Maybe I'm a Populist. I don't pay much attention to labels, but I stumbled across a Bill Moyers interview with Howard Zinn last night that made me sit up and cheer.
Zinn, if you don't know, is the author of "The Peoples Guide to the United States", a history of the events behind the history of our country. The transcontinental railroad may have been an incredible milestone in our development, but we're told very little about the thousands of men who built it. Those are the people Zinn wants to know about.
"The People Speak" is a film featuring actors reading some of the most dramatic, inspiring, yet seldom-heard words from great Americans.
These are everyday people who spoke out for social change. Their words are no less stirring today - a time when all of us again are called to stand up, to speak out, to demand reform, to demand that our country discard the rotting trappings of governance by greed and again stand proud and clean, a democracy created for, of and by we, the people.
The United States of America declared its people free, free to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We actually wrote that as part of our societal goal -
the pursuit of happiness. Not the struggle to survive, not the hunt for the almighty dollar, not the chance to have more than your neighbor. The goal was happiness. We lost sight of that.
I demand it. I demand to be allowed to pursue happiness. I demand it for you, too.
I am willing to work for it. You have to work, too. But our government was established for us - not for a few CEOs, not for Wall Street, not for the people with the most money, the most influence. It was not intended to tax us into submission, to conquer the world, to impose our form of government on everyone else. It was not intended to support corrupt and bloated industry.
We have lost our way. What I've seen of these performances convinces me it's not impossible to find our way back. We have to be willing to speak.
15 comments:
Here's an interesting article about Zinn and his motivations in producing this film.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/12/07/next-week-on-the-history-channel-hollywood-stars-introduce-your-kids-to-marxism/
I find this very interesting.
Zinn is a "Marxist" and his attempts to teach young schoolchildren the history of dissent in this country is a horrifying attempt to brainwash our youth and bash this country.
This country was established by dissenters who refused to support a government which didn't represent them. They're your sainted "Tea Baggers" - does that make them Marxists? Their protests didn't stop with civil disobedience; they waged a full scale revolution. We teach that proudly.
We teach children about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement (though to be fair, our schools insist on teaching history chronologically and go over and over and over the Revolutionary War for so many years that they never get to World War II, much less the civil rights movement.), we mention the Women's Suffrage movement.
That's apparently acceptable.
I do not believe teaching students the full history of this country, its mistakes, its battles and its growing pains, means "bashing" it.
I believe teaching a rosy, Thomas Kinkade-inspired view of a perfect, just and inspiring America is not only a lie, but a mistake. I would rather the history of this country be taught truthfully - its victories, its injustices, its reforms.
The best thing about this country, in my opinion, is its youthful ability to change when the need is proven.
Children aren't stupid; a history taught extolling not only America's lofty goals but its willingness to reform when it is necessary is a history they would understand and could be proud of.
The author of the article about Zinn's motivations keeps some interesting company - Patrick Courrielche has appeared on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor,” “Glenn Beck,” “Hannity,” and “RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld,” CNN’s “Lou Dobbs”…
He says, “Perhaps due to their one-sided perspective of America’s past, Zinn’s history books have largely been limited to colleges and universities… "
Does he think most history books until now have not been one-sided in favor of "rewritten history"?
So Zinn has a "socialist" agenda? He calls it a democratic socialism and people would be well served to listen carefully to what he says - he is definitely in favor freedom for the people. Currently it seems that those who rail loudest against socialism are the ones who make the most profit at the expense the "the people."
I'm with you, Pauline...with the additional comment that I'm flummoxed by the continuing defense of a system by the people who are its victims.
Are they still buying the "you can get rich, too?" line?
Socialism terrifies them. Taken to extremes, I'll agree. I'm scared of extremism of all kinds - each and every one can lead to fascism.
But a system where a fair wage is paid for a good day's work, where advancement brings more rewards but not to an obscene degree, where those who can pay do and those who can't are helped until they can and where everyone has access to the education that allows that advancement and access to medical care that keeps them healthy, I have no problem with at all.
None. And dissent; loud demands for change, a refusal to accept injustice, a willingness to protest injustice and to be jailed for that protest if necessary, is an American tradition.
It should be taught and it must be practiced.
Pauline:
So you apparently question Patrick Courrielche's veracity because he has appeared on Fox while having no problem with Zinn who subscribes to a political philosphy that has led to the murder of over 100 million people and more human suffering than any other in history. I don't care whether he calls it "democratic socialism", because Marxism exudes a certain stink to most people due to, you know, all the suffering it has inflicted. Your problem with Courrielche and lack of same with Zinn shows a breathtaking moral confusion (to be kind about it). His philosphy doesn't lead to "freedom" as you so mistakenly believe but to the worst kind of human misery. Its rhetoric is sweet sounding. Its reality is hellish.
My problem with all his work, People's History etc., is that he is such a crappy historian. Like any good Marxist he views EVERYTHING in history through a class struggle prism. So he looks into history "knowing" what he will find and then...amazing!..finds it. Anything that doesn't fit his carefully constructed paradigm is ignored or explained away with tortured semantics. He reminds me very much of the East Anglia "scientists" who are faking global warming. They fully expect to find global warming and if any info comes up that contradicts them they hide it and/or ignore it. This approach to science does violence to real science. And the same approach to history taken by Zinn does violence to history. To Zinn Valley Forge is only worth one brief mention when My Lai gets pages devoted to it. He thinks that the US entered WWII for the purpose of empire but then neglects to explain how and why Japan and Europe are now economic competitors.
Again, he is a lousy historian and his work is (to steal a legal phrase) nothing but the fruit of the poisoned tree.
We are all shaped by what we are told, what we hear, and what we read. Our beliefs are sometimes (but not always) tempered by our own experience. We are also shaped by what we choose to believe and whom, especially when we can't do the math for ourselves or understand complicated concepts (read school children and uneducated adults). The more I read of Socialism and Marxism, the industrial revolution that caused their rise, and the manipulative ways those concepts are being bandied about today, the more I realize that once people accept a way of thinking that suits them, changing their minds, even with "evidence," is futile. It takes a catastrophic event to change an entrenched mind, an epiphany, and those who have had one are then bent on showing everyone else "the way."
I have no argument with you, nocomme1. You have one way of looking at the world and I have another. Socialism, Marxism, global warming... I am willing to wager neither of us knows enough about any of them, given what we've been told and choose to believe.
And that, Pauline, sums it up beautifully. We don't learn the reality of anything until we experience it; until then, we hear points of view.
And that is very, very subjective.
There are some absolutes. But there are also many shades of gray.
Huh. And here I thought one of the reasons we study history is so that the personal experiences of those in the past might serve as cautionary tales for us here in the present so that we don't have to personally experience the mistakes of the past.
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't that one of reasons you're going to be watching this little bit of propaganda...er..."history", in the first place?
It was and it was inspiring. And it was one point of view.
You, for example, see things very differently.
I found what I heard inspiring.
You find it radical and threatening.
And there's some truth in both.
Find me a history class that teaches a fully realized picture, one that includes all those shades of gray.
It won't be in a public school.
There's no time, no resources and, frequently, no will for such a thing.
And that's as far as much of our study of history goes.
But you really didn't need me to explain that, did you?
You knew.
You don't REALLY want to get into the icrediblly poor and biased behavior of the school system, do you? It is a disgrace. I'm heading to work so don't have the time but I refer you to the extensive work of David Horowitz (former Lefty) if you're interested.
i've just come across this by chance, and i like this in the youtube clip..."patriotism is obedience to the principles for which government is supposed to stand."
Not to name name's ....but I feel that all too often the people of a country are persudaded to turn a blind eye in the name of 'patriotism' when really their eyes should be looking straight at the people in charge. I think, Hold the government accountable no matter how 'unpatriotic' it may be to question them. Those in the land of the 'free' seem to do an awful lot of self regulating in order to be a patriot, but that is perhaps a very harsh judgement.
And ahhhh yesss the socialist seems to have no place in America because everyone is too busy trying to step on each others toes on the way to that 'American Dream'...why would you want to think of the common good when you can think about yourself? sad.
Nocomme1, you don't need to get into the failings of the school system. We're all aware.
Anon, agreed. We all pay lip service to demanding accountability, but only in those areas in which we're interested.
Tea Baggers demand government be accountable for its own spending...and are convinced it should be put on a diet. But they're okay with the billions we spend on war.
If you believe that government should not only increase efficiency, but should stop financing endless wars
and instead fund social programs here at home, you're labeled a socialist.
The endless debate leaves the decision makers free to do as they please; and what they do is for the benefit of the true Masters of America, big business.
First off, I find the term "teabaggers" offensive as it was knowingly derived from a sex act. I believe it was first used by Anderson Cooper (Keeping it classy, Coop) in an obviously disparaging way and then picked up by Jeanine Garofalo and other unstable hate-mongers before making its way into general parlance. A lot of people find it offensive, including myself.
"If you believe that government should not only increase efficiency, but should stop financing endless wars
and instead fund social programs here at home, you're labeled a socialist."
Ok, here's the thing: putting aside whether you agree with certain wars or for another day, the fact is the Constitution actually names defense as one of the central government's main responsibilities. Find me the term "social programs" in the Constitution. You can't. It isn't there. This isn't because the founders didn't believe we shouldn't have them but because they specifically created a FEDERAL republic so as to restrain the dangers of a too powerful central government. The Constitution grants very limited powers to the central government and that spirit has been violated massively through the years with unbridled growth of power in Washington.
Perhaps it would be practically defensible if Washington did a good job but, of course it generally doesn't. From Johnson's Great Society (which should more properly be called The Destruction Of The Black Family Plan) to an insolvent Medicare, Washington can't manage its way out of a paper bag. Conservatives want to see many of the powers Washington has stolen, given back to the States. This would also have the benefit of creating something liberals (falsely) claim they are for: greater diversity.
And as to your increasingly cultish, conspiracy-theorist sounding fear of the Masters of America, big business (I like the Capitalized "M" - nice touch. Makes it seem scarier) it strikes me as your missing the forest for the trees. Big business can be bad, manipulative, greedy, blah, blah, blah but the REAL power to do damage is located in an increasingly powerful Washington. It carries the power to punish through law. Top THAT for power. It is the true danger to freedom. Of course Corporations can be more dangerous than they are now if they become wards of the State...you know like General Motors, AIG etc are now thanks to Obama.
The greatest suffering unleashed in human history was unleashed not by corporations but by government. Marxism, fascism and socialism are the most evil ideologies ever and they are all ideologies of the Left, of large, controlling, centralized governments. Being worried about corporations while supporting the growth of bigger government is sort of like bashing jaywalkers while inviting the local serial killer over for dinner.
"First off, I find the term "teabaggers" offensive as it was knowingly derived from a sex act."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'll take your word for it. To me, it refers to people who were rallying as the modern day "Boston Tea Party" participants.
"I believe it was first used by Anderson Cooper (Keeping it classy, Coop)" - Cooper - a total waste of airtime.
" in an obviously disparaging way and then picked up by Jeanine Garofalo and other unstable hate-mongers before making its way into general parlance. A lot of people find it offensive, including myself."
What term do you prefer?
I am totally with you on the rest of what you have to say up to this point: "Conservatives want to see many of the powers Washington has stolen, given back to the States."
Do they? All of them? Wouldn't George W. Bush and Dick Cheney tell you they're Conservatives? There's the disconnect for me: they presided over a massive power grab, one that this president is continuing. But Conservatives did it. And not a Conservative I've heard is willing to take that responsbility.
"This would also have the benefit of creating something liberals (falsely) claim they are for: greater diversity." Got any facts to back up your parentheticals?
I'm good with diversity.
I'll skip on by your attempt to paint me as a kook (cult, conspiracy - loaded terms) and point out that government is actually the one check against corporate greed run rampant. And it's not even exerting its authority there. Aren't you pleased? I do find the current business climate scary. It has a level of control and arrogance that is frightening. I'm guessing you saw the stats showing how much the companies which took taxpayer dollars to bail them out of their "terrible" problems then turned around and spent to lobby government to kill legislation they found threatening? Maybe that doesn't bother you. I find it not only unethical, but a sign of real arrogance, a belief that they are now untouchable, that they're pulling the strings.
"The greatest suffering unleashed in human history was unleashed not by corporations but by government." That may be because we've bred a new mutant monster which is just completing its growth cycle. Wait and see what your unregulated corporate conglomerates with global interests and unlimited power do. And see what that toothless dragon you call big government can do to prevent it.
Google the etymology of the term "teabagger" and you'll see what I'm talking about. Tea Party folks, Tea Party-ers, etc work I guess as they don't have a vulgar and insulting origin.
Liberals seem to have an falacious idea of how conservatives feel about Bush. The feelings tend to be far more mixed than most of those infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome believe. I (and a lot of conservatives) agree that the guy spent like a maniac. Did the guy NEVER see a spending bill he thought was worthy of a veto? I've always looked at the term "Compassionate Conservative" as both insulting and a pretty good sign that the "conservative" throwing it around is a big government conservative and not in synch with most of the movement which, when it hears the term "limited govt" hears the sound of beautiful music. I think Bush was great on defending the country, Supreme Court picks (except for the his Harriet Myers brain fart) but I'm a lot less thrilled with him domestically.
"This would also have the benefit of creating something liberals (falsely) claim they are for: greater diversity." Got any facts to back up your parentheticals?"
Plenty. Nowhere are liberals more in control and entrenched than in universities today. Polls show that faculty tend to be about 90% liberals/Dems. You can see it the curriculum. Out goes Western Civ, in comes Multiculturalism. I once proposed teaching a class for "Men's Health" at a college I teach at sometimes, so looked up how other schools handle it. There was almost nothing to be found but there were hundreds of courses on Women's Health.
Conservative speakers are regularly shouted down and even assaulted on campuses. The head of the Minute Men was attacked on stage at Columbia. The University didn't reprimand anybody involved. It happens a lot. Conservative newspapers on campus are frequently stolen and destroyed, their offices broken into, etc.
I remember my first day at Boston University's School of Social Work. Hubie Jones, the Dean greeted the incoming class with an extended attack on Reagan and conservatives, pretty much letting us know that THAT kind of "fascism"
has no place in education. My entire 3 years there I heard the liberal line and nothing else. I'd speak up in class sometimes to offer a counterpoint and you'd have thought I had a Hitler 'stache on and jackboots. Other students would sometimes come up to me after class and whisper that they wish they had the guts I did. No, I don't believe "diversity", not diversity of thought certainly, holds any interest to the liberal establishment.
"I'll skip on by your attempt to paint me as a kook..." Look, I don't think you're a conspiracy kook but some of your phrasing and ideas seem to be moving in a...uh, troubling direction. LOL
"That may be because we've bred a new mutant monster which is just completing its growth cycle. Wait and see what your unregulated corporate conglomerates with global interests and unlimited power do. And see what that toothless dragon you call big government can do to prevent it."
Come on, how can you call govt a "toothless dragon" TODAY. The govt is in the process of spending trillions of dollars on policies that most of the public opposes. It is taking over companies. It is setting compensation. The Clean Water Restoration Act currently before the Senate would give the Feds control over all water in the country, down to and including mud puddles. In finding that CO2 is a pollutant the EPA has just given itself regulatory control over what we EXHALE. Since almost all economic activity depends on CO2 to some degree or other the EPA has now given itself control over most of the US economy. It goes on and on and on. "Tootless Dragon"? Sure. And Godzilla was just a harmless little reptile.
Post a Comment