Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Howard Zinn: The Historian Who Made History
Howard Zinn, my hero, teacher, and friend died of a heart attack on Wednesday at the age of 87. With his death, we lose a man who did nothing less than rewrite the narrative of the United States. We lose a historian who also made history.
Anyone who believes that the United States is immune to radical politics never attended a lecture by Howard Zinn. The rooms would be packed to the rafters, as entire families, black, white and brown, would arrive to hear their own history made humorous as well as heroic. "What matters is not who's sitting in the White House. What matters is who's sitting in!" he would say with a mischievous grin. After this casual suggestion of civil disobedience, the crowd would burst into laughter and applause.
Only Howard could pull that off because he was entirely authentic. When he spoke against poverty it was from the perspective of someone who had to work in the shipyards during the Great Depression. When he spoke against war, it was from the perspective of someone who flew as a bombardier during World War II, and was forever changed by the experience. When he spoke against racism it was from the perspective of someone who taught at Spelman College during the civil rights movement and was arrested sitting in with his students.
And of course, when he spoke about history, it was from the perspective of having written A People's History of the United States, a book that has sold more than two million copies and changed the lives of countless people. Count me among them. When I was 17 and picked up a dog-eared copy of Zinn's book, I thought history was about learning that the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. I couldn't tell you what the Magna Carta was, but I knew it was signed in 1215. Howard took this history of great men in powdered wigs and turned it on its pompous head.
In Howard's book, the central actors were the runaway slaves, the labor radicals, the masses and the misfits. It was history writ by Robin Hood, speaking to a desire so many share: to actually make history instead of being history's victim. His book came alive in December with the debut of The People Speak on the History Channel as actors, musicians, and poets, brought Zinn's book alive.
Howard was asked once whether his praise of dissent and protest was divisive. He answered beautifully: "Yes, dissent and protest are divisive, but in a good way, because they represent accurately the real divisions in society. Those divisions exist - the rich, the poor - whether there is dissent or not, but when there is no dissent, there is no change. The dissent has the possibility not of ending the division in society, but of changing the reality of the division. Changing the balance of power on behalf of the poor and the oppressed."
Words like this made Howard my hero. I never thought we would also become friends. But through our mutual cohort, Anthony Arnove, Howard read my sports writing and then gave his blessing to a book project we called A People's History of Sports in the United States.
We also did a series of meetings together where I would interview Howard on stage. Even at 87, he still had his sharp wit, strong voice, and matinee-idol white hair. But his body had become frail. Despite this physical weakness, Howard would stay and sign hundreds of books until his hand would shake with the effort.
At our event in Madison, Wisconsin, Howard issued a challenge to the audience. He said, "Our job as citizens is to honestly assess what Obama is doing. Not measured just against Bush, because against Bush, everybody looks good. But look honestly at what Obama's doing and act as engaged and vigorous citizens."
He also had no fear to express his political convictions loudly and proudly. I asked him about the prospects today for radical politics and he said,
"Let's talk about socialism. ... I think it's very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country... Socialism basically said, hey, let's have a kinder, gentler society. Let's share things. Let's have an economic system that produces things not because they're profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism."
Howard Zinn taught millions of us a simple lesson: Agitate. Agitate. Agitate. But never lose your sense of humor in the process. It's a beautiful legacy and however much it hurts to lose him, we should strive to build on Howard's work and go out and make some history.
37 Comments so far
Show AllHoward Zinn was certainly correct about socialism and what it stands for. If only those who run the television cable and network programs could get it through their heads that a socialist point of view should be seen and heard on the corporate airwaves right alongside those of the Democrats and the Republicans. Power to the people!, as Howard might say.
I think Dr. Zinn would likely point out that the airwaves belong to the people, not corporations.
Exactly! The public trust of the airwaves was set up during the New Deal in 1934.
I was so lucky to have seen and heard Howard Zinn speak several times!
Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!
"The power of the people at the top depends upon the obedience of the people below." -- Howard Zinn
Thanks, Dave Ziron, for reminding us of Professor Zinn's sense of humor and wit -- which never failed him.
Respect to Howard Zinn. I have to disagree with the Socialism concept though since it implies a government monopolization of resources and production, which isn't advisable due to the chance of a bad top decision causing a famine( Think Great Leap Forward .
Its a great dream though...
I don't think you understand the concept of 'real' socialism then. Socialism was never meant to be top-down. It was meant to be bottom-up. Community organizations and worker's councils would be in control of the means of production. The Soviet Union and China were not and are not socialist. Socialism is very popular around the world - for obvious reasons. Thus, propaganda systems like you have in a country like China or the USSR wanted to associate their tyranny with socialism. Similarly, in the USA the powers that be were terrified of socialism - for obvious reasons. Thus, they made sure the tyranny of the Soviets and the Maoists were tied all up together with socialism. It is tough to communicate with people in the USA sometimes... words have come to mean their opposite.
This is true, citizens of the US are treated extremely unfairly in the way information is disseminated.
We are taught that socialism is communism and that communism is fascism.
If you analyze that sentence for all of ten seconds, please feel free to go have a coffee and smoke a cigarette.
tarheel77
Bravo! Intelligently and persuasively well stated.
More kudos to you, tarheel77 - one of the finest one paragraph descriptions of true Socialism I've ever read. Thanks!!
Tarheel77 - Thank you. You have it exactly right. Talk about Freudian Projection!
Likewise, in the US, the term 'socialism'--an egalitarian, i.e., 'democratic' social philosophy based upon the common good without preference or privilege--is always and deliberately used in the pejorative by elite tools of American state-capitalism, a corrupt, anti-democratic system of inverted totalitarianism, which hides behind the facade of 'democracy,' out of fear that American citizens will figure out that "free-market"/crony capitalism and real democracy are antithetical, antagonistic concepts, whereas democracy and socialism are, in fact, complimentary.
I think you'll appreciate the following excerpt from Joe Bageant regarding socialism. I encourage you to read the essay in its entirety, which can be found at http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/12/the-devil.html.
"Will Americans ever rise up in defense of their own common well being through such things as education, health and a productive peace caring society? Nope. Because it has been seen to that socialism -- the administration of the nation solely for the common good and benefit of all the people without preference or privilege -- doesn't stand a chance in America. For over a century those who have attempted to further socialism have been shot, hanged, burned alive in their beds on Christmas Eve, imprisoned, falsely accused of crimes and falsely convicted, and demonized by the capitalist elites of the corporate state. The cause of socialism has effectively been wiped out in the US. Few Americans can even define the word. Most think it is a political system when it is a social philosophy. Hell, half the socialists these days think it is entirely a political system.
But even if Americans understood socialism, they are too terrified to ever admit to its virtues, much less publicly support the cause. And without free and open public participation in some democratic form of socialism, regardless of the name or label given it, there can be no recognition of the people's common welfare and good. And so the most egalitarian social philosophy ever conceived dies within a nation, with very little chance of being reborn because such an ideal, by its definition, cannot exist within the narrow mindset of bankers and oligarchs."
Guys, its a great idea, but theres NO practical way to implement it.
I have yet to see one proposal for a Socialist Society in which power is not consolidated in the hands of a few government officials.But since trying to get Communist to understand basic economic is harder then getting a dog to read I'll just let you guys battle this one out.
Keithsoulasa
It would appear that you might benefit [that is, if you can approach this with an open mind] by reading Europe's Promise: Why The European Way Is The Best Hope In An Insecure Age. In this book, Steven Hill methodically and persuasively points out how many of the countries of Europe have been quite successful in helping their citizens with their policies of social capitalism as compared to the rigid free market and Wall Street capitalism of the United States. Hill demonstrates, in my opinion, how much more advanced Europe is than the U.S., not simply in terms of its universal health care systems, but also because of its:
* Economic strength-"where the European Union, with its twenty-seven member nations and half-billion people, has become the largest, wealthiest trading bloc in the world, producing nearly a third of the world's economy-almost as large as the United States and China combined."
* How the democratic countries of Europe are much more egalitarian than America's "antiquated, eighteenth-century winner-take-all system."
* How the health care system in Europe is, for the most part, far superior to that of the U.S., which spends twice per capita than any other country in the world while managing to rank 37th by the WHO in terms of quality health care.
You also claim that there is "NO practical way to implement it [socialism]." What you fail to acknowledge is my earlier comment where I had stated that before socialism [or even a variation of it which is practiced in Europe, which Steven Hill refers to as social capitalism] could even be considered in this country, Americans would first have to be exposed to those views in the mainstream media. Given the stranglehold that the large corporations have in the United States on the mainstream media, it is extremely doubtful if the television and network executives will ever allow Americans to realize that there are actually other points of view out there [such as, God forbid, that of socialism] which do not follow the thinking of either the Democrats and/or the Republicans.
Personally I advocate a kind of "cellular" socialism, in which each community forms a self-governing unit, but has representatives that cooperate with other units in a region, and those regional units cooperate with still larger units until you have national and international units, and ultimately a world council. Five levels only from individual to chief operating council members of planet Earth.
Each unit also has technical advisors to facilitate the cooperative and collective processes. To analyse and explain more complex factors. To study old and new methods of operation and advancement. To keep the process functioning.
With modern communication networking each unit would be fully informed of other units and quickly share information and innovations.
Each unit would also send representatives to the larger units for deciding regional issues, and so forth. Every citizen would have a day off from work to elect his representatives and vote also for representatives to larger units. Including the guiding council.
Every person would have a say in the utilization of the product of his or her efforts. Each person would have their own homeplace and personal possessions but share in municipal equipment and services and have a say it their utilization cooperatively.
What'd think?
Gary
"The day has passed for patching up the capitalist system; it must go. And in the work of abolishing it the Catholic and the Protestant, the Catholic and the Jew, the Catholic and the Freethinker, the Catholic and the Buddhist, the Catholic and the Mahometan will co- operate together† For, as we have said elsewhere, Socialism is neither Protestant nor Catholic,Christian norFreethinker,Buddhist,Mahometan, nor Jew; it isonly HUMAN."
-- James Connolly, Labour, Nationality, and Religion.
gdgoodman
I think that from what you have written you would find Steven Hill's book [Europe's Promise] a satisfying read. He writes of a type of macrostructure in Germany called codetermination [Mitbestimmung] which includes "a framework of supervisory boards [Aufsichtstrat] where elected worker representatives sit side by side with stockholders on corporate board of directors, and works councils [Betriebsrat] in every workplace, which give workers a great deal of input at the shop floor level."
All this strikes me as being a hell of a lot more egalitarian than the current authoritarian system that is in place in the United States.
Thing is, socialism needs democracy to work properly -- you know, a government of, by, and for the people, as Lincoln put it (he DID havea way with words, despite his faults). When the people own the government and the government owns the means of production and resources, then the people own their country. The alternative to that is the oligarchy and corporations (or the despot) owning the resources and making the decisions.
Socialism is about what is good for the people; capitalism is about what is good for the wealthy. We aren't all wealthy, but we are all people.
"Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes away from somebody, and a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got. This bears some serious reflection for those who think, "ya but we can be different this time..." "
That's like saying that a group is nothing more than than all the individuals in it -- it ignores synergy, and the reason why people (and other animals) organize into social groups.
No one says any group or government should give the members EVERYTHING they want, but acting together will increase the overall production and resources available. People can individually try to move a large boulder to dam an intermittant stream for a steady water supply as much as they want, but will get nowhere unless they work together. Cooperation is essential for people to survive.
The problem is that you seem to think that government must be separate from the people, but that's not how it's supposed to work. What happens is that the social dominators try to take over and keep the good stuff for themselves -- and that's with or without a government. Without government, collective organization and action by the people, however, individuals have no chance to go up against the warlords or oligarchy.
The problem is not 'big government' but bad government controlled by gangsters instead of all the people. The gangsters KNOW that collective action is needed to gain power, and that's why they form gangs and take over government -- all the while trying to convince people that collective organization is bad. If government was so bad for the members then there would be no organized crime gangs, complete with crime bosses and gang government. It's like them telling you that welfare is bad -- unless it's corporate welfare and giving money earned by the workers to the rich: 'socialism is bad' unless it's socialism for the rich.
How about the bad decisions (stealing) on wall st leading to our great recession? Only to be bailed out by taxpayers at 14 trillion. It doesn't really imply that anyway, as another posted pointed out.
Wouldn't it be nice to see a socialist party make a come back... Perhaps this time not to be beaten and jailed into capitulation.
I think the most important question is... Now that we've lost Mr. Zinn, will we look for a new icon, a new hero.. or will we become one?
Someone was overheard wondering what Howard Zinn would have to say about the recent Supreme Court decision... I think we have to make sure that what he would have said is still said. We all know the truth, it doesn't take more than open eyes and a steady heart to keep the beat going, and to take it to the next level.
And previous poster, you're thinking of communism, not socialism.
No one has clearly defined the difference. Still I don't believe giving the government more power in hopes of creating a Socialist state will work. Its a highly corruptible concept.
I'm into self sufficient hemp based communities, the key thing is to keep it small enough so if the town government becomes counter-productive to the well being of its people, the people can just leave.
Uh huh, ignore the amount of people killed in peace time due to the pursuit of "Communist" ideals.
Lets learn from history shall we.
Note, I'm not in anyway defending wawa's "we must all support the Bolsheviks" rant.
You are committing a mistake that many often make, equating socialism / communism as statist top down, the "dictatorship of the bureaucrats", and capitalism with democracy, freedom.
Put it this way, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Reza Pahlavi, Augusto Pinochet, were all statist totalitarians.
No sane person is going to claim that Hitler or Pinochet or Pahlavi were communists, or even leftists in any way.
It seems to me the division here is between "socialism from above" vs "socialism from below". To my mind real socialism, or a socialism worth having, can only be socialism from below. The USSR was about as socialist as the USA is (or was) democratic, i.e. not much. Marx, Luxembourg, Bolshevism are worth defending, but not Stalinism or what the USSR became.
Yes, they were statist totalitarians.
I have no problem with advocacy of communism. My problem is advocacy of communism imposed from above by one party: everyone has to fall in line with the party.
I have no problem with proletarian revolution. I have a problem with that proletarian revolution being turned into the replacement of one group of elite thugs with another group of elite thugs.
I DON'T hate to rain on your idol worship of the Bolsheviks. The rise of Stalin, and his ilk, was inevitable.
Read some Rosa Luxembourg.
Yes, she died before Stalin. She predicted his rise. And no she wasn't a supporter of Lenin. She criticised the Bolsheviks and predicted the murders, the assassinations, the purges.
Your like have learned nothing from Stalin, from Mao, from Pol Pot.
If you're not a dogmatist, you might want to answer how you propose to prevent the rise of another Stalin. And no, having a committed intelligent cadre won't work. That is a pipe dream. Simply because there a few saints ever. If anyone is powerful, is strong enough to prevent another Stalin, he can become another Stalin.
Do you remember what Luxembourg said about elections, about Freedom? About Freedom and dissenters? About Freedom, dissenters, and the Party? What do you propose to do about freedom, dissent? Repeat what the Bolsheviks did, the same mistakes? You will get another Stalin.
"I truly hate to rain on this man's funeral..."
It is my studied opinion that you totally enjoyed raining on this man's funeral. That you gained some sort of perverse satisfaction by doing so. Shame on you for doing this today of all days. And I truly mean that. Shame on you.
If asked 'what do I think about Soviet communism?', I would be tempted to say "I think it would have been a good idea'. The most common place to find communism -- from each what they can give, to each to what they need', etc. -- is the healthy family, with everyone pulling for every other member.
Still, I think Zinn was one the best things we had since sliced bread, and he will be sorely missed. Zinn's 'family' was everyone in the world.
Ok. I see that you are one who wants to make everything an issue that revolves around you and whatever beliefs you have chosen to embrace. Sorry that I hit a nerve, but I will not engage in the sort of pissing contest you are trying to induce. Call me names, throw insults, whatever makes you feel better. The rest of us will mourn the passing of a great man. You may wallow in whatever self-righteous morass you choose. Good day.
Let's keep it simple. Folks here are right, the deliberate propaganda wars over the last 100+ years have taken their toll on our use of words.
Forget the labels: RESTORE THE ROOSEVELT LEGACY: Taxation - 90% on Earned income over $3-$6mn (adjusted from '35 @$1mn), 53% on Unearned income (Mr Forbes Vanderbilt et al living off their holdings and estates), 50+% on Mega-Esates; Corporate Regulation with steel teeth, Glass Steagal and a firewall 20' thick; Fully funded Social Safety Net - SSI, Single Payer For All - Cradle To Grave; AND SUPPORT FOR UNIONS.
Be Clear: The Roosevelt Legacy Taxation Policies were DESIGNED to eliminate Oligarchy as a social caste without murdering them. DESIGNED to eliminate Oligarchy from our Society. After 30 years of these policies our Oligarchy was nearly moribund as a caste by '65. And yes Prescott Bush and his cohorts attempted the 1935 Business Coup because they saw the handwriting on the wall. Here's the question: Is America willing to eliminate Oligarchy from our Society? What do you think?
This change would require the death of America based on Exclusion and instead making an America based on Inclusion where everybody gets an equal starting place at the table. To do that we have to de-construct our WAR machine. Recent Pew Poll reviewed in these pages: 77% of Americans want it kept the same or expanded (#'s combined).
Here's the Point: America based on Exclusion is DOOMED to a short future of Hell on Earth followed by Demographic Collapse and human die back. Many are already to that point but Master is always hungry and Master NEVER shares. We're all on the menu now.
And as Mr. Zinn would say, "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate". And as you do that remember Malcolm X: There are no 2nd Class Citizens, there are Free People and there are Slaves. After the recent SCOTUS decision giving Unlimited Power to Corporations, we're all 2nd Class Citizens. There's no going back to Insulated White Privilege. We're either in this together, or we are an entre to Masters Cannibalistic Blood Feast, served to him by Corp CEO's, Congress, the WH, the Courts, and the Media. Only together do we have a snowball's chance in Hell and then only if we ACTIVELY ENGAGE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Short of that, we're toast and I'm already more than half way out the door.
Peace.
With the devastating loss of a giant like Zinn, it's important to remember the many humane voices who will continue to add their thunder to the struggle. How many thousands are now acknowledging Zinn's influence on their lives and writing? Dave Zirin's got similar qualities, and I think Matt Taibbi as well. It's a sad day for Team Humanity, but we've got a deep bench.
God rest Howard's soul, and bless and comfort his family.
For the record: I have a friend who worked with Howard for the last two years. Zinn was on to Obama, and was not surprised at what he's done in the first year of his reign.