Another vet heard from
In this case, World War II (and Civil Rights Movement, among other things) veteran Howard Zinn, at Common Dreams, with a piece simply titled War:
No, our casualties will not be numerous, but every single one will be a waste of an important human life. We will insist that this government be held responsible for every death, every dismemberment, every case of sickness, every case of psychic trauma caused by the shock of war.And though the media will be blocked from access to the dead and wounded of Iraq, though the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers - the movement will find a way to tell that story. And when it does, the American people, who can be cold to death on "the other side", but who also wake up when "the other side" is suddenly seen as a man, a woman, a child - just like us - will respond.
He's a bit more optimistic than I am, but I'll chalk that up to his years of experience with these things, and my own cynicism. More of his essays can be found at The Official Howard Zinn Web Site, if you wanted to know more about the man and his views. Since, for some odd reason, "A People's History of the United States" still isn't required reading. . .
Comments
Actually, it is the history textbook for a H.S. near here (named "Shabazz H.S.", in fact). And though it's not required for my daughter's school... it is required on our home shelf.
Right next to "Good Vibrations Guide". Damn, I'm twisting my kids...
Posted by: Gray | February 28, 2003 3:19 PM
Same at my university: every semester, about eight courses list it as required. Required reading is, however, evidently not enough: look at all the liberals who've denounced Zinn's pacifism in the past year, assuring us that they read and used to admire him but that he's now hopelessly remote from the mainstream. Equally disheartening was a student who slammed the book down at the bookstore counter, saying "Why do our teachers make us read about all these minorities who do nothing but hate white people?" Feh.
Posted by: Mr Ripley | February 28, 2003 9:53 PM
I don't see why you'd have to agree with all of Zinn's politics (or for that matter, everything in People's History) to appreciate the work. Sure, it's biased--and I don't mean that in a negative way--but Zinn is very upfront about his biases, as opposed to some of the History Speaks Through Me crowd, which thinks it has no biases.
When you're trying to answer the biases inherent in mainstream opinion, you're still biased. Just differently. Nobody has a monopoly on objective history; there is no such thing. It's one of the many reasons why the mainstream history curriculum (at both the secondary and collegiate levels) needs to be shaken up every generation or so.
Posted by: Ginger | February 28, 2003 11:53 PM
Let the whole church say "Amen!!"
Well spoken, Ginger.
Posted by: garrity | March 1, 2003 7:49 AM
Just for you, Dear Aaron, I will attempt to make it required reading at the school of blood here in Austin, TX.
Being unschoolers, my kids aren't required to follow my requirements (and they're both a little young for it anyway...someone needs to translate People's History into children's book format) but I will practice my stern look so that I may use it should they refuse.
Posted by: drublood | March 1, 2003 4:48 PM
Thanks, garrity. I needed that.
I have conservative acquaintances who simply don't get that the history they learned in high school isn't perfectly "objective". Anything added must be irrelevant or a concession to PC; anything now omitted or glossed is dumbing down education. (Ditto the literature curriculum.) As if anything they teach you in high school history will stand up to serious scrutiny anyway.
[insert rant about how they all need to read Beard, or some of the anti-British American histories of the 19th century, or Frances Fitzgerald. For a start.]
And can I say how happy I am that I avoided reading a single rant from any of these people about Black History Month? For some reason, people who get all hot and bothered about People's History don't get a lot of credibility from me when they talk about every month being black/women's/etc. history month.
Posted by: Ginger | March 3, 2003 10:54 AM
This is off track but...The first time I skimmed 'History' the Vietnam part hit me hardest but now the most relevant chapter is about WWI. File under pure propaganda. And the many imprisonments from the Alien Sedition Act, Red Scare deportations, holy cow. How could it be called a World War but we hear no references to any of this anymore! I always thought WWI was The Hobbit to WWII's Lord of the Rings but it is not so at all. The two wars are different.
Posted by: Evan | January 20, 2004 11:24 PM