Indymedia.be is niet meer.

De ploeg van Indymedia.be is verhuisd naar DeWereldMorgen.be waar we samen met anderen aan een nieuwswebsite werken. De komende weken en maanden bouwen we Indymedia.be om tot een archief van 10 jaar werk van honderden vrijwilligers.

[Interview] Howard Zinn: the man who changed our perception of American history

[Interview] Howard Zinn: the man who changed our perception of American history

In his book “A People’s History of the United States” the American historian Howard Zinn introduced a new way of regarding the history of the United States. He approaches American history from the point of view of suppressed groups (Native Americans, blacks, laborers, immigrants, homosexuals). His book has recently been translated into Dutch. A reason to interview this exceptional man.

Howard Zinn.jpg

Why did you decide to write a ‘People's History of the United States’? Did you have the idea the traditional historiography of the US falsified history?

“Coming out of the great movements of the sixties, people were searching for a different, a radical point of view in presenting the history of the US. As someone who had studied history in the traditional way, Ph.D. from Columbia University, I was very much aware of how the social movements of the past – the labor movement, black militancy, the women’s movements. socialist and anarchist actions – were given no attention or very little attention in orthodox books of history. I had gone through experiences, in the Southern movement against racial segregation, in the movement against the Vietnam war, and I had seen how superficial were the treatments of these movements, both in the media and in the history books. Yes, a falsification of history has been the rule, not in the sense of telling falsehoods, but of omitting crucial information.”

In contrast to most writings of scholars, your book is very accessible and written for the general public. Did it reach a lot of readers? What has been the political impact?

“ ‘A People’ s History’ has by now sold almost two million copies. Very rare for a history book. Even more rare is that the book has sold more every year than the year before. The exact opposite of the fate of most books. As for its impact on American politics, I would hardly claim such an impact. Yes, my book has undoubtedly changed the thinking of many Americans. But a change in thinking, a growth in consciousness, is only the first step towards actual political change. It is a necessary step, but not a sufficient one.”

You have often been described as 'a radical historian' with radical views on American society. Do you consider yourself like that?

“Yes, when people refer to me as a “liberal historian”, I object. Because the word “liberal” is usually used to describe people who want moderate changes. Whereas I am asking for fundamental changes. The word radical means “root”, and I believe we must get to the root of our problems. That means replacing capitalism with some form of democratic socialism, wiping out national boundaries, rejecting war and violence as solutions for problems, drastically changing the distribution of wealth in the U.S. and in the world. And if the U.S. is the epitome of capitalism. Here is proof of the failure of capitalism – the richest country in the world unable to give health care, housing, minimum living standards to a large part of its population, and wasting its enormous wealth on war, and creating a society where the mass of the wealth belongs to one percent of the population.”

Numerous icons of the labour movement come from the U.S. (John Reed, May 1th, Sacco and Vanzetti, slogans like "Bread and roses" and "Don't mourn, organize", Woody Guthrie,...). How is it possible that in a country with so many icons, the labour movement achieved only a few victories and the syndical movements are so weak today?

“The labor movement in the U.S. has been successful in raising the standard of living of the working class through unionization. But it has not been successful in changing the basic structure of the economy. In a certain sense, its successes have created a middle class mentality among working people. The U.S. is wealthy enough to grant concessions to a certain part of the working class, enough to calm down their resentment, and make them complacent. The U.S. culture, through education and the media, have also managed to convince much of the population that the U.S. is a democracy and therefore doesn’t need real change, and also that change comes through the ballot box, so that the energy of people is diverted towards voting and elections, and away from participation in social movements.

“The Sixties” are the most radical period in the history of the U.S. Large movements of suppressed groups and minorities (blacks, Native Americans, women, labourers, homosexuals) fought for equal rights and social change. Do you think such a climate can rise in the US today?

“Yes, I think we may be at the beginning of such an era. There is disgust with the war, and a growing realization that the corporations are in control of the country, and have sucked up the wealth of the nation to the detriment of working people. It is not inevitable that such a new movement can rise, but the potential is there.”

Will the election of a democratic president, belonging to a suppressed group, make any difference? Or will the bipartisan consensus (an aggressive foreign police and no social reform) continue?

“The election of Obama will undoubtedly make a difference, but how much of a difference depends on whether the people who vote for him sit back and wait for him to act, or whether they will create a force that insists he bring about serious change. The policies he has stated during the campaign are different from those of Bush, but as president there will be pressures on him to maintain a military posture, to keep a large military budget, in the tradition of bi-partisanship which has been historically true of the democratic party. There will be some social reform because of the pressures of his black supporters, but whether the reforms are small or large depends on the strength of a citizens movement.”

How is it possible that after a two centuries long history of manipulation large groups can still be convinced by the ridiculous war rhetoric of George W. Bush? How can this lack of historical knowledge be explained?

“History is poorly taught in our schools and colleges, and it is certainly absent from newspapers and television. And the media are more centralized, more controlled by corporate money than ever before”.

Europeans often have the impression that religion takes an important place in the political life. It attracts my attention that a small part in your analysis is devoted to the role of religion. Is religion one of the ways to temper feelings of protest against the unjust system?

“Theoretically, in the U.S. there is a separation of church and state, guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution. The reality is somewhat different, because the symbols of god and religion are omnipresent in the workings of government and in the society. A significant part of the American population attends church and considers itself quite religious. But I don’t think religion is crucial in manipulating public thought – more important are the myths about American society – that we are a democracy, that we are exceptionally moral, that patriotism means obeying the government, that we fight wars for freedom, etc.”

What do you think about the leftist, anti-US governments in Latin America?

“I think the rise of left political governments in Latin America – starting with Castro alone but now including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, even Brazil – is a healthy departure from the historic control of Latin America by the U.S. However imperfect these left-wing governments may be, they represent a break in U.S. imperial domination.”

In your book the Soviet Union is described in very negative terms, as
a “false socialist system”, “inefficient and suppressing”,
“dictatorship over the proletariat”. What do you answer when your
opponents argue that the failure of the Soviet Union shows the
impossibility to realize a socialist society?

“The failure of the Soviet Union is not proof of the failure of socialism because the Soviet Union was not a socialist state. It had some socialist elements, but it was a bureaucratic dictatorship. Democratic socialism has not failed because it has not really been tried.”

At the end of the eighties Francis Fukuyama wrote his well known
essay “the end of history?”. His “end of history” was the triumph
of capitalism. How would your “end of history” look like?

“Of course there is no “end of history”. It should be clear by now that despite the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been no triumph of capitalism. The capitalism that has taken over the Soviet Union has brought all the worst elements of capitalism – corruption, profiteering, the loss of social benefits due to the privatization of the economy. My end of history would be a society that might roughly be called "democratic socialism". That is, everyone would be guaranteed free health care, a job at livable wages, college education, decent housing. This would be paid for by eliminating the military budget and taxing not only the incomes but the accumulated wealth of the richest part of the population. Decision making would be centralized when necessary (as with a national health system, national pension system) but localized whenever possible through town meetings everywhere. There would be a policy of no war, no military bases overseas, no military sales to other nations. Private enterprise would be encouraged, but regulated, and wherever an important human service is not provided by private enterprise, it should be done by he government. No restrictions on freedom of speech or press. No punitive jail sentence. Incarceration only for incorrigibly violent people. No jail sentence for drug use or for victimless crimes or nonviolent crimes. Community service would be a way of making up for acts against the social good. I could sum up my ideal society in three words (I'm quoting the Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo) – ‘socialism without jails’.”