Sometimes a person will open a fascinating little window into his thinking, and you’ll find yourself looking into an ugly, illogical world that the person completely denies exists. This time, that person is Howard Zinn, well-known as one of the best-selling, most-taught, anti-American authors in the market right now.
A couple of weeks ago, Zinn debated Dennis Prager, and Prager has been reprinting parts of that debate. The part of the debate that caught my attention followed some dialogue where the two discussed America’s involvement in the Korean War. Zinn conceded that, but for American involvement, the whole peninsula would have been under North Korea’s thumb. He also conceded that North Korea was a bad thing, but he couldn’t get over the fact that the war killed people. That’s where we pick up the thread:
DP: Do you believe that that would be a net moral or immoral result for the Korean people and the world?
HZ: That would have been an immoral result, but the result of the war itself was also immoral — I’m talking about the killing of several million people. And what I’m suggesting is that the answer to . . . tyrannies like that is not war, which in our time always involves the massive killing of innocent people. . . . I think we have to find ways other than war to get rid of dictatorships and tyrannies.
DP: I would love that. But this is where we often consider people on the Left, at best, to be naive. . . . Let’s talk about that naivete. You believe that there would have been another way to get rid of the Korean communists — whom we both agree are monstrous — as opposed to the Korean War. . . . This is the naivete of the Left, that ugly things can be gotten rid of in sweet ways.
HZ: Not sweet ways. I wouldn’t say that. And I wouldn’t say either in totally peaceful ways . . . by struggle and resistance but not by war. We have historical examples of what I’m talking about. The Soviet Union, Stalinism, was not overthrown by war. . . . Stalinism was really replaced, in time, by the Russian people themselves. . . . What I’m suggesting is that there are a number of places in the world where we have had tyrannies that have been overthrown without war. . . .
I’m sure you all caught what I caught: Zinn thinks that the West’s peaceful defeat of the Soviet Union was the way to go: “The Soviet Union, Stalinism, was not overthrown by war. . . . Stalinism was really replaced, in time, by the Russian people themselves. . . . What I’m suggesting is that there are a number of places in the world where we have had tyrannies that have been overthrown without war. . . .” The unspoken implication is that this is a more humane approach, without the “massive killing of innocent people.”
What Zinn really means, of course, is the “massive killing of innocent people by American soldiers.” He seems totally unfazed by the fact that the hideous Soviet regime was responsible for murdering millions of its own people. While there is some debate about the numbers Stalin alone was responsible for killing during the 30s and 40s alone, the reasonable estimate is that, through executions, deportations and failed economic policies that led to mass starvation, Stalin was responsible for upwards of ten million deaths.
I’m sure Zinn would make precisely the same analysis for Communist China. Look, he’d say. We didn’t go into war there. We just used the peaceful approach of talks across the table. It’s certainly true that, if one ignores the proxy deaths in Vietnam and Korea, there have been no direct Chinese/American deaths due to war. I wonder, though, what kind of consolation that is to the more than twenty-five million people who died during the Mao era alone . There are estimates that up to seventy million people died, but those are contested, and twenty-five million is enough to shock an ordinary person’s conscience.
In any event, the words Zinn spoke that I quoted above are not a mistake. If you continue reading the same interview with Prager, you’ll discover that, over and over again, Zinn makes arguments that its okay for governments to slaughter and oppress their people in staggering numbers, but that it’s morally wrong for the U.S. ever to free those people, even if the U.S. is doing so as part of a legitimate defensive war. In other words, Zinn pose that he is a person who is all about love and light and kindness and as few deaths as possible is a complete fake. Zinn cares nothing about people and their well-being. The only thing Zinn cares about his promulgating his view that America is irredemiably evil, and he will ignore truth, logic and objectivity to force that conclusion on his audience. The sad thing is that, with Zinn being one of the most read authors in American high schools, his audience is dismally ill-equipped to recognize the gross reasoning fallacies and blind antipathy that animates his world view.
___________________________________________________
*I know that this implosion occurred because of the external pressure the U.S. applied to the Soviet Union. Zinn’s anti-Americanism apparently prevents him from even acknowledging fact. In any event, while that’s an interesting side-line, it takes away from my real point.
**There are estimates that up to seventy million people died, but those are contested, and twenty-five million is more than enough to shock an ordinary person’s conscience.
Filed under: Anti-Americanism
Howard’s specific anti-Americanism is a relatively new development, I think. I had a course with him at BU years ago, and he actually held out quite a bit of hope for America, precisely because those peaceful means, demonstrations, protests, etc. could indeed effect change here in this country. He thought that was great. And he did recognize that these peaceful tactics didn’t work most places, generally ending with the protestors and demonstrators either dead or in jail.
So Howard, deep down, kind of liked America, at least 37 years ago. Like most people of his type, he’s an eternal optimist, and would like America to be as “good” (as defined by him) as it could be (also as defined by him).
He’s also an eternal child. His relationship with reality is at best touch-and-go; he didn’t deal much with the real world except in very selected bites. (Which was okay in an academic sense; his class was so unstructured that I think everybody who was registered for it did splendidly: if your name was in his book you got an A+.)
And it was, I have to admit, fascinating. For Christmas vacation that year a bunch of us went to Vietnam, which was, looking back, somewhat weird. In fact, completely weird. Howard arranged for everyone who wanted to go look at the war to get accredited by some pal of his at the old Boston “Herald-Traveler” (defunct now, I think) as a member of the press. The idea was to see war at first-hand. Now, you have to admit that’s different: in how many places could you get field trips to a damn shooting war? Imagine explaining that one to your parents.
But he wasn’t specifically anti-American about it; he was wholly anti-war.
Like most people of his ilk he was – and evidently remains – extraordinarily naive. Reality has apparently still not rubbed up against him very hard. He remains convinced Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, hell: Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, and Caligula, etc., etc. could have been talked out of it. They didn’t need to be physically stopped, they could have been reasoned with.
He’s always believed that, about everybody. And of course he’s always been wrong. He possesses in full measure that wonderful sort of innocence that is so goddam destructive when it’s let loose in the world. As Graham Greene once said: “God save us from the innocent.” Few things are capable of greater harm than an innocent man.
One thing I think is completely true: Zinn does not care about people. Never did. he lives in a bubble, and he doesn’t really know many actual people, that part of him is atrophied. Even his marriage is primarily a showcase, and it works as long as he is completely free to bop off around the world at the drop of a hat and attend a demonstration or something. Practically anything he could do takes precedence over his relationship. (Probably why the relationship works: he hasn’t been there for two-thirds of it.)
Not much actual interaction with people in his life – never has been. He’s a much better writer than he is speaker; he can lecture from a distance on the page, which is a lot more up his alley than an actual exchange.
He’s a relic from a previous generation, and that’s probably the best way to take him. Stopping Vietnam was his top moment, since then it’s all been downhill. The world, and the enemy, has changed: he hasn’t, and can’t.
Pretty easily ignored, these days.
Hell – he was pretty easily ignored in those days, too! I sat in front of him three times a week and had no difficulty ignoring him!
What Zinn really means, of course, is the “massive killing of innocent people by American soldiers.” He seems totally unfazed by the fact that the hideous Soviet regime was responsible for murdering millions of its own people. While there is some debate about the numbers Stalin alone was responsible for killing during the 30s and 40s alone, the reasonable estimate is that, through executions, deportations and failed economic policies that led to mass starvation, Stalin was responsible for upwards of ten million deaths.
Some guy over here, Dagon I believe, was amazed that I called you a true liberal, Book. He believed you to be one of those arch-conservatives called a “neo-con” or whatever. Obviously some people don’t know what they are doing on the internet.
True liberals care about people, they care about people MORE than they care about what people think of them, or international opinion of them, or the other things that don’t matter. True liberals, unlike fake liberals, are not afraid to do what is necessary to save people. Fake liberals care about the “image” of salvation and goodness, the image and supercificiality of righteousness. They prefer to have clean hands and to win with ease, rather than winning sooner by getting their hands dirty doing work instead of sub-contracting out to dictators or proxies.
Zinn makes arguments that its okay for governments to slaughter and oppress their people in staggering numbers, but that it’s morally wrong for the U.S. ever to free those people, even if the U.S. is doing so as part of a legitimate defensive war. In other words, Zinn pose that he is a person who is all about love and light and kindness and as few deaths as possible is a complete fake.
Now do you see why I started using the term fake liberal Several years ago?
Zinn cares nothing about people and their well-being.
Oh, I’m sure he cares about the caring of people.
He remains convinced Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, hell: Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, and Caligula, etc., etc. could have been talked out of it. They didn’t need to be physically stopped, they could have been reasoned with.
When you understand the nature of humanity, you will also understand characters like Genghis Khan, Hitler, and Stalin. But you cannot deal with these people without that wisdom and comprehension. It’s like attempting to do derivatives when you don’t know how to divide a number.
Ain’t blogs great, Book? You get to hear primary testimonies from people who know about these characters that are so often discussed. The internet allows a greater sense of community, if only because it allows the free flow of information and knowledge, not just random binary data bits.
One guy that was talking to me on the net, actually knew Dennis (Senator guy) Kuchi something. It gave me a different perspective than just the idiotic media, or even measured analysis on blogs.
Another guy actually met Kofi Annan and knew him as a person. People who do not choose to become enlightened, who do not choose to become cosmopolitan, in the pursuit of wisdom, end up as our dear Howard has. Defunct, an obstacle to human progress, as well as being quite an annoyance.
[...] [Read more and discuss…] [...]
JJ, whose comment was fascinating from start to finish, said:
Like most people of his ilk he was – and evidently remains – extraordinarily naive. Reality has apparently still not rubbed up against him very hard. He remains convinced Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, hell: Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, and Caligula, etc., etc. could have been talked out of it. They didn’t need to be physically stopped, they could have been reasoned with.
Why does he believe this when many have tried to reason him out of his anti-war position and none has succeeded. He should look at his own experience and see that his hypothesis can’t stand even that low-bar test.
Which gets to another truism about liberalism: It is not based on one’s own experience; it is based on a dream of what one’s experience should be. Give me hard pragmatism any day.
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/2006/09/video_huffington_says_so_what.php
This is also an interesting clip. Ariana said, “so what if the Kurds are free”. Do these so called liberals call about human liberty or just any liberty?
Why should they when liberty calls for sacrifice and vigilance, prices too high for Hollywood decadents and media propagandists.
The fake liberals have an interesting plan as advocated by Ariana. Fortress America O’Reilly called it. But he overlooked something. Ariana wants to use the resources expended in Iraq to protect the ports. You’ve heard Democrats on the news and even those on the Left here, say that they want a “mix” of law enforcement and military action. What better mix than martial law at the ports, using the military not in Iraq, but in American ports and universities, to check over everyone and anything?
It’s not what they want that matters, it is what they will do that matters. They are going down a path that is the incorrect one, it leads to either stalemate or checkmate, and it won’t be America that forces others to check their vitality. They will have made it absolutely mandatory for America to fold not only by outside terror but from inside gridlock.
Hell is paved with good intentions, and the policy of Democrats will lead ultimately to less freedom, less security, and more deaths. She talks about protecting America first. I thought true liberals weren’t supposed to sound like WWII isolationists?
That’s cause true liberals aren’t isolationist at all, if anything classical liberals are blamed for being too interventionist.
For some reason, I really don’t believe that Ariana Huffington or her “associates” are true believers in the US Constitution or even simple patriots of the United States.
http://theotheriraq.com/relationship.html
I recommend that video, who O’Reilly said is paid by the government of Kurdistan.
It gives you a very good context and perspective for Ariana’s words.
It is very nicely done from a propaganda point of view. Meaning, it isn’t propaganda based upon lies, hate, and anger. It does not make accussations, yet it also doesn’t back down from the facts and the reality either.
I ask you to think about how the Kurds, who have lost much, view America. Compared to how Ariana’s people view America, when they have the least to lose. Why are the Left so often blaming America first and often, when the Kurds in their video was very careful in not attempting to portray America as evil. Is it because, as the Left believes, that the Kurds fear America and are afraid to anger us? Or is it because the Left cannot understand what love, compassion, and willpower truely is? It is hard for people who care only for themselves and their comforts, to do much of anything for those who are weaker than they.
Mercy and compassion comes from a position of strength. The strength of a group or a nation comes from their people. Just how strong in character and in humanity do you believe people on the Left, like DailyKos and Huffington, are?
It all depends upon the answer to that question. Those who believe that such people are “strong”, “compassionate”, and part of the reality based community, believe in a strength and power that I consider to be non-existent.
Watch the video, look for where there is bitterness, hate, and anger against the United States. Watch, and think. Is a human being stronger because he hates, or is he stronger because he sacrifices all things, including bitterness and anger at the United States, for the benefit of those that he loves?
Is a human being able to fullfill his maximum potential as a soldier, in the protection of his people and family. Or is a human being able to fullfill his maximum potential by strapping a suicide pack on and killing some school children?
If you believe as I believe, that power and strength comes from the soul and the kinds of decisions we make in life, then you would most likely believe that Democrats are weak. Not only in policy but in their hearts, their spirits, and their souls. A person that cannot get over his bitterness is controlled by his desires, a person controlled by his desires is an inferior human being. A person that has no control and discipline over himself, is a person that cannot help anyone else.
The Kurds can get over their justified bitterness, because they care more for people’s lives than personal power. Democrats and fake liberals care more for their own status and power than the lives of human beings. No true liberal could tolerate being part of a party that had such members in abundance.
Ariana thinks power comes from politics, from doing things for the citizens. No.
Power comes from people. The US acquires more power when we help people like the Kurds, we acquire their loyalty and their love. The Democrats believe American power is so infinite, so unlimited in its potential, and so impregnable on our moral high ground, that they give no thought to maximizing that power. Why sacrifice and do hard things, to increase infinity by one?
Power comes from people who are working together, not just disparate units scattered across the land of beyond. The US becomes more powerful when working with the Kurds, the Kurds become more powerful when working with the US.
With power, comes security, comes opportunity and prosperity.
The Kurds have a nice propaganda ability. Not because I think they are lies, but because the truth is convincing. I have not seen anything as convincing by the Israeli government. The Kurds need friends and allies, they need the Shia and the Sunnis for their population and for cultural diffusion. This refers to the 3 state plan option.
You can see the way I think because I go backwards. I follow things to their logical beginnings. The power of a single human individual, it all begins there. Everything is affected by it in one way or another.
The Kurds have a warrior ethos culture, did you know that? Like the Gurkhas that the British Empire employed as mercenary fighters, the Kurds have a stronger spirit and willpower. They get it by introducing this ethos in their children. They endure, in enduring they grew strong. Israel is not the same, Israel does not have a spartan warrior culture like the Kurds and the Gurkhas, or even like significant portions of America (South).
I mean, just think about it, what would America be without the South? Without all those Southerners with their guns? What kind of political future would America have then with such division?
There’s not much else to say, so I’ll end it here.
I concur with Laer: thanks, JJ, for fascinating insights.
Now if Mr. Zinn were interviewed by Victor Davis Hanson..then! — Hanson has said wars do work, they change everything, (or similar in a CSPAN interview several years ago, my memory).
Hanson concluded, ‘that why they continue..’
As Y. might agree, some 20c groups have been strong enough to face reality and fight. Others–especially the intellectual elites post WWI, and after– have chosen to be irrelevant. The American soldier who fought at Omaha Beach kept peaceful Mr. Zinn’s family free; of that, there’s no doubt.
Were the Left, and Mr. Zinn, marching to defeat Evil–Seeking to defend Civilization–how much different might we find the landscape of 20c history. Few would challenge Nazism until there was no choice. Almost all the Left did choose to swallow the poison of communism. And thus became rabid against US all.
The Left’s obsession with death (see Zinn) finds it mesmerized, not by that West which it despises, but by what it can’t accept: the unshakeable and greater religion of killing ahead called Islamic fascism.
Victor Hanson is a good and stereotypical example (well maybe not so stereotypical, he is pretty popular for an “academic” amongst US Jacksonians and the US marines), of a classical liberal. Someone who values human rights, human dignity, and human lives above ALL else. All else.
M for Marines.
“He remains convinced Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, hell: Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, and Caligula, etc., etc. could have been talked out of it.”
Just curious: Are you aware of any more interviews in which he was strongly pressed on this point? Pressured to explain exactly how such monsters could be reasoned with?
pst314: I’m not aware of other interviews and would be interested if you know of any. It’s not something I have the time to follow up on now. Certainly, in this interview where someone (Prager) actually pressed him on his beliefs, his statements on the point were clear and unambiguous.
Y — VDH is a Democrat too but no longer representative of that party, unfortunately.
Best, Z