As for the subtitle of this book, it is not quite accurate; a "people's history" promises more than any one person can fulfill, and it is the most difficult kind of history to recapture. I call it that anyway because, with all its limitations, it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance.A People's History is a piece of propaganda, and unlike most history books it openly declares itself to be so.
That makes it a biased account, one that leans in a certain direction. I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction-so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements-that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission.
...
In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen. These people-the employed, the somewhat privileged-are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls.
That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attica—expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us.
Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott's army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America. And so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can "see" history from the standpoint of others.He also describes in great detail what he sees as the failings of the way history is usually told. Zinn isn't "doing history" or even pretending to. He is telling the same history others have already done, and he's quite clear aobut that, but he's telling it from those viewpoints almost universally ignored.
ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING:And right now, America is shocked -- shocked! -- that someone is destabilizing Syria. And the rest of the world is thinking "those stupid motherfuckers are at it again." "American Assassinated By Government Drone" becomes "Terrorist Eliminated by American Military". Just like the devil, the propaganda model depends on your assumption that they don't exist -- as far as you are concerned.
The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rifat Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime,s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction.
THE KHADDAM FACTORIn any case, Zinn is correct that history is a simple of matter of oppressor and oppressed. People who take their criticism to "the world isn't about good and evil" and complain about moralism in history are arguing against themselves. The world is about the powerful and the powerless (or the less powerful). While there have been some enlightened despots here and there, power is rarely given up willingly. There are injustices due to the power imbalance, there is typically a struggle or an oppression, depending upon whatever the particular situation is, but that's the way it goes.
…We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others to allow Khaddam access to their media outlets, providing him with venues for airing the SARG,s dirty laundry. We should anticipate an overreaction by the regime that will add to its isolation and alienation from its Arab neighbors…
HIGHLIGHT KURDISH COMPLAINTS: Highlighting Kurdish complaints in public statements, including publicizing human rights abuses will exacerbate regime,s concerns about the Kurdish population. Focus on economic hardship in Kurdish areas and the SARG,s long-standing refusal to offer citizenship to some 200,000 stateless Kurds. This issue would need to be handled carefully, since giving the wrong kind of prominence to Kurdish issues in Syria could be a liability for our efforts at uniting the opposition, given Syrian (mostly Arab) civil society’s skepticism of Kurdish objectives.
PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.And others defend the propaganda model as part of their function as the intellectual elite, guiding the poor dumb animals who need to be told what is "good" history and what is "bad" history based on narrow definitions of words made up by other unjust oppressive hierarchal institutions who believe in...
"The actual shooting" was also started by the South.it was not started by the North to abolish slavery, but rather by the South to preserve slaveryThey didn't start a war they tried to secede. The actual shooting (which was not thought to be forgone) started over military assets -- forts and bases.
if slavery meant anything other than propaganda value, why wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation issued in 1861, and why did it exclude the five non-rebelling slave states?
The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically...Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.-- Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861
...
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
I am just going to reiterate: If slavery was an issue, the Emancipation would have happened in 1861, not 1863.(1) This seems absurdly reductionist. The fact that it didn't happen in 1861 shows that it was not a be-all-and-end-all issue; it does not show that it was not an issue. Nor does it even show that it was not a major issue.
The South started the war.The fact that it didn't happen in 1861 shows that it was not a be-all-and-end-all issueAnd thus ends the debate since it was obviously enough a be-all-and-end-all-issue to start a war that killed more than half a million people.
Why did the North prepare so hard and then go to such ruinous war over something they couldn't be arsed to articulate clearly for two whole yaers into the conflict? If slavery wasn't their motive, what was? And if slavery was their motive why wait two whole years before declaring the intention?Again, you are reducing things to "there must have been one and only one motive", and again, you are ignoring the role of the South. If you would force me to pick one and only one motive for the North going to war, I would pick the fact that they were attacked.
What percentage of the American population were slaves in 1860? What percent of the population were slaves south of the Mason-Dixon line in that year?
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).[cite]
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.
...
In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.
The CSA also had a sizable problem with unionists in their own midst who weren't thrilled with the secession, many of whom fought *only* because when soldiers wearing different colors are marching on your community, you take up arms against them first and then argue with your neighbors later.
« Older Steve Howarth has made a lot of practical special ... | What do 3D printing, jelly, li... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
http://hnn.us/articles/rebutting-david-greenbergs-hit-job-howard-zinn
Greenberg got a vast number of things wrong with his article.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:20 PM on March 22 [19 favorites]