notion of "the rules" has changed over the years, to the extent that now we have opened the door to using military intervention against anybody we want for virtually any reason we want. Iraq surely set that precedent. Not one shred of actual evidence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Not one aggressive act towards the U.S. Even Colin P. himself knew our straw man argument was BS. I'm afraid that, at least in these two cases, the facts suggest that the U.S. was dramatically in the wrong.
Evan Sayet was dead on with his "all I need to know, I learned in kindergarten" analogy when describing the Modern Liberal. In this case, it's "all I need to know, I learned from Zinn." No need to inquire further. It's sad, really.
Has anyone else noticed that the History channel, once one of the most conservative on cable, has now become a leftist mouthpiece? The "History" channel is now showing hour long eco-prop shows like "A Global Warning".
Thanks ABC. May you join MSNBC in leftist cable hell.
If THOSE are what you call "textbook cases" of war crimes, you need to replace your textbook.
Firstly, the main reason for our decision to bomb Cambodia was not because we just felt like it, but because a hostile power- North Vietnam- had sowed chaos in Cambodia itself- as seen by the emergence of the Khmer Rouge, of of yet still a subsidiary of the NVA- in order to set up a major military supply line to support their war against our South Vietnamese allies, which IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WARFARE. While the bombings themselves were far from ideal (to understate the matter grossly), it is well worth noting that we were attempting to attack an entrenched enemy force that had little to no respect for the rules of warfare and were perfectly willing to use noncombatants as human shields before crying foul over the casualties they themselves placed in harms way (take a look at a map of the Ho Chi Minh trail and see the population centeres nearby if you do not believe me). All that would be necessary would be to point out retaliations against the Vichy French for aiding and abetting the German war machine and the null nature of their claimed neutrality to render your argument null and void.
And the invasion of Iraq was even LESS dubious than that, given the fact that it was EXPLICITLY JUSTIFIED by the Gulf War ceasefire (read that, by any chance?), and Saddam's violation of it sanctions an IMMEDIATE return to hostilities. If anything, it is a massive show of RESTRAINT that he was not eliminated sooner.
If you honestly think that we are only defending THOSE actions because they were done by Americans, than you are not nearly as intellectually honest as I thought.
And as for the atomic bombings, Truman would simply have had to ask WHAT WERE THE ALTERNATIVES, given the fact that delaying the Japanese surrender would have continued the war on the Asian mainland and cost countless additional lives, that accepting less than an unconditional surrender might have allowed the Japanese to return as a threat like Germany had done after WWI, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly entirely civilian targets, and that we had already given as much warning to the Japanese as we could without endangering the lives of the crew.
War is not pleasant, and contrary to what some believe, nasty things are often necessary, particularly when the enemy does not consider themselves bound by them. I do not advocate we act as total barbarians, but that we recognize that sometimes, what is necessary does not fit within the nice, neat dotted lines of what international law gurus would like us to believe (case in point: the massive restrictions on civil liberties during Wartime to safeguard vital secrets like the Radar and D-Day, and the use of torture to help the British stave off defeat at a time when the fall of Tobruk and a German offensive clear across Egypt looked VERY likely).
If you cannot accept that, than I thank god that you are not anywhere near a position that might have a drastic impact on the fate of the world.
That's ok, I have no problem speaking ill of the dead. Zinn was a fool who's teachings are helping evil spread.
Have you actually READ the international laws you claim to support?
Cambodia in one way or another was acting as a conduit for North Vietnamese forces to move into the South, and as a launching group for said NV forces to attack both ourselves in South Vietnam, the Thais, and the 'legitimate' government of Cambodia. It was CLEARLY not neutral- whether by its own choice or not is irrelevant-, and thus retaliation was justified to punish the North Vietnamese for their perfidy (which WAS in violation of international law, by the way). And the fact that the NVA DELIBERATELY made their bases near civilian settlements (ANOTHER war crime) PROBABLY had something to do with the high number of civilian casualties.
And Iraq was justified as per Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceasefire and his support of terrorists abroad (case in point: his "donations" to Palestinian suicide bombs and his support of Al-Qaeda's Southern Arabian subsidiary, the Army of Muhammad) . And we went out of our way to avoid civilian casualties, and even international law recognizes that some degree of civilian casualties are inevitable.
The idea that we have opened the door to ANYTHING, as you accuse, requires a GROSS lack of knowledge regarding world history. Cases in point: Libya vs Chad, Honduras vs. El Salvador, and China vs. Tibet, to not cite a long, LONG list of examples dating back to antiquity.
And not one shred of evidence regarding Iraqi WMD? Let me just tell you that you are DAMN lucky you are not in Iraqi Kurdistan or even Iran, because that would not have gone down well, given the numerous casualties caused by Saddam's heedless use of poison gas, mainly against civilians. To say nothing of the estimates of virtually every other intel group on the planet and Saddam's own refusal to allow UN inspectors in (and that last one ALONE, by the way, was grounds for military assault).
Again, you seem to support international law in theory but know damn near next to nothing of it in fact.
Firstly, the "more unified world effort" you speak of would probably have involved discarding the League of Nations, given its wanton inability to stand up to aggression even when it had the chance. It would in large part meant discarding the nice and neat little international "laws" that were supposed to end war. Doing so within the League itself would have been damn near impossible, given the overwhelming likelihood of any revisions being voted down. Simply put, it almost certainly would have required the very unilateralism that you and your fellows seem to despise so much, with a few- the US and the British and French Empires, as well as any allies we could convince to join us- standing against what likely would have been the many.
And again, I will point out that the Soviets concealed the surrender negotiations, and even if they hadn't, it was vastly important to not repeat the mistakes of 1918/9 again in 1945.
The worthless SOB is dead, he hung around way too long and the damage he has cause will take generations to flush out of the body politics of America. I hope he spinning in his grave, we're stuck with the mess he left us with
Jack, Ann Coulter is not selling books and 'education projects' to school children. Particularly not 'education projects' that are riddled with errors and author misinterpretation. She is very politically incorrect and I wince whenever I hear her speak, but she's not trying to be an educator of children. That's where Zinn crosses the line.
And, yes, some can be applied to some of the Big Hollywood readers, I suppose, but I find conservatives much more likely to see issues from more than one side. And to question. You see a lot of criticism from the posters here, even the Big fans. It's not nearly the echo chamber the left sites are. You get banned from Democratic Underground for questioning the meme. Here, you might get some insults, but you won't get banned unless you cross the line pretty far.
Very well put Xian Do.
Nice rant. I completely agree. They want to be aristocrats so they can control the rabble. Really pretty pathetic.
Thank you for pointing out the one major thing folks like Andrea never seem to acknowledge when bleating about our actions in Cambodia: North Vietnam's use of Cambodian territory as a supply route to VC and NVA units operating in South Vietnam.
The people who whitewashed the ugly truths about socialism in the 20th century DESERVE to have their graves spit on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.