Howard Zinn, author of numerous works including A People's History of the United States and Voices of A People's History of the United States, died Wednesday, January 27 2010. He is remembered mainly for his monumentally influential and important counter history of the United States, which focused on the lives of ordinary Americans, minorities, women, and misfits who are generally excluded and marginalized in American History textbooks, discussions and coursework.
For our coursework we are using Voices of A People's History of the United States, which is a superb compilation of essential primary sources that detail the experiences of the people Zinn's career was based upon. Perhaps what made Howard Zinn so controversial was that he was an avid proponent of the idea that what students do with history is as important as what they know about history. Zinn also openly acknowledged and displayed his own ideological perspectives in ways that were unsettling to some.
Here are some of my favorite quotes by him (and perhaps some of his most provocative):
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable."
"If patriotism in the best sense (not in the monarchical sense) is loyalty to the principles of democracy, then who was the true patriot, Theodore Roosevelt, who applauded a massacre of 600 Filipino men, women, and children on a remote Philippines island or Mark Twain who denounced it."
"My viewpoint, in telling the history of the United States, is different: that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioner."
Democracy Now! recently broadcasted a segment on Howard Zinn, in which his colleagues and friends remember his life and contributions to the various movements in which he took part. You can watch, listen to, or read the transcript of the special here.
Please do some research on the web and find two links that deal with Howard Zinn's work. Find one source that is critical of Zinn and one that is supportive. Post your links along with your analysis in a comment to this post. First come, first serve; make sure that you don't post links that someone else has posted.
ICE Rounds Up 300 California Farmworkers, One Dies: Eyewitness and Oxnard
Mayor Respond
-
An immigration raid in Camarillo, California, on Thursday led to an
hourslong standoff between protesters and federal border agents, who
blocked the roads ...
16 hours ago
9 comments:
In a way, Zinn's death reminds me of Archduke Ferdinand's death, because it's sending people to the trenches.
Here (http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-on-howard-zinns-grave/) David Horowitz, a well known right wing columnist, calls Zinn a "Stalinist" and a "bad human being," dismisses his work as worthless propaganda, and accuses him of supporting the causes of America's enemies for forty years.
On the other side, William Loren Katz, a liberal historian, calls Zinn a hero who "confronted a lily-white, elite establishment comfortable with racism, economic injustice, and imperialism" and "illuminated the world, moved mountains and lifted people who had been told their ancestors never amounted to much." (His comments are here: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100131-katz-columnsheroes.html)
In other words, there seems to be a war breaking out over the nature of Zinn's legacy. AS with any conflict in which beliefs and strong emotions are involved, it appears that the claims of both sides are somewhat exaggerated, and I expect them to remain so for some time, possibly as long as a generation. Eventually, however, I think we will reach a consensus that lies somewhere in the middle.
On one hand, I think this consensus will admit that Zinn's work is far from worthless, and on the other I think it will recognize the fact that Zinn's account of American History is not some sort of new gospel designed to supplant the traditional narrative of American History, but rather a supplement designed to expand and enhance it.
That's sort of where I am (or at least where I like to believe I am) in my thinking, but what do I know, I haven't even heard of Howard Zinn until two months ago.
Nice Ben. Horowitz has been a vocal opponent of any left-wing bias in academia. He's a leader of "Students For Academic Freedom" which seeks to "protect" the rights of conservative students from abuse by leftest professors. Zinn was a particularly high profile enemy of Horowitz's organization because of the popularity of Zinn's books on college campuses. You've clearly highlighted the disparate assessments of Zinn's work or perhaps, now, his legacy.
Indoctrination U deals argues that there is a pervasive problem of left wing / liberal bias on college campuses. Check it out here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1137970/
American Radical describes a case study in right wing bias in the university environment. Check it out here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1475191/
I appreciated both films.
I like that Howard Zinn focused his study and research on minorities throughout history. He encouraged students, as I hope to do, to not just know history, but to "do it, participate, be active in," etc.
I really really like the first quote listed by him. I love that he says "...no flag large enough," instead of no country or no person.
I also found the tribute to Howard Zinn on “Democracy Now!” interesting and informational about Zinn’s life. I especially liked this line; “He was fired for insubordination for standing up for the students,” and “but of course you couldn’t control Howie,” and “He was the first person to say—loudly, publicly, very persuasively—that this simply has to stop; we should get out, period, no conditions; we have no right to be there; it’s an act of aggression; pull out,” referring to Vietnam.
It was cool to find out that he was witty, and had a sense of humor. My favorite line of the tribute: “And he was just—he was fearless. He was simple. He was straightforward. He said the right things, said them eloquently, and inspired others to move forward in ways they wouldn’t have done, and changed their minds. They changed their minds by their actions and by hearing him. He was a really—both in his life and in his work, he was a remarkable person, just irreplaceable.”
I didn’t realize who Howard Zinn was until this class, and am glad to have knowledge of him now. I really like the book we’re reading, and have great respect for him.
I’m sure someone has already looked into this, but I found a website containing a small biography of Zinn’s life. I believe it’s thorough and up to date because they mention his death, and what he had to say about/to President Obama. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=939
I have mixed feelings on Howard Zinn, but I like how the title of the article put it. "Historian, Teacher, and Activist." It's possible to agree with some things a person does, and not with others. The political ideas, stances, and actions people take are not all of who a person is.
As a Teacher and Historian, Zinn turned the norm upside down. He began focusing on the unrepresented and provided a voice for those who could not speak or were to suppressed to do so. That in and of itself is a huge accomplishment. Not only because it allowed an outlet for the minorities, or because it shared a new perspective, but because slowly the playing field was/is being leveled. Inch by inch, which is the only way to keep the progress that has already come.
As a teacher he encourages students to find their voice and USE it. This is what Houghton teaches us to do. Help our students find their voice and not be afraid to express their opinions. People come from different backgrounds and it is important to value and cherish those. That does not mean that one much agree with the differences among us, but that we must accept them and learn to go about debating in healthy, mannered, civilized ways. Having such respect for one another takes time, but it can only be accomplished when all sides, backgrounds...feel valued and that their voice is heard.
As an activist I agree and disagree with Howard Zinn. I believe that is was important for him to stand up for the causes he believed in, such as standing by the Black university and protesting with his students. He serves as an example of what we all should do. By that I mean stand behind what we believe in, though the form by which we do can vary. He also helped me to remember what beliefs I do have and forced me to think about why I adhere to them. Something which only comes through challenge and difference of opinion. I am grateful for that. It is necessary for us all to be subjected to such questioning so that we remain engaged and not just observers who remain idle and grow more and more unattached with the world around us.
Howard Zinn was a man. Not greater than you are a but a man. A man to learn from. A man to question. A man to learn from. A man to respond to. He is dead. He lived a life. A life that seemed to leave a trail of controversy behind. His work should not be forgotten, nor the advancements he made in our field of education. He was a commendable historian, who was not afraid to push the envelope in the pursuit of truth. A role model to follow in many ways. He died, which is always tragic, but leaves me wondering....who will be the next one to step up and take his place?
Why do we use the word "critical of Zinn" instead of "opposed to Zinn"? are the words synonymous?
http://www.truthout.org/howard-zinn-a-public-intellectual-who-mattered56463 ---- What I find most interesting about this article is how it discusses the relationship between author and Zinn. Zinn was approachable in his eyes. They came from similar backgrounds. He was easier to identify with then many others out there. At times he is seen as "mythical," however that image does not last long. It is again shattered by the connectivity that Zinn had with his students. The availability he made in his schedule to value the voices of his students and the ideas that they had to offer.
A testament to his work in many ways. It shows that he followed what he preached. A rare quality trait among humanity.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/spitting-on-howard-zinns-grave/
Opposed. Clearly.
David Horowitz said,(after Howard's death) "All Zinn’s writing was directed to one end: to indict his own country as an evil state and soften his countrymen up for the kill. Like his partner in crime, Noam Chomsky, Zinn’s life’s work was a pernicious influence on the young and ignorant, with destructive consequences for people everywhere."
Those are some bold-honest words. After reading his statement, Zinn was projected in a much different light than he is in our class. "Life long Stalinist and propagandist." Stalinist? Now that is a person I would think not many would like to be compared too.
Is he a little harsh on Zinn? At the bottom of the page there is a statement from NPR that says "UPDATE: David Horowitz has decided that he came down a bit too harshly on Zinn. The above text is revised to remove the description of Zinn as a “wicked man.” For an explanation click here."
CONTROVERSIAL. the word I would use to sum up Zinn. Each link portrays Zinn in very contrasting ways. One side looks to how he has changed the view of history, and the other looks to what the changes mean for us.
I think that both sides need to keep their perspectives of the man in check and be a little more open to what the other side sees in the man.
Wicked? Horowitz is an interesting guy in his own right.
He was once a radical leftist, actively engaged in the anti-war struggle during the Vietnam War. Now he's turned a 180. Horowitz goes over the top sometimes - he repeatedly says that Zinn supported Mao and Stalin and yet he never supports those claims. I've read a good deal of Zinn's work and I have never seen anything like that. Any discussion of authoritarian leftists in Zinn's writing is always coupled with the necessary discussion of their brutalities. Horowitz wouldn't sell books if it weren't for Zinn and Chomsky - its like making a career of shouting to the top of your lungs that Rush Limbaugh is a fascist and bad for America every time he says something you don't like. Worse than that, Zinn and Chomsky, present academic arguments replete with evidence. The best way to challenge them is with counter arguments based on evidence, not ad hominem attacks. Zinn was a "democratic socialist" sympathetic to "anarchism" not a "Stalinist" which is far from the authoritarian left. Mao or Stalin would have had Zinn shot for criticizing the state.
One more thing I find interesting - keep in mind this is coming from a divorced dude in no position to make these kinds of judgments - Horowitz is on his 4th marriage whereas the dreaded "wicked" Zinn was married to the same woman for 60 plus years. interesting.
Post a Comment