Interview with Howard
Zinn
by Scott Satterwhite
I read in your book "Declarations of Independence" that based on your experiences in World War II you now feel that war, in it's state sponsored modern sense, can never be justified? A lot of people have a hard time swallowing that. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?
I came to my conclusion based on certain principles, derived from a historical survey of past wars: First, that war always and certainly involves horrible means for ends, which however attractive they look, are never certain. Second, in modern warfare, there are inevitably huge civilian casualties, even in “quick, small wars” like Iraq and Afghanistan. And third, when something has been “accomplished” by war, at great human cost, it is always assumed that that was the only way it could have been accomplished. Whereas many important things have happened without war, such as the end of apartheid in South Africa, the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.
With the anniversary of the February 15th global protest, the largest anti-war global demonstration in history, passing us and the first anniversary of the war in Iraq coming up, it's a time of mixed-emotions for many people. You've stated in interviews that anti-war movements are rarely successful in stopping wars. Why do you think that is? What are some exceptions why did they work as opposed to other times in history?
It’s hard for anti-war movements to be successful because the government in wartime whips up the public to nationalist hysteria. At certain rare times, however, like Vietnam, the truth begins to come through, over time and the persistence of an anti-war movement, and at a certain point the government propaganda fails in the face of a reality that the public learns about.
What do you think of the anti-war movement today? Do you think it is a strong? Strong enough to stop another war?
It is strong, but probably not strong enough to stop another war if Bush is in office because he is totally insensitive to public opinion. With someone else in office, if the movement continues to grow and act, there might be hesitation to embark on another war.
With so much emphasis put on stopping the war in Iraq, many people seemed to have forgotten that we are still waging a war against the Afghan people. Still, however, there is an uneasy reluctance within "liberal" communities to take up this cause. Not to mention linking the US occupation to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The Afghan war was looked at as a "just war", even by many of the most vocal opponents of the war in Iraq. Can you help explain, what seems to many, as a blatant hypocrisy?
The support for the Afghan War, even among liberals and some radicals was because 1) they were inflamed by September 11 to stop thinking rationally and to go along with “We’ve got to do something.” 2) The overthrow of the Taliban persuaded them that something good was accomplished (not seeing that that you can’t establish democracy from without and that, as has already happened, the Taliban would return in some form and 3) They didn’t take into account (though they should have known better about how the media ignores the casualties on the other side) of the human death toll and injured toll in the course of “winning” in Afghanistan.
How do you think history will look at the US for it's imprisonment of Muslims in Guantanamo Bay and the increased scrutiny of the Muslim community living in America now? Do you think it’s fair to draw historical parallels to the treatment of the Asian community during WWII?
The details in every situation are different, but there are similarities. The main one is the hysteria over Pearl Harbor allowing the country to go along with the treatment of the Japanese-Americans, and the current hysteria over “terrorism.”
In Pensacola, Florida, we had demonstrations against the war in Afghanistan that went on weekly for almost 9 months straight, but got little to no media attention. This, I've later found, was a common experience around the country-little serious attention to anti-war efforts after 9/11, although they appeared wide spread. Do you think the media purposely avoids these news items, and if so why?
It’s part of the long tradition, the culture, the habit of the media, to report on what the authorities are doing, and not what protesters are doing. After all, the media are closer to the authorities than to the protesters.
Right now, many people on the left are putting a lot of energy into the upcoming elections to unseat Bush. Do you think that this is a good use of that energy, from a historian’s perspective?
I think people should work to unseat Bush, but not to put all their energy into the electoral arena. This is the time to build a movement which will be strong enough to act upon whoever is elected.
What are your thoughts on the voting process in the United States? Do you think it's effective?
It’s an undemocratic process. Ironic that we judge other countries’ democracy by whether they have “Free Elections.” Our elections are not free. In two senses, first they are dominated by big money and second the media only give attention to the two major parties. And the election rules in the various states are such as to make it almost impossible for third parties to win.
What are your thoughts on Anarchism?
Anarchism is misread as chaos and violence. Present society is chaotic and violent. Anarchism is opposed to bureaucratic authority, to centralized control, to the domination of the economy by corporations, to the domination of the political process by money, to the domination of our minds by religion and the mass media.
What is the role of a radical historian in these times?
To remind people of the past in such a way as to make them understand what is going on today. For instance, to remind Americans of the history of our foreign policy so they will see through the lies told by the government.
What comfort can radical activists today get from looking at history?
History tells us of movements growing from tiny clusters of people to powerful aggregations that change history: The abolitionist movement, the labor movement, the black movement in the South of recent decades, the anti-war movement in the Vietnam years, the feminist movement. With historical perspective you can see progress when you feel hopelessness. Look at the gay and lesbian movement. Thirty years ago you couldn’t touch the subject. Now it is all throughout the culture. And the consciousness of the general population has changed.
In these dark days, what do we have to be optimistic about?
People are basically decent, just misled. People have good instincts, care about what happens to others, but are temporarily fooled by propaganda. If we can get the truth to them (or just real events make the truth known to them even without our intervention) those basic instincts will come through.
This may be a broad question, but as radicals, activists, historians, and people...where go from here?
Work in your community, in the smallest of ways, on whatever you feel most strongly about, in the faith and hope that others will do the same and that at some point all those efforts will merge into a powerful movement for change.
Thank you.
A few books by Howard Zinn
-A People's History of the United States
-Declarations of Independence (now titled Passionate Declarations)
-You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train
-Emma: A Play in Two Acts About Emma Goldman, American Anarchist
-Terrorism and War
-Howard Zinn on History/Howard Zinn on War
-The Zinn Reader
Links
Howard
Zinn Page-Third World Traveler
Z
Magazine's Howard Zinn Page
NOW
with Bill Moyers interviews Howard Zinn (1/10/03) PBS