Zinn and the Art of Anti-War Movement Maintenance
Wester
a U.S. bombardier in World War II, he flew sorties over France and Germany, at a point in the war when it was clear that Germany
would eventually lose. "As a moral act, I hadn't really questioned it," he says. "They were the bad guys, we were the good guys, and
therefore nothing we did was wrong." One of those bombing raids, over the French town of Royan, is where Zinn remembers dropping the
air force's new jellied-gasoline bomb and killing over a thousand cornered German troops, as well as a number of French civilians.
So when the 80-year-old retired Boston University political science professor speaks out against war, he argues with the force of
experience and history. Everywhere he looks these days, he sees possibilities for a strong popular movement against an invasion of
Iraq. He sees hope in the college and high school students he speaks to, some of whom have read his bestselling revisionist history,
A People's History of the United States (1980). And the numerous rallies and protests that are popping up in small towns from
Montana to Alaska-not counting the larger events in cities like New York and Washington-give him heart. Zinn also looks at the
polls, which show that as soon as questions of casualties or an extended campaign are raised, most of the country is opposed to war
in Iraq. "There are large numbers of Americans whose support for the war is easily punctured by facts, by new information," he tells
the Voice.
Zinn is one of the most prominent figures of the growing anti-war movement, but it's not a new role for a man who has spoken out
against every U.S. military con?ict since World War II. Eschewing objectivity, he played a personal role in the civil rights and
Vietnam anti-war movements, influencing the leaders of both. Two of his most popular works have recently been reprinted by South End
Press: the history-from-the-inside SNCC: The New Abolitionists and Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal, his second-bestselling work.
But unlike the limp peace protests that blinked into and out of existence around the Gulf War and the conflict in Afghanistan, the
opposition this time to an unprovoked attack on Iraq seems to be more widespread.
"I think it's a race against time, because the Bush administration is hell-bent on war," he says. Time will probably win. The Bush
administration announced on December 19 that Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration contained "significant omissions," and that it
constituted a "material breach" of the UN resolution. Many observers believe that war is most likely to come before the end of
February, as winter allows for more protective chemical and biological weapons gear for U.S. soldiers.
But stopping a war before it happens is a different enterprise than coordinating opposition to an existing injustice. As a young
professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, Zinn had a front-row seat for the civil rights stirrings of the early '60s, where he met
many young black students who would go on to play huge roles in shaping black America's future. Novelist Alice Walker has called
Zinn "the best teacher I ever had." Civil rights figures such as Julian Bond and Marion Barry also took his classes, and in turn
inspired him to join the protests. From his experiences at the sit-ins and marches across the South, he wrote SNCC, an examination
of the rise and trials of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee that weaves first-person experience, reportage, historical
analysis, biography, and polemics into a seamless and indispensable history of the civil rights movement from the point of view of
one who helped inspire some of its leaders. One of Zinn's main conclusions is that the movement drew strength from its clearly
definable goals-ending segregation, demanding the right to vote-that stood apart from ideology.
Until very recently, critics have decried the character of much of the current anti-war movement, calling it unfocused and beholden
to the radical agendas of the main organizing groups, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) and Not in Our Name. As Michelle
Goldberg outlined in a damning Salon analysis in October, ANSWER is a front group organized by Ramsey Clark's International Action
Center (Clark also belongs to the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic), which criticizes any efforts to disarm
Saddam Hussein, while Not in Our Name is partly run by Clark Kissinger of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which supports Peru's
brutal Shining Path guerrillas and the Chinese occupation of Tibet. The Not in Our Name statement, published in 39 news-papers
internationally in early summer, and signed by Zinn and more than 100 other notables, offers a point-ed argument, and assumes that
the recent war in Afghanistan was an unprovoked attack by the United States. It also calls for Iraqi self-determination, free from
U.S. interference. It's a familiar grab-bag condemnation of America's imperialist and repressive tendencies, even squeezing in a
critique of the slow war in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
In contrast, last week's Win Without War letter, signed mostly by celebrities (Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo), along with Zinn and
a few retired military personnel, is a focused statement of opposition to a hasty war in Iraq. Zinn is "someone the folks in
Hollywood want to be associated with," says Alistair Millar, vice president of the Fourth Freedom Forum, the Washington-based peace
group that helped coordinate the coalition. Win Without War demands a patient tolerance of inspections and a peaceful resolution to
the Iraq crisis, while at the same time acknowledging the danger that Saddam's thirst for big weapons poses. It also benefits from
the backing of a number of more mainstream progressive organizations such as the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and NOW, who lend an air of
legitimacy. Zinn dismisses criticisms of the NION organizers' positions and biases, saying their commonality greatly overshadows
whatever differences he may have with the other signatories. "A movement's success is based on what it says and what it does, not
who is organizing it," he says. "Every progressive movement has had in it some fringe groups." But when asked if, in the same spirit
of anti-war solidarity, he would support a protest rally organized by the America-first isolationist Pat Buchanan, who also opposes
a war in Iraq, Zinn concedes that there are limits to whom one can find common ground with, support for Maoist despotism
notwithstanding.
"What to do is always more complicated and takes more than a slogan like 'Don't Bomb Iraq,' " Zinn says. "Has the movement dealt
enough with that? Well, probably not, because the answer is not something you can put on a poster." But Zinn challenges the
assumption that Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpile is the most dangerous threat facing the world. "I would like to see inspection
teams go into the laboratories of the United States," he says, in full flip-the-script mode. "I'd like to see what chemical and
biological weapons the United States is storing." His anti-war stance-he takes pains to say that pacifism seems to him "logically
indefensible," but sets the threshold for war higher than even "just war" proponents-stems from his own experience, and from knowing
that the justifications for war (to stop aggression, to "preserve peace") often differ from the actual reasons nations go to war
(strategic relationships, power balances).
In the period of censorious sensitivity following the September 11 attacks, many dissenters came under attack for voicing unpopular
views, and Zinn is no exception. His critique of American foreign policy was the center of a storm of outrage in January, when
Newton North High School in Massachusetts invited him to speak to a student assembly about the attacks. After he told those gathered
that the bombing in Afghanistan "put us on the same level" as the terrorists, a group of neighborhood parents attacked the school
for allowing such subversive talk to reach their children. But rather than stifling Zinn's critique, the hubbub only led to more
speaking engagements at more high schools. "Yeah, it's publicity," he chuckles.
It's been a big year for Zinn's books. In addition to SNCC and Vietnam, South End Press reprinted five volumes of earlier work, most
of it from the '60s and '70s. Seven Stories Press also published Terrorism and War, a smaller collection of his interviews on the
conflict in Afghanistan. And in February, HarperCollins will sponsor a celebration of the sale of over a million copies of Zinn's
seminal A People's History at the 92nd Street Y, with readings by Ben Affleck and Danny Glover. For Zinn, the popularity of his work
indicates that Americans hunger for a different perspective. It gives him hope that an unjust war can be stopped before it begins.
"The word optimism is probably too strong to describe my feelings," he says. "It's really a matter of possibility."
Because, as Howard Zinn's own history shows, a clearly defined social movement, unburdened by ideology, can be an unstoppable force.
Its members just have to agree on their demands, and who they're talking to: themselves, or a larger audience.
G.N.
leaves you with the impression we live in the worst country ever. That whole
leftist bunch on campus and in Hollywood needs to move to France.
"Wester" <lincoln...@chimpdestroyer.biz> wrote in message
news:FJOO9.980$Oc.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tempest
"G.N." wrote:
>
> Howard Zinn is one of those people who'd love to see the USA fail. His book
> leaves you with the impression we live in the worst country ever. That whole
> leftist bunch on campus and in Hollywood needs to move to France.
Sorry, you're not going to get away with turning the U.S. into Nazi
Germany, circa 1939, that easily.
--
There is no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this
country to help rich people in poor countries.
- Ron Paul (R-MD)
G.N.
peaceniks of today would have protested war against Germany, too. People who
protested attacking Taliban and Al Qaeda will protest anything. I really
don't understand why people like Chomsky who hate America so much don't
renounce their citizenship. Maybe because of freedom of speech that all the
dictators Chomsky cozied up to won't allow? But I'm serious, you leftists
would be so much happier in Europe - there hatred for Jews and America is
THE thing. Gore Vidal showed you the way when he moved to Italy - follow him
:)
"Tempest" <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E0BE05F...@hotmail.com...
Mark Cresky
wrote:
>Howard Zinn is one of those people who'd love to see the USA fail. His book
>leaves you with the impression we live in the worst country ever. That whole
>leftist bunch on campus and in Hollywood needs to move to France.
I doubt your ability to read the mind of Howard Zinn. However, kindly
point out the fallacies you have found in "People's History" (I'm
presuming that's the book you are making reference to).
And speaking of moving, why don't you go to a nice little right wing
oligarchic dictatorship for a little R&R. Perhaps if you do you might
appreciate why it is inappropriate (not to mention so very unoriginal)
to suggest that your fellow citizens should vacate their homeland
because you happen to disagree with what you perceive their beliefs to
be.
Rico
>It's the far left that's against Israel, not Republicans. And I bet the
>peaceniks of today would have protested war against Germany, too.
[7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
[8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
[9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
God.
[10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Matt 5 {KJV}
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also
Matt 5 {KJV}
Some people on the left are Christians unlike so many on the right who only
pay lip service to the idea.
Oltorf
Please Have Mercy on Iqaris.. Or is this too pathetic?
What did they do wrong for any of those people to be killed?
If Bush had any one of his family members living in Iraq, he wouldn't dare
to bomb them.
So, here are the rules...
Rule # 1. Respect other people's lives as if theirs are your own.
Rule # 2. Do not act on suspicions. Get the solid proof. You could be
paranoid and acting wrongfully as if your wife has been cheating on you
behind your back when it is not even close.
Rule #3 Do not go beyond what they deserve. You should stop at the level
of eyes to eyes or teeth to teeth if you have to.
So according to the above rules, what Iraqis deserve?
NOTHING !!!!!!!!!!
Do not compare the situation at the time of Hitler. When he went into
Austria, every nations should have reacted.
And NONE DID..
If you don't show justice to others, others will not show MERCY on you. So
BUSH is endangering multitudes of
travelers lives. They can be killed like an accident and no one will know..
The virtue America has shown to others so far is fading away rather
quickly...