Howard Zinn's History Lessons--the cynical myopia of the Hardcore Left?

[cryofan]

I LOVE both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. They not only opened my eyes, but also confirmed my worst suspicions about how the world works. However, there is something about their basic thesis that is unsatisfying and incomplete. This critique of Zinn's "A People's History" (A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present) may be illuminating, no matter the author's anti-Zinn, pro-rightist bias:

Some excerpts:




Zinn's conception of American elites is akin to the medieval church's image of the Devil. For him, a governing class is motivated solely by its appetite for riches and power-and by its fear of losing them. Numerous historians may regard George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton as astute, if seriously flawed, men who erected a structure for the new nation that has endured for over two centuries. But Zinn curtly dismisses them as "leaders of the new aristocracy" and regards the nation-state itself as a cunning device to lull ordinary folks with "the fanfare of patriotism and unity." In the face of such unrelenting grimness, A People's History offers a certain consolation. "The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history," writes Zinn. It uses wealth to "turn those in the 99 percent against one another" and employs war, patriotism, and the National Guard to "absorb and divert" the occasional rebellion. So "the people" can never really win, unless and until they make a revolution. But they can comprehend the evil of this four-hundred-year-old order, and that knowledge will, to an extent, set them free.

Thus, a narrative about demonic elites becomes an apology for political failure. By Zinn's account, the modern left made no errors of judgment, rhetoric, or strategy. He never mentions the Communist Party's lockstep praise of Stalin or the New Left's fantasy of guerilla warfare. Radical activists simply failed to muster enough clear-eyed troops to pierce through the enemy's mighty, sophisticated defenses.

Perhaps the greatest flaw of his book is that Zinn encourages readers to view so formidable a force as just a pack of lying bullies. He refuses to acknowledge that when they speak about their ideals, those who hold national power usually mean what they say. If FDR lied to Americans about the threat posed by Japanese-Americans during World War II, why should anyone believe his prattle about the Four Freedoms? So there's no point in debating conservatives who prescribe libertarian economics, Victorian moral values, and preemptive interventions for what ails the United States and the world. All right-wingers really care about is keeping all the resources and power for themselves.

This cynical myopia afflicts an alarming number of people on the left today. The gloom of defeat tends to obscure the landscape of real politics, which has always witnessed a clash of ideologies as well as interests, persuasion as well as buy-offs and sellouts. Zinn fiercely details the outrages committed by America's rulers at home and abroad. But he makes no serious attempt to examine why these rulers kept getting elected, or how economic and social reform improved the lives of millions even if they sapped whatever mass appetite existed for radical change.



http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/kazin.htm

[deutsey]

1. Zinn openly acknowledges that his history is tilted toward "the bottom"

It's in the opening chapter of People's History (which I don't have at hand right now). He says he intentionally does this to counterbalance the official history promoted by the American power structure. I think anyone who reads People's History needs to keep that in mind as they read this excellent book. Zinn makes no claims to being "fair and balanced." :evilgrin: He is a historian but he is also an activist and, for him, the two roles blend.

For a good critique, from the Left, of the Communist Party, Soviet Russia, and the New Left, read The Long Detour (available at www.thelongdetour.com).

The author founded In These Times, has written a number of books on the Left, and was once a member of the Communist Party.

[NashVegas]

2. Madison Wrote the Original Thesis

It uses wealth to "turn those in the 99 percent against one another" and employs war, patriotism, and the National Guard to "absorb and divert" the occasional rebellion.

It took someone like Lee Atwater to run with it, and, in part because of his doing so, people woke up to it.


Morris Udall:

http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches/spc/udall/address/news_04.html

Atwater pulled a page from Founding Father James Madison's blueprint for the nation. Madison had suggested to his peers (other landed, white men) that even in a democracy the elite can rule. If the "common people" can be divided enough, geographically and interest-wise, the privileged can protect their own interests.

From a Jerry Brown/Noam Chomsky chat:

http://www.friendsoffreedom.com/Writings/BrownChompsky.html

And it was designed on the principle enunciated very explicitly by James Madison, one of the most influential of the framers at the Constitutional Convention, who explained and assisted and stressed that the primary responsibility of government, in his words, is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Therefore, democracy is a threat. We must make sure that the wealthy are in charge, what he called the most capable class of men, and that the rest of the population is marginalized, fragmented, and dispersed. Well, a lot of people didn't like that, and there were plenty a conflict about it, but that's the constitutional system. Actually, Madison himself didn't like it the way it turned out and condemned it pretty bitterly a couple of years later. But there have been a lot of changes in the last 200 years.


I'm sure you can find other examples, using Madison's own words, by doing a Yahoo search on 'James Madison divide.'

[eablair3]

3. this piece loses credibility to me - no citations/footnotes

I like Howard Zinn's writings, esp PHOTUSA.

This author makes a lot of assertions as to what Zinn says, and unlike Zinn and Chomsky, he fails to cite or support even one of his assertions with even one footnote. I'd like to see the page number cited for each of the assertions this author claims Zinn states or contends. Without that, it just looks like the typical FoxNews hit piece where they misrepresent what someone says and then attack the person for saying what *they* claim the person said.

I'm not willing to search through every page of the lengthy PHOTUSA to see if Zinn did or did not make the statement(s) that this guy says were made. The author loses a huge amount of credibility by not giving page numbers, so one can check it out and see the context of the claimed Zinn statement and so forth.

That's one big reason that I like Zinn and Chomsky is that they use extensive footnotes for their claims and statements, so that one can check those sources out. And, I have checked out their sources on many many occassions because some of what they write was so surprising to me never having heard or read such things before. And, on those occassions when I've researched their source, they are usually right on with what they say and with their supporting sources that they cite. So, they have earned their credibility with me. Without supporting cites or footnotes, this guy's piece is next to garbage. It may earn him a punidt spot on FoxNews though.

[eablair3]

5. it's a reminder of what the opposition does

if those oppossed to someone don't like what they say, they attack the person. They misrepresent what the person says, and then attack.

You see this over and over again as to people that they believe are real threats.

They don't want people to read Zinn (and Chomsky), and they have to diffuse what they say for those that have read them. The opposition will demonize people that tell truths that the opposition doesn't want heard or considered or read. They do this over and over again.

They did it to Joe Wilson.

They did it to Scott Ritter.

They are doing it now to Richard Clarke.

If you say or write something that they don't like to be heard, you will be demonized and targeted. The examples are countless.

[eablair3]

6. critical thinking and challenging what you read

"This critique of Zinn's "A People's History" (A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present) may be illuminating, no matter the author's anti-Zinn, pro-rightist bias"


I think a little more critical thinking is needed when one reads this piece. People have a tendency to just believe what they read and what is asserted, esp if it's written or said in a snappy, sound-bite way. Challenge what you read and hear and test it more. This piece is anything but "illuminating." No offense meant.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. History is written by the winners. Zinn wrote history from the view of

the rest of us, and particularly those left behind by history.

The author here doesn't provide anything to back up his assertions.

[reprehensor]

7. Whatever.

Mr Kazin favors 'court historians' over the truth.

Pity.

[The Lone Liberal]

8. An article in Harper’s Magazine

Provides some insight into why? The article written by Thomas Frank sets out the argument that he will make in his new book, What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Thomas Frank

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/104-4695161-6595101?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I3DE6H6PZ7M7LU&colid=2SXWH86ZCIAHA


Basically, it is the wedge issues that are pursued by the power elite of the right and which are supported time and again by the people, only to find that once the election is over, the right goes back to taking care of wealth and little else.

[cryofan]

9. Front Porch Stoop Neighborhood Politics replaced by Mass Media Propaganda

From the review you cited:
>>>>>>>>>


Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where’s the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism—the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat—and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders’ “values” and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Yep, that pretty much says it all: concern over politcian's personal values, their convictions, and "down-home qualities" have overtaken concerns on policy. And the media perfectly reflects this. But maybe that is because that is what "sells" on TV. Discussion of a politician's personal qualities are more interesting. Or maybe they are more interesting because that is what the media wants to make interesting.

In any case, I think that a lot of the blame can be laid to the fact of the replacement of front porch stoop neighborhood political discussions with one-way media propaganda, via the TV and the radio. Years ago, I ate up Rush Limbaugh like candy; now whenever I hear him I am reminded eerily of the TV propaganda of Orwell's 1984.

The fact that the old neighborhoods and grange halls, which were forms of social entertainment AND political discourse, have been made extinct by the suburbs and the commute and the isolation we now have from each other. The mass media is our social political connection, and it feeds is a poisonous and self-destructive brew.

That is why I donate to DU: it and other forums like it must become our neighborhood front porch stoop. But so far only a very small fraction of Americans have yet discovered it.