Howard Zinn speaks at a high school.

November 20, 2001 9:18 AM

Howard Zinn speaks at a high school. Parents get upset.
posted by Ty Webb (42 comments total)

``It's unbelievable what this guy did,'' said Tom Mountain, a parent of three Newton students who are not yet in high school. ``It's horrifying. He told these things to an entire school audience of kids 13 to 17 who don't know any better.''

Where to start...
posted by asok at 9:26 AM on November 20, 2001

sigh
posted by panopticon at 9:28 AM on November 20, 2001

I think it's horrible that this man, an HISTORIAN, knows the facts and chooses not to gloss over them!
posted by Hildago at 9:33 AM on November 20, 2001

Apparently the Newton North high school administrators have never read Zinn's book A People's History of the United States.
posted by nstop at 9:35 AM on November 20, 2001

who don't know any better

that's the key. Whose fault is that? Not Zinn's. He's educating them. Their school and their parents should present other perspectives. I disagree with Zinn, but the idea that people -- especially students -- should be protected from his ideas because they are politically unpalatable is sickening.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:36 AM on November 20, 2001

Yes, it's just HORRIBLE to present those with impressionable minds with DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS forcing them to rethink their opinions and what they've heard. How dare he and the school do such a thing. I'm appalled...APPALLED!
posted by aacheson at 9:42 AM on November 20, 2001

I don't think Zinn should be banned from speaking, but I do wish the school would give equal time to historians with opposing viewpoints -- my gripe has always been that too often dialogues do not present both sides of an issue. Students need and deserve to hear all sides of a given argument, and then make up their own minds.
posted by mrmanley at 9:42 AM on November 20, 2001

Parents questioned exposing young teens to Zinn's opinions.

Oh god, an independent thought alarm went off? Alert the authorities! We can't have children exposed to new ideas without a helmet!

It's really unbelievable how far parents will go to protect children from thoughts and ideas. My schooling up to college was completely devoid of anything challenging, and I remember how happy I was when I finally got to college. I had the chance to see Cesar Chavez, Louis Farrakhan, and all the various conservative congressmen that came through. I didn't agree wholeheartedly with any of their issues, but it was nice to hear new perspectives.
posted by mathowie at 9:45 AM on November 20, 2001

I just finished reading The Onion before I read the article linked here. Talk about cognitive dissonance. When I read the quote excerpted above, I felt like I was still reading "What Do You Think?"
posted by mccreath at 9:49 AM on November 20, 2001

Jim Marini, Newton's associate superintendent for secondary schools...defended the campus-run speakers program and said he had not received any complaints from parents.

If the supt.'s office hasn't received any complaints, how big of an actual outcry is there? This is a case of the Boston Herald (Boston's conservative-leaning rag) making a big deal out of nothing.

I do wish the school would give equal time to historians with opposing viewpoints.

I think the kids are getting plenty of the "opposing viewpoints" from the media and, apparently, their parents.
posted by jpoulos at 9:56 AM on November 20, 2001

"I do wish the school would give equal time to historians with opposing viewpoints."

They give more than equal time, sir.

w/r/t views that are opposite Zinn's, I think the USA rah-rah textbooks that the students use in history and civics classes pretty much takes care of it. If not the books, the apathetic-as-a-rule teaching of history in public school goes far in the history as a simple progression of events (which promotes simplistic nationalism) vs. history as a morass of opposing views of truth (which promotes a complex world-view.)

Now more than ever dissenting voices must be heard. If you don't agree with Zinn that's fine, but please try to disagree with him after evaluating his POV. It is to the credit of many (not all) in the forum that they know what Zinn is about and disagree with him.
posted by n9 at 10:09 AM on November 20, 2001

Were I a parent, I'd certainly be unhappy about his presence in my child's school and the things he's saying, I'd be spending my energy pushing for speakers from the opposing viewpoint while educating my kids at home on why Howard Zinn is wrong.
posted by tomorama at 10:13 AM on November 20, 2001

Viewpoints opposed to Zinn's speech can be found by turning on your television, reading almost any newspaper, or walking down the street. Viewpoints aligned with Zinn's are sort of hard to find.

Dialogue is healthy.
posted by panopticon at 10:24 AM on November 20, 2001

Dialogue is healthy.

Even stupid dialogue, like in "Mutant X"?
posted by kindall at 10:40 AM on November 20, 2001

OT:

the usage of the word "an" in front of "H" words bugs me. i know it's grammatically correct, but i don't think it should be.

"Oh look, an helicopter."

"I have an history class next period."

Does anyone know the origin or justification of this?
posted by o2b at 10:41 AM on November 20, 2001

i think the "an" before a word beginning with "h" came about because in some languages the "h" is silent. i am most likely wrong, though.
posted by pxe2000 at 10:46 AM on November 20, 2001

It's amazing how in a time of great conformity, how quickly people forget that people have an inherent right to opinion.

Oh my god! We're killing children? Better not tell the kids, they might not turn into the unquestioning automatons that we are!
posted by trioperative at 10:49 AM on November 20, 2001

I know it's grammatically correct, but i don't think it should be.

I'd be grateful if you were to keep your non-conformist views to yourself, o2b. There may be children listening.
posted by dlewis at 10:58 AM on November 20, 2001

And yet, if the speaker had been, say, David Duke talking about the superiority of the white race, would we all be so enthusiastic about exposing children to dissenting opinions? If he (Duke) had spoken to the school, would reactions like "It's horrifying. He told these things to an entire school audience of kids 13 to 17 who don't know any better" still seem as wrongheaded?

(Just playing Devil's Advocate here, folks.)
posted by Shadowkeeper at 11:01 AM on November 20, 2001

Shadow, DD is far too extreme an example to be worth considering. Try someone on the opposite side of Zinn, a conservative historian who is a professor at a major American University and, while perhaps not 'popular' is certainly well known and respected in academia.

I think there are several people who fit this description, and I think there may have been some outcry on behalf of parents if such a person gave a pro-war speech in Berkeley, or something along those lines.

The speech and the reaction are both part of why this is a great country-- even if you're an idiot you can express yourself freely. Since the definition of idiot is relative, this is a great thing.
posted by cell divide at 11:05 AM on November 20, 2001

I think we should invade Zinn's house and convert him to Christianity
posted by matteo at 11:07 AM on November 20, 2001

If you are going to have a speaker who is known to be controversial, and it is in a setting where the audience is most like impressionable due to their age, I think a more constructive way would to have that delivered in a forum or debate setting.

Nothing is simplistic about this whole situation, and stating that "this puts us on the same level as the terrorists" is somewhat irresponsible.

What isn't noted is if this was a mandatory attendance or not. If it was, then I also think it was a poor choice, since I'm sure there are families in Boston who lost family and friends in New York.

Of course, Zinns comments could be out of context, as well. We will never know.

And again on the 'equal time' issue; stating that children have enough of the opposing viewpoint because they have to use textbooks, etc.. is equating apples to oranges. Besides, a point/counterpoint would have been much more educational.

As a parent, I'd have a problem with having a speaker on this kind of subject, either pro or con, without the proper context and boundaries put in because I'll just have to go and try and explain what the speaker was trying to talk about without knowing what they said when my child comes to me with all the verbatum words, but none of the deeper cognative thought behind it that provides the reasoning for the opinion.

Just the statement that we are attacking Afganistan civilians is factually inaccurate, sematically implying that we are targeting civilians. If we were then we'd be carpet bombing like the Soviets back in the 80's. Or flying planes into a downtown area occurpied by no one but civilians during rush hours, knowing that not one of them is in a military capacity.
posted by rich at 11:10 AM on November 20, 2001

Perhaps Orwell hadn't considered the possibility that the perversion of language, Reason and Truth might not lead to Totalitarianism, but simply to people that don't give a damn.
posted by muppetboy at 11:16 AM on November 20, 2001

"Just the statement that we are attacking Afganistan civilians is factually inaccurate, sematically implying that we are targeting civilians."

Imagine for a moment a terrorist network operating out of Britain (or Ireland!). Do we carpet bomb the English countryside? Do we drop "daisy cutters" on Dublin?

Even without getting into bomb targets, it seems clear that the predictable consequence of sealing the borders and bombing the country is that the civilian population is going to *starve*. Isn't that in itself a kind of "targetting"?
posted by muppetboy at 11:21 AM on November 20, 2001

I wish Zinn would speak at my school. We've tried to get him, but he has a 5000 speaking fee, and we dont have the budget.

Goddamn high school kids don't know how good they have it.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:21 AM on November 20, 2001

Just when you get them trained with small arms and ready to shoot up their schools, some guy comes in and talks about not being violent. Talk about mixed messages.
posted by pb at 11:27 AM on November 20, 2001

Even without getting into bomb targets, it seems clear that the predictable consequence of sealing the borders and bombing the country is that the civilian population is going to *starve*. Isn't that in itself a kind of "targetting"?

But, alas, the population is not going to starve at all and from the very beginning we were making efforts -- however misguided and/or menial -- to avoid that occurence. And even if were weren't, there is a difference between an unfortunate side effect and a specific, targetted desire. No one wants Afghan civilians to starve, no one was acting in an explicit effort to starve them. I don't think I need to point out the difference between this and a deliberate, planned attack on civilians. Haven't we gone through this time and time again? The horse's corpse is dog food by now, and the hounds of disbelief are feasting.
posted by Dreama at 11:43 AM on November 20, 2001

I certainly hope you're right. But I don't agree that the US isn't responsible for the predictable consequences of its actions.
posted by muppetboy at 11:47 AM on November 20, 2001

I think attacking meants attacking, though maybe not targetting, and I think it's accurate. Zinn is only seen as being controversial because of the relentless boosterism for the war in the American media. I would agree he's an odd choice given that parents will freak out about practically anything in these troubled times, but he's a good public speaker who does a lot of research before he starts casting aspersions. Zinn's from Newton which may have influenced their decision to have him speak.
posted by jessamyn at 11:50 AM on November 20, 2001

The work of Howard Zinn is a good counter to all the shameless, kitschy, bullshit, rah-rah militarism we've been subjected to over the last weeks, not to mention to the bland tripe that passes for "history" in high schools.

I think Zinn's biggest problem is that, like Chomsky, he just has a tin ear, and doesn't know or care to frame his arguments and ideas in a way that doesn't piss people off or that invites them to participate in a constructive dialogue.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:58 AM on November 20, 2001

For all you equal timers moaning about the apparent lack of opposing viewpoints, re-read the linked article:

The school paper, Newtonite, said the speech was sponsored by the school's Human Rights Board as the first in a series of forums after Sept. 11.

There ya go, I don't know if David Duke is on the schedule, though.
posted by ahughey at 12:05 PM on November 20, 2001

In my 11th grade American Studies class, our teacher (beloved Mr. Cheadle) assigned Howard Zinn's "A People's History" as our primary history book.

It was the best textbook I ever had.
posted by arielmeadow at 12:10 PM on November 20, 2001

muppetboy - what are the predictable consequences of our actions?

Also, I don't expect we'd drop daisy cutters on Dublin, just as we didn't drop daisy cutters on Kabul. That kind of comparison is what bothers me about not having balance in discussions with kids (although it should apply to adults, as well, but we're only dealing with the high school thing here).

It's intentionally misleading to make the Dublin comment. Also, 'targeting' and 'kind of targeting' are different. You're 'kind of targeting' statement is saying that there may be ripple effects where people who are not intended to be hurt are hurt, but you'll take as may precaustions as feasible to prevent that happening. Targeting is saying 'Ok, that town there. Kill every man woman and child.'

As for the equal time... there are different schools of thought on proper forum structure, of course.. but I think that it less productive to have one speaker one week and another the following with a drastically opposing viewpoint as opposed to having them together and debating.
posted by rich at 1:48 PM on November 20, 2001

Looping back in the thread...
i think the "an" before a word beginning with "h" came about because in some languages the "h" is silent. i am most likely wrong, though.

I believe you're close. I only use "an" when preceding an "h" that is silent. An hour, a horse.

"In some dialects the 'h' is silent" would be a more accurate way to put it. Cockney vs. Queen's English vs. AAVE. (That's what the press calls Ebonics.) But a language is just a dialect with an army anyway. I'm sure the non-native English speakers around here can come up with similar issues in their languages, but I don't know of another that uses 'a/an' as the indefinite determiner.
posted by phoenix enflamed at 3:09 PM on November 20, 2001

[ H aspiré in French, distinguishing "l'hôtel" from "le havre". And it's "an honour", no matter what your accent. And we get "an orange" from "una naranja" through medieval elision.]
posted by holgate at 3:18 PM on November 20, 2001

Nick, stop showing off.

There's nothing like being attacked by a group of noodly-minded religioius fascists who treat their own women like property to make you suddenly appreciate the value of one's own democratic republic, however flawed. Rah-rah boosterism? More like, Damn, I'm glad I live someplace that defends me instead of a mass murderer.

Zinn may promote a critical view of history, but he does have a tin ear if he doesn't phrase the issue of "attacking civilians" as a difficult moral question rather than as an automatic moral failing. Nobody should ever want to attack civilians; that truly does cross the line into terrorism. But when attacking militarily is necessary for objective reasons, we cannot allow the presence of civilians alone to be a determinant of action, because then civilians will always be hostages. If we have a rule to never bomb a mosque, guess where the Taliban will hide their artillery? It's specious to take the result and argue against the intent.

And I'm most definitely with rich: the question here is a de facto state government giving aid and protection to the terrorists, not the presence of terrorists. Suggesting that we're just bombing Afghanistan because we can get away with it is a ludicrous reductionist argument that turns the truth on its head. It's the terrorists who are getting away with something by occupying a failed state. They are in Afghanistan because legitimately governed nations kicked them out.
posted by dhartung at 3:49 PM on November 20, 2001

phoenix: In spanish, you actually change some pronouns from feminine to masculine or v/v for similiar reasons, thus you say "el agua esta fria", to avoid the ambiguous sound of "la agua", which confuses the hell out of anybody trying to learn the language.
posted by signal at 3:54 PM on November 20, 2001

Does anyone believe that if Afghanistan was a Christian Fundamentalist Regime, certain members of the left would be so quick to jump to a defense of its civilians?

Of course, by the same token, many on the right would certainly go the opposite direction and oppose bombing, probably under the guise of isolationism.

The 'tin ear' is prevelant on both sides, to me it means not applying the same values universally, and allowing your personal biases to color your views of any situation, removing all context other than your own, pre-built conditions.
posted by cell divide at 3:55 PM on November 20, 2001

Zinn: love the man, can't get enough. For those of you on the opposing end of the Zinn spectrum, do you think it give Zinn's arguments more or less cred that he fought in World War II and participated in some of the first uses of napalm (of which he is a very vocal opponent)?

Compare this to say, Chomsky - of whose intellect I am in awe, but whose public persona is beginning to chafe for some reason - who makes many of the same points, but who has not served in the military.

Thoughts?
posted by edlark at 3:57 PM on November 20, 2001

(err...) "...gives Zinn's arguments..."
posted by edlark at 4:00 PM on November 20, 2001

arielmeadow: our teacher (beloved Mr. Cheadle) assigned Howard Zinn's "A People's History" as our primary history book.
Don Cheadle was your history teacher? How freakin' cool is that!?

cell divide: Does anyone believe that if Afghanistan was a Christian Fundamentalist Regime, certain members of the left would be so quick to jump to a defense of its civilians?

Damn freakin' straight they would! I believe that's sort of an ad hominem tu quoque, there. Be they Christian Fundamentalist Regimes, Muslim F.R.s, or Atheist F.R.s- pretty much any militaristic force that attacks and oppresses their own civilian populations are reviled by "the Left" rather equally. Unless, that is, you have some compelling evidence to the contrary- which still wouldn't have much relevancy to "the Left's" critique of what's going on in Afghanistan. See, whether you realize it or not, it's that whole pesky "violation of human rights" bit that gets "the Left" all riled up, not the fact that they are x-ian as opposed to µ-slim.

Gratuitous Self-Congratulatory Aside: "µ-slim". Mu- slim...I am so dang proud of myself right now.

And besides, as you yourself note, "the Left" is coming to defense of the civilians, not the leadership- pretty much most of "the Left" has condemned the Taliban et al long before it was "cool" to do so. Folks like Zinn and Chomsky, in fact, have argued against the very inconsistency you pretend the Left is so guilty of; that we the US of A use noble sentiments like "human rights" as an excuse to bomb or otherwise intervene in one area, but completely ignore or hasten even worse atrocities elsewhere that don't have underlying monetary advantages. Whether that is the true underlying motivation in Afghanistan remains to be seen- but in any case, I haven't heard any members of "the Left" praise the Taliban at all, but instead have argued that bombing or starving the civilians would be counterproductive and ineffective in that region. Again, that also remains to be seen.
posted by hincandenza at 5:34 PM on November 20, 2001

"An hour, a horse." Phoenix beat me to it.
Which brings to mind a similar quirk in the English language. We say "an Englishman" but "a European" because in speech it sounds like "yurrupean" and "an" just doesn't sound right there, any more than it does when paired with "horse."
posted by StOne at 7:16 AM on November 21, 2001