Well, I've quoted him often enough. And now, here to help me keep my New Year's resolution, is a man who'll no doubt be remembered someday as one of the greatest historians of all time.
Polybius? Gordon Wright? Arthur Schlesinger?
...the author of A People's History of the United States: professor Howard Zinn!... (heavy editting by myself, before and after this quote)
"Oh." The crowd breaks into a din.
CityLife: You just got back from France. Were the French aware of all this "freedom fries" nonsense?
I don't know what is more ridiculous, the harmless symbolism (and I thought symbolism was dead) to which even the most ardent francophobe knows is just--as Saab himself would say--nonsensical fun, or the uproar over such trivialness.
However, I have a prediction (okay, so I read ahead, not much of a prediction): that this change of names to "freedom fries" is representative of a grand ignorance by the American people.
Howard Zinn: Oh, they're aware of it; they laugh at it. They think, "How ignorant are these Americans?" [Laughter.] But they know not all Americans think that way. And my presence there, of course, makes that true!
Cha-ching. And no one ever said that leftists weren't self-righteous.
They, and other people in Europe, know Americans are brainwashed and are really subject to the mass media giants, which control our information. So they just assume that Americans don't know what the hell is going on.
They think that if Americans could just get a little more information, they might wise up. But they feel that the Bush administration and the military-industrial-communications complex's domination of people's minds accounts for the ignorance of the American public.
Well, then, what a bunch of idiots. You know, it's funny that a nation that's the historic European breeding ground of anti-Semites that would attribute "American-ness" to a sweeping conspiracy of mass-brainwashing by the media. I'm sure any notation that American trust of the media is at pretty low levels would be dismissed in Marxian fashion that the result is still the same. Again, when you're worldview is so out of touch with reality, you can only adjust the explanation for the evidence to justify the worldview. I digress.
CL: On May Day, some imbecile wrote me the following: "While it's true that [the CIA] helped Saddam, the Taliban and others became evil at a later time." Isn't this a textbook example of denial? That in order to wave the flag with impunity, this fool would have to pretend as though Osama bin Laden was initially untainted, like Anakin Skywalker, and only fell from grace after we dealt with him? (Howard Zinn's answer skipped, since it's preacher to choir regurgitation)
So I suppose what Saab and Zinn are suggesting is that Saddam, the Taliban, and Osama are actually bad guys, but we, as brainwashed Americans (or more specifically, not as enlightened Frenchmen), are rendered morally incapable of "fixing the problem." I'm sure Saab and Zinn actually don't give a flip about the real consequences of these people, but rather are more concerned with American moral consistency. But, then I also bet Saab and Zinn were rolling their eyes when Bush said "you're with us or against us". Consistency isn't what leftists want, and I would rather state that Saab and Zinn themselves or either unknowing hypocrites or outright dishonest. This accusation of "brainwashing" by them is what is called "projection" in psychology...
CL: America reminds me of a Mafia princess who won't believe her clothes, shoes, cars, etc. are paid for in blood.
I'd like Saab to explain to me why the two poorest places in the nation are where slavery existed and the last section of the nation where Indians were chased to. It seems like the exploitation of blood didn't do those regions any good and I doubt Saab or master historian Zinn can explain the riches of the United States upon slavery or Indian killing. I doubt Master Zinn or Saab can explain the wealth of the United States is based upon the poverty and misery of, say, Africa. What's great is that I'm sure Master Zinn and Saab actually do have explanations, but require conspiracies of substantial craziness.
HZ: I think people have to deny [America's human rights record], because if they don't, then they're responsible. They, as Americans, are guilty. And that's because they associate themselves with the government. They've been brainwashed to think that the government and the people are the same. If they could only learn to separate the two, then they could accept that the government is doing these terrible things, but not the people. Not all of us. So we don't have to feel guilty about it, and therefore, we don't have to deny it.
Again, this goes back to the radical left's safe level of hypocrisy in which moral absolutism can apply to America and Americans but moral relativity is necessary when examining "reality". To the left, Pinochet, Osama, Saddam, these are all bad guys. But when the government of the United States decides to do something about "bad guys", there suddenly is no longer a zero-sum game to the left. How morally reprehensible it is that the United States stopped a nation who's government has over 400 mass graves accounting for over 300,000 dead innocents. How dare us!
If anyone didn't think these people were bad guys before, sure, that makes them ignorant. But to think that we have no business dealing with the blowback, then that makes you morally repugnant, since the ramifications of your views essentially protect the very people you claim to be bad guys. Not only is this hypocrisy, it is quite the most dangerous level of it I can possibly fathom.
CL: In 1993, professor Noam Chomsky saw "a tremendous victory for the left" in an internal document from the first Bush administration: "In the case of confrontations with much weaker enemies, we must not only defeat them, we must defeat them decisively and rapidly because anything else will undercut political support."
"The Vietnam Syndrome" -- this reluctance on the part of the Pentagon to go plumb off -- has obviously saved lives, except the anti-war movement can't settle for a shortened war; its goal is an end to all war. So how do you encourage the discouraged?
Well, for one, if anyone thinks that World Peace is an attainable goal is either nuts or ignorant of history. I'm glad Saab at least is objective enough to recognize the "saving lives" result of this document...I'd like to know if Uncle Noam's proclamation of victory has to do with that fact, or rather a sardonic spat. Imagine a grand government conspiracy which a.) considers public opinion when forming policy, b.) intends its wars to be short, and c.) thinks that wars should end in victory for "their side". Not the most insidious revelation, if that's what the left interpretated it to be...
HZ: I point to other times in American history when things felt hopeless -- when movements started out small and looked as if they didn't have a chance. Like when the Civil Rights Movement in the South went up against a totally white government, police, etc., with the odds [against the movement] being so great. And yet, the movement grew and grew and grew until it couldn't be stopped and something had to change.
In other words, there are historical examples of situations where it seemed that people in power could not be resisted, but they were. The important thing is people mustn't give up, because if they give up, that's the end.
Oh, you mean like the Bolsheviks, Comrade Zinn? It's pretty insulting to equate the Civil Rights Movement with a group of hippies who would just as soon Saddam continue to murder, rape, and torture his own people than to allow America to have anything resembling a foreign policy. It's also insulting to the intelligence of any critical thinking person to believe that there's an infallibility to being part of a small, rebellious group.
Hey, get this, the Nationalist Socialists were a small rebellious group who's very existence was predicated on overthrow of those in power. How's that for "an example of history", Master Historian Zinn? Perhaps Zinn and Saab wouldn't feel so great about the tiny mob if they realized the mob isn't exactly made up of the nice touchy feely enlightened francophiles they think it is.
Whenever Americans don't want to deal with something, they cry "love it or leave it" in order to divorce great power from great responsibility. Well, "loving" or "leaving" America would let those in power off of the hook -- and so long as I'm alive, that will never happen!
Yawn. I wrote on that here and here and I don't feel like doing "the broken record thang".