Zinn's "A People's History of the US: 1492-Present"
A space for us to discuss our ongoing reading and evolving understanding of US History. What perspective has Zinn offered that was new for you? How does it fit in with your understanding of history? How do you connect this history with our present? Talk about how your lens is sharpening and/or widening.
posted by adam at
5:52 AM
4 Comments:
I was once again compelled by so much of what I read in Zinn. Certainly, the history he tells is an education on the miseducation I received. What I most appreciate, though, in his opening chapter is how he wants to tell us history, analogizing his task with that of a mapmaker. While mapmaker's must distort out of technical necessity, a historian's distortion is necessarily ideological and buries critical and essential facts (like genocide) among others to lessen/deaden its impact on future generations. Zinn argues, "This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted . . . and is deadly" (p. 9). Zinn goes on to argue, "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is" (p. 10).
A couple of generative themes for us to discuss Monday might be the term: "ojbectivity," or could revolve around a discussion of what today's "cries of the poor" might entail.
By
adam, at 1:55 PM
As I sat down to finish Chapter 2 and jump into Chapters 3 & 4, I was struck by two strands weaving their way throughout Zinn’s historical analysis: the social construction of rac(e/ism) and capitalism/classism. At times, of course, the two were not able to be delinked, but I’ve broken this post into two sections, nonetheless, asking some questions that came to mind throughout and then providing some summary questions at the end, as possible things to think about for ways forward.
Social construction of rac(e/ism)
“…any emphasis on ‘natural’ racism lightens the responsibility of the social system. If racism can’t be shown to be natural, then it is the result of certain conditions, and we are impelled to eliminate those conditions” (pp. 30-31).
“We see the complex web of historical threads to ensnare blacks for slavery. . . .The point is that they are historical, not natural. This does not mean they are easily disentangled, dismantled. It means only that there is a possibility for something else, under historical conditions not yet realized. And, one of those conditions would be the elimination of that class exploitation which has made poor whites desperate for small gifts of status, and has prevented that unity of black and white necessary for joint rebellion and reconstruction” (p. 38).
“The system was psychological and physical at the same time. The slaves were taught discipline, were impressed again and again with the idea of their own inferiority to ‘know their place,’ to see blackness as a sign of subordination, to be awed by the power of the master, to merge their interest with the master’s, destroying their own individual needs” (p. 35).
What is so compelling about these lines from Chapter 2 is the constructed nature of race and racism. If extended, this means that none of it is natural, therefore it can be deconstructed and reconstructed in some other way. Arguments related to the natural-ness of any social phenomenon eliminates the need, then, for scrutiny or effort as it indicates some sort of given-ness of the situation. Social constructions on the other hand, lead us to inquiry and creating a more critical consciousness related to current manifestations and ongoing inequality based on systems/structures created by humans. Considering the social construction of rac(e/ism) is hopeful as we can do something about it.
Capitalism/Classism
“African slavery lacked two elements that made American slavery the most cruel form of slavery in history: the frenzy of limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave” (p. 28).
Sort of pokes any holes in attempts to rationalize our own brutal behavior based on something someone else had done…
“Only one fear was greater than the fear of a black rebellion in the new American colonies. That was the fear of that discontented whites would join black slaves to overthrow the existing order” (p. 37).
“The colonies, it seems, were societies of contending classes—a fact obscured by the emphasis, in traditional histories, on the external struggle against England, the unit of colonists in the Revolution. The country therefore was not ‘born free’ but born slave and free, servant and master, tenant and landlord, poor and rich” (p. 50).
“What made Bacon’s rebellion especially fearsome for the rulers of Virginia was that black slaves and white servants joined forces” (p. 55).
“Racism was becoming more and more practical. . . .coming out of class scorn, a realistic device for control. . . .to separate dangerous free whites from dangerous black slaves by a screen of racial contempt” (p. 56).
How are we continually kept separate in this struggle? What divides us today?
“The upper classes, to rule, needed to make concessions to the middle class, without damage to their own wealth and power, at the expense of slaves, Indians, and poor whites. This bought loyalty. And to bind that loyalty with something more powerful than material advantage, the ruling group found, in the 1760s and 1770s, a wonderfully useful device. That device was the language of liberty and equality, which could unite just enough whites to fight a Revolution against England, without ending slavery or inequality” (pp. 57-58)
And, how are we back at this same language of division today. How do you continue to use terms such as liberty and equality to oppress, disenfranchise, and marginalize. How are these seemingly simple, yet confoundingly complex concepts used today?
I’m led to consider several issues at work today at BU and wonder how we might work together to understand, reveal, and help do something about them. All of these considerations blend issues of class and race and hopefully draw us toward more solidaristic possibilities. (1) We have our ongoing issue related to Sodexho. We know of their ties to the prison industrial complex, which imprisons, disproportionately, black, brown and poor folks. We also know that their workforce at BU is overwhelmingly black and brown serving a mainly white constituency. While not suggesting that we should deny employment to the wonderful people we have working at BU, what does this racial dynamic say about ongoing oppression/marginalization/disenfranchisement, and the reinforcement of internalized oppression? (2) Milton and I attended the BU scholars dinner on Friday evening. This is the competition for which high school students compete for five full scholarships and entrance into the honor’s program. Each of the 28 finalists were white. And, each of the past recipients who were present and currently attend BU were white. What does this say about BU’s attempt at diversifying the campus? (3) Several students of color have been meeting to discuss their discontent with their experience at BU. How might we serve as allies in their struggle?
By
adam, at 8:50 AM
This whole idea of ‘natural’ and nature vs. nurture is an intriguing topic to me. I used to think that people have ‘natural’ tendencies, but now I am seeing them as ‘socially constructed’ tendencies. This distinction becomes so blatantly apparent through reading A People’s History and as I learn more about history and what has lead us to this current state. It’s not just a random set of events; laws were made and people were enslaved (or killed) to further the success and power of the structure that is present in our society today.
Today, the divisions in our society are so ingrained into our psyche that we believe them to be real lines that cannot be crossed. The emphasis on the difference between men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor, students and teachers/faculty, leads us to believe these groups can have nothing in common.
As I said, learning about history helps us to see the present in a different light, but it is still difficult to fully understand all that is happening today. “Looking deeper at our place in that community” as Mary said is a difficult and challenging process, but without knowledge coupled with introspection and dialogue, it becomes next to impossible. All three of these are important, but in order to get the most benefit, we must practice them together so we can ‘connect the dots.’
In thinking about ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ and how they are still used to oppress people today… We claim to want (and to have) equal rights for all here in the US. However I think this is often interpreted (by those who make the laws and benefit from them) to mean having the least amount of restrictions in place so one has the ‘freedom’ (there’s that word again) to further his or her own place in society. The obvious problem here is that the only people who this works for are the ones who are already privileged.
With such an emphasis on equality in our society, we leave no room to discuss the fact that the underprivileged and marginalized cannot simply ‘work their way up’ if they are ignored and oppressed by the system. Equality allows us to ignore disadvantage because it implies sameness. How can we be the ‘same’ and have the ‘same’ opportunities if we start from so many different (dis)advantage points?
By
Maria, at 1:11 PM
Reading further in Zinn is constantly like a getting a glass of cold water thrown in your face. What Zinn continues to show us is how class divisions were intentionally created from the very beginning--that the poor were used by the rich to secure indpendence from Britain to further enrich themselves: "One would look, in examining the Revolution's effect on class relations, at what happened to land confiscated from fleeing Loyalists. It was distributed in such a way as to give a double opportunity to the Revolutionary leaders--to enrich themselves and their friends, and to parcel out some land to small farmers to create a broad base of support for the new government. Indeed, this became characteristic of the new nation--finding itself possessed of enormous wealth, it could create the richest ruling class in history, and still have enough for the middle classes to act as a buffer between the rich and the dispossessed" (p. 84).
Certainly, more parallels to today are compelling. On p. 78, Zinn argues, "Here was the traditional device by which those in charge of any social order mobilize and discipline a recalcitrant population--offering the rewards and adventure of military service to get poor people to fight for a cause they may not clearly see as their own." Hmm, Iraq, oil, Haliburton, an Army of One, military recruitment strategies attached to NCLB. The parallels are uncanny and disgusting.
Zinn also sets up for us (1) how wealth was necessary for running for public office, (2) how Christianity is intimately interwoven throughout this country--that 'the seperation of church and state' is really non-existent as they are one in the same, (3) how the Constitution was devised to help rig the game, (4) how we introduced biological warfare onto the continent through small-pox infected blankets (and we have business talking about anti-terrorism measures?), (5) and to realize that most people are left out of the historical narrative.
By
adam, at 9:57 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home