Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Howard Zinn, Historian and Anarchist

Expand Messages
  • Dan Clore
    News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos23562.html (en) US, AK Press: Obituary: Howard Zinn,
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 2, 2010
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

      (en) US, AK Press: Obituary: Howard Zinn, historian and anarchist* who
      challenged status quo, dies at 87
      Date Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:33:48 +0200

      Howard Zinn, the Boston University historian and political activist who
      was an early opponent of US involvement in Vietnam and a leading faculty
      critic of BU president John Silber, died of a heart attack today in
      Santa Monica, Calif, where he was traveling, his family said. He was 87.
      ---- “His writings have changed the consciousness of a generation, and
      helped open new paths to understanding and its crucial meaning for our
      lives,” Noam Chomsky, the left-wing activist and MIT professor, once
      wrote of Dr. Zinn. “When action has been called for, one could always be
      confident that he would be on the front lines, an example and
      trustworthy guide.” ---- For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension
      of the brand of history he taught. His best-known book, “A People’s
      History of the United States” (1980), had for its heroes not the
      Founding Fathers —many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the
      status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out—but rather the farmers of
      Shays’ Rebellion and the union organizers of the 1930s.

      As he wrote in his autobiography, “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving
      Train” (1994), “From the start, my teaching was infused with my own
      history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted
      more than ‘objectivity’; I wanted students to leave my classes not just
      better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence,
      more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw
      it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble.”

      Certainly, it was a recipe for rancor between Dr. Zinn and Silber. Dr.
      Zinn twice helped lead faculty votes to oust the BU president, who in
      turn once accused Dr. Zinn of arson (a charge he quickly retracted) and
      cited him as a prime example of teachers “who poison the well of academe.”

      Dr. Zinn was a cochairman of the strike committee when BU professors
      walked out in 1979. After the strike was settled, he and four colleagues
      were charged with violating their contract when they refused to cross a
      picket line of striking secretaries. The charges against “the BU Five”
      were soon dropped, however.

      Dr. Zinn was born in New York City on Aug. 24, 1922, the son of Jewish
      immigrants, Edward Zinn, a waiter, and Jennie (Rabinowitz) Zinn, a
      housewife. He attended New York public schools and worked in the
      Brooklyn Navy Yard before joining the Army Air Force during World War
      II. Serving as a bombardier in the Eighth Air Force, he won the Air
      Medal and attained the rank of second lieutenant.

      After the war, Dr. Zinn worked at a series of menial jobs until entering
      New York University as a 27-year-old freshman on the GI Bill. Professor
      Zinn, who had married Roslyn Shechter in 1944, worked nights in a
      warehouse loading trucks to support his studies. He received his
      bachelor’s degree from NYU, followed by master’s and doctoral degrees in
      history from Columbia University.

      Dr. Zinn was an instructor at Upsala College and lecturer at Brooklyn
      College before joining the faculty of Spelman College in Atlanta, in
      1956. He served at the historically black women’s institution as
      chairman of the history department. Among his students were the novelist
      Alice Walker, who called him “the best teacher I ever had,” and Marian
      Wright Edelman, future head of the Children’s Defense Fund.

      During this time, Dr. Zinn became active in the civil rights movement.
      He served on the executive committee of the Student Nonviolent
      Coordinating Committee, the most aggressive civil rights organization of
      the time, and participated in numerous demonstrations.

      Dr. Zinn became an associate professor of political science at BU in
      1964 and was named full professor in 1966.

      The focus of his activism now became the Vietnam War. Dr. Zinn spoke at
      countless rallies and teach-ins and drew national attention when he and
      another leading antiwar activist, Rev. Daniel Berrigan, went to Hanoi in
      1968 to receive three prisoners released by the North Vietnamese.

      Dr. Zinn’s involvement in the antiwar movement led to his publishing two
      books: “Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal” (1967) and “Disobedience and
      Democracy” (1968). He had previously published “LaGuardia in Congress”
      (1959), which had won the American Historical Association’s Albert J.
      Beveridge Prize; “SNCC: The New Abolitionists” (1964); “The Southern
      Mystique” (1964); and “New Deal Thought” (1966).

      Dr. Zinn was also the author of “The Politics of History” (1970);
      “Postwar America” (1973); “Justice in Everyday Life” (1974); and
      “Declarations of Independence” (1990).

      In 1988, Dr. Zinn took early retirement so as to concentrate on speaking
      and writing. The latter activity included writing for the stage. Dr.
      Zinn had two plays produced: “Emma,” about the anarchist leader Emma
      Goldman, and “Daughter of Venus.”

      Dr. Zinn, or his writing, made a cameo appearance in the 1997 film “Good
      Will Hunting.” The title characters, played by Matt Damon, lauds “A
      People’s History” and urges Robin Williams’s character to read it.
      Damon, who co-wrote the script, was a neighbor of the Zinns growing up.

      Damon was later involved in a television version of the book, “The
      People Speak,” which ran on the History Channel in 2009. Damon was the
      narrator of a 2004 biographical documentary, “Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be
      Neutral on a Moving Train.”

      On his last day at BU, Dr. Zinn ended class 30 minutes early so he could
      join a picket line and urged the 500 students attending his lecture to
      come along. A hundred did so.

      Dr. Zinn’s wife died in 2008. He leaves a daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of
      Lexington; a son, Jeff of Wellfleet; three granddaugthers; and two


      Ziga Vodovnik: From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of
      economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left
      are now caught between a “dilemma”—either to work to reinforce the
      sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control
      of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national
      alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally
      global. What’s your opinion about this?

      * Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles
      nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a
      certain sense, the movement towards globalization where capitalists are
      trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity
      for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together
      globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of
      capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional
      notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization—there is
      nothing wrong with idea of globalization—in a way that bypasses national
      boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of
      the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world.

      ZV: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote that: “Freedom is the mother, not
      the daughter of order.” Where do you see life after or beyond (nation)

      HZ: Beyond the nation states? (laughter) I think what lies beyond the
      nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with
      people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as
      groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries.
      Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of
      collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the
      collective, having contacts with one another. You cannot have
      self-sufficient little collectives, because these collectives have
      different resources available to them. This is something anarchist
      theory has not worked out and maybe cannot possibly work out in advance,
      because it would have to work itself out in practice.

      ZV: Do you think that a change can be achieved through institutionalized
      party politics, or only through alternative means—with disobedience,
      building parallel frameworks, establishing alternative media, etc.

      HZ: If you work through the existing structures you are going to be
      corrupted. By working through political system that poisons the
      atmosphere, even the progressive organizations, you can see it even now
      in the US, where people on the “Left” are all caught in the electoral
      campaign and get into fierce arguments about should we support this
      third party candidate or that third party candidate. This is a sort of
      little piece of evidence that suggests that when you get into working
      through electoral politics you begin to corrupt your ideals. So I think
      a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government,
      not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking
      in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place,
      organizing in the neighborhood, organizing collectives that can become
      strong enough to eventually take over —first to become strong enough to
      resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to
      become strong enough to actually take over the institutions.

      ZV: One personal question. Do you go to the polls? Do you vote?

      HZ: I do. Sometimes, not always. It depends. But I believe that it is
      preferable sometimes to have one candidate rather another candidate,
      while you understand that that is not the solution. Sometimes the lesser
      evil is not so lesser, so you want to ignore that, and you either do not
      vote or vote for third party as a protest against the party system.
      Sometimes the difference between two candidates is an important one in
      the immediate sense, and then I believe trying to get somebody into
      office, who is a little better, who is less dangerous, is
      understandable. But never forgetting that no matter who gets into
      office, the crucial question is not who is in office, but what kind of
      social movement do you have. Because we have seen historically that if
      you have a powerful social movement, it doesn’t matter who is in office.
      Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or Democrat, if you have
      a powerful social movement, the person in office will have to yield,
      will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements.

      We saw this in the 1960s. Richard Nixon was not the lesser evil, he was
      the greater evil, but in his administration the war was finally brought
      to an end, because he had to deal with the power of the anti-war
      movement as well as the power of the Vietnamese movement. I will vote,
      but always with a caution that voting is not crucial, and organizing is
      the important thing.

      When some people ask me about voting, they would say will you support
      this candidate or that candidate? I say: “I will support this candidate
      for one minute that I am in the voting booth. At that moment I will
      support A versus B, but before I am going to the voting booth, and after
      I leave the voting booth, I am going to concentrate on organizing people
      and not organizing electoral campaign.”

      ZV: Anarchism is in this respect rightly opposing representative
      democracy since it is still form of tyranny —tyranny of majority. They
      object to the notion of majority vote, noting that the views of the
      majority do not always coincide with the morally right one. Thoreau once
      wrote that we have an obligation to act according to the dictates of our
      conscience, even if the latter goes against the majority opinion or the
      laws of the society. Do you agree with this?

      HZ: Absolutely. Rousseau once said, if I am part of a group of 100
      people, do 99 people have the right to sentence me to death, just
      because they are majority? No, majorities can be wrong, majorities can
      overrule rights of minorities. If majorities ruled, we could still have
      slavery. 80% of the population once enslaved 20% of the population.
      While run by majority rule that is ok. That is very flawed notion of
      what democracy is. Democracy has to take into account several
      things—proportionate requirements of people, not just needs of the
      majority, but also needs of the minority. And also has to take into
      account that majority, especially in societies where the media
      manipulates public opinion, can be totally wrong and evil. So yes,
      people have to act according to conscience and not by majority vote.

      ZV: Where do you see the historical origins of anarchism in the United

      HZ: One of the problems with dealing with anarchism is that there are
      many people whose ideas are anarchist, but who do not necessarily call
      themselves anarchists. The word was first used by Proudhon in the middle
      of the 19th century, but actually there were anarchist ideas that
      proceeded Proudhon, those in Europe and also in the United States. For
      instance, there are some ideas of Thomas Paine, who was not an
      anarchist, who would not call himself an anarchist, but he was
      suspicious of government. Also Henry David Thoreau. He does not know the
      word anarchism, and does not use the word anarchism, but Thoreau’s ideas
      are very close to anarchism. He is very hostile to all forms of
      government. If we trace origins of anarchism in the United States, then
      probably Thoreau is the closest you can come to an early American
      anarchist. You do not really encounter anarchism until after the Civil
      War, when you have European anarchists, especially German anarchists,
      coming to the United States. They actually begin to organize. The first
      time that anarchism has an organized force and becomes publicly known in
      the United States is in Chicago at the time of Haymarket Affair.

      ZV: Where do you see the main inspiration of contemporary anarchism in
      the United States? What is your opinion about the Transcendentalism
      —i.e., Henry D. Thoreau, Ralph W. Emerson, Walt Whitman, Margaret
      Fuller, et al.—as an inspiration in this perspective?

      HZ: Well, the Transcendentalism is, we might say, an early form of
      anarchism. The Transcendentalists also did not call themselves
      anarchists, but there are anarchist ideas in their thinking and in their
      literature. In many ways Herman Melville shows some of those anarchist
      ideas. They were all suspicious of authority. We might say that the
      Transcendentalism played a role in creating an atmosphere of skepticism
      towards authority, towards government.

      Unfortunately, today there is no real organized anarchist movement in
      the United States. There are many important groups or collectives that
      call themselves anarchist, but they are small. I remember that in 1960s
      there was an anarchist collective here in Boston that consisted of
      fifteen (sic!) people, but then they split. But in 1960s the idea of
      anarchism became more important in connection with the movements of 1960s.

      ZV: Most of the creative energy for radical politics is nowadays coming
      from anarchism, but only few of the people involved in the movement
      actually call themselves “anarchists”. Where do you see the main reason
      for this? Are activists ashamed to identify themselves with this
      intellectual tradition, or rather they are true to the commitment that
      real emancipation needs emancipation from any label?

      HZ: The term anarchism has become associated with two phenomena with
      which real anarchist don’t want to associate themselves with. One is
      violence, and the other is disorder or chaos. The popular conception of
      anarchism is on the one hand bomb-throwing and terrorism, and on the
      other hand no rules, no regulations, no discipline, everybody does what
      they want, confusion, etc. That is why there is a reluctance to use the
      term anarchism. But actually the ideas of anarchism are incorporated in
      the way the movements of the 1960s began to think.

      I think that probably the best manifestation of that was in the civil
      rights movement with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee—SNCC.
      SNCC without knowing about anarchism as philosophy embodied the
      characteristics of anarchism. They were decentralized. Other civil
      rights organizations, for example Southern Christian Leadership
      Conference, were centralized organizations with a leader—Martin Luther
      King. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
      were based in New York, and also had some kind of centralized
      organization. SNCC, on the other hand, was totally decentralized. It had
      what they called field secretaries, who worked in little towns all over
      the South, with great deal of autonomy. They had an office in Atlanta,
      Georgia, but the office was not a strong centralized authority. The
      people who were working out in the field—in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,
      and Mississippi—they were very much on their own. They were working
      together with local people, with grassroots people. And so there is no
      one leader for SNCC, and also great suspicion of government.

      They could not depend on government to help them, to support them, even
      though the government of the time, in the early 1960s, was considered to
      be progressive, liberal. John F. Kennedy especially. But they looked at
      John F. Kennedy, they saw how he behaved. John F. Kennedy was not
      supporting the Southern movement for equal rights for Black people. He
      was appointing the segregationists judges in the South, he was allowing
      southern segregationists to do whatever they wanted to do. So SNCC was
      decentralized, anti-government, without leadership, but they did not
      have a vision of a future society like the anarchists. They were not
      thinking long term, they were not asking what kind of society shall we
      have in the future. They were really concentrated on immediate problem
      of racial segregation. But their attitude, the way they worked, the way
      they were organized, was along, you might say, anarchist lines.

      ZV: Do you think that pejorative (mis)usage of the word anarchism is
      direct consequence of the fact that the ideas that people can be free,
      was and is very frightening to those in power?

      HZ: No doubt! No doubt that anarchist ideas are frightening to those in
      power. People in power can tolerate liberal ideas. They can tolerate
      ideas that call for reforms, but they cannot tolerate the idea that
      there will be no state, no central authority. So it is very important
      for them to ridicule the idea of anarchism to create this impression of
      anarchism as violent and chaotic. It is useful for them, yes.

      ZV: In theoretical political science, we can analytically identify two
      main conceptions of anarchism —a so-called collectivist anarchism
      limited to Europe, and on another hand individualist anarchism limited
      to US. Do you agree with this analytical separation?

      HZ: To me this is an artificial separation. As so often happens analysts
      can make things easier for themselves, like to create categories and fit
      movements into categories, but I don’t think you can do that. Here in
      the United States, sure there have been people who believed in
      individualist anarchism, but in the United States have also been
      organized anarchists of Chicago in 1880s or SNCC. I guess in both
      instances, in Europe and in the United States, you find both
      manifestations, except that maybe in Europe the idea of
      anarcho-syndicalism became stronger in Europe than in the US. While in
      the US you have the IWW, which is an anarcho-syndicalist organization
      and certainly not in keeping with individualist anarchism.

      ZV: What is your opinion about the “dilemma” of means—revolution versus
      social and cultural evolution?

      HZ: I think here are several different questions. One of them is the
      issue of violence, and I think here anarchists have disagreed. Here in
      the US you find a disagreement, and you can find this disagreement
      within one person. Emma Goldman, you might say she brought anarchism,
      after she was dead, to the forefront in the US in the 1960s, when she
      suddenly became an important figure. But Emma Goldman was in favor of
      the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, but then she decided that this is
      not the way. Her friend and comrade, Alexander Berkman, he did not give
      up totally the idea of violence. On the other hand, you have people who
      were anarchistic in way like Tolstoy and also Gandhi, who believed in

      There is one central characteristic of anarchism on the matter of means,
      and that central principle is a principle of direct action—of not going
      through the forms that the society offers you, of representative
      government, of voting, of legislation, but directly taking power. In
      case of trade unions, in case of anarcho-syndicalism, it means workers
      going on strike, and not just that, but actually also taking hold of
      industries in which they work and managing them. What is direct action?
      In the South when black people were organizing against racial
      segregation, they did not wait for the government to give them a signal,
      or to go through the courts, to file lawsuits, wait for Congress to pass
      the legislation. They took direct action; they went into restaurants,
      were sitting down there and wouldn’t move. They got on those buses and
      acted out the situation that they wanted to exist.

      Of course, strike is always a form of direct action. With the strike,
      too, you are not asking government to make things easier for you by
      passing legislation, you are taking a direct action against the
      employer. I would say, as far as means go, the idea of direct action
      against the evil that you want to overcome is a kind of common
      denominator for anarchist ideas, anarchist movements. I still think one
      of the most important principles of anarchism is that you cannot
      separate means and ends. And that is, if your end is egalitarian society
      you have to use egalitarian means, if your end is non-violent society
      without war, you cannot use war to achieve your end. I think anarchism
      requires means and ends to be in line with one another. I think this is
      in fact one of the distinguishing characteristics of anarchism.

      ZV: On one occasion Noam Chomsky has been asked about his specific
      vision of anarchist society and about his very detailed plan to get
      there. He answered that “we can not figure out what problems are going
      to arise unless you experiment with them.” Do you also have a feeling
      that many left intellectuals are loosing too much energy with their
      theoretical disputes about the proper means and ends, to even start
      “experimenting” in practice?

      HZ: I think it is worth presenting ideas, like Michael Albert did with
      Parecon for instance, even though if you maintain flexibility. We cannot
      create blueprint for future society now, but I think it is good to think
      about that. I think it is good to have in mind a goal. It is
      constructive, it is helpful, it is healthy, to think about what future
      society might be like, because then it guides you somewhat what you are
      doing today, but only so long as this discussions about future society
      don’t become obstacles to working towards this future society. Otherwise
      you can spend discussing this utopian possibility versus that utopian
      possibility, and in the mean time you are not acting in a way that would
      bring you closer to that.

      ZV: In your A People’s History of the United States you show us that our
      freedom, rights, environmental standards, etc., have never been given to
      us from the wealthy and influential few, but have always been fought out
      by ordinary people—with civil disobedience. What should be in this
      respect our first steps toward another, better world?

      HZ: I think our first step is to organize ourselves and protest against
      existing order—against war, against economic and sexual exploitation,
      against racism, etc. But to organize ourselves in such a way that means
      correspond to the ends, and to organize ourselves in such a way as to
      create kind of human relationship that should exist in future society.
      That would mean to organize ourselves without centralize authority,
      without charismatic leader, in a way that represents in miniature the
      ideal of the future egalitarian society. So that even if you don’t win
      some victory tomorrow or next year in the meantime you have created a
      model. You have acted out how future society should be and you created
      immediate satisfaction, even if you have not achieved your ultimate goal.

      ZV: What is your opinion about different attempts to scientifically
      prove Bakunin’s ontological assumption that human beings have “instinct
      for freedom”, not just will but also biological need?

      HZ: Actually I believe in this idea, but I think that you cannot have
      biological evidence for this. You would have to find a gene for freedom?
      No. I think the other possible way is to go by history of human
      behavior. History of human behavior shows this desire for freedom, shows
      that whenever people have been living under tyranny, people would rebel
      against that.

      A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
      By, For, and About Anarchists
      Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
      Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
      Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en

      Dan Clore

      New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
      My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
      Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

      Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
      in charge on this island?
      Professor: Why, no one.
      Skipper: No one?
      Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
      -- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.