Howard Zinn (2003)
Author
of A
People's History of the United States talks with Robert Birnbaum
 Posted:
April 3, 2003
© 2003 Robert Birnbaum
Images by Red Diaz/Duende Publishing
Print this
interview
Howard Zinn's A People's History of the
United States: 1492–Present first came out in
1980, and recently an updated edition has been published. To date,
A People's History has sold a million copies. Its author
is a historian, a social activist and a playwright. Among the twenty
books he has written are: La Guardia in Congress, Disobedience
and Democracy, The Politics of History, The Pentagon Papers: Critical
Essays, Declarations of Independence: Cross Examining American Ideology,
You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train (his autobiography),
The Zinn Reader, and Marx in Soho. Howard Zinn
has won numerous awards including the Thomas Merton Award, The Eugene
V. Debs award, The Upton Sinclair Award and the Lannan Literary
Award. He lives in Auburndale, Massachusetts with his wife, artist
Roslyn Zinn.
This is the third published conversation between Robert
Birnbaum and Howard Zinn.
Robert Birnbaum: What's the publication date of
the new edition of A People's History?
Howard Zinn: I don't know if it is officially
out yet.
RB: Oh yeah, it is. Here it is [looks at a press release]—
the publication date is February 16, 2003.
HZ: Oh, okay.
RB: So we haven't violated any publishing embargo by our
talk.
HZ: Right.
RB: The last time I checked in with you, you told me that
there were 800,000 copies of A People's History in print
and that was before the 20th Anniversary edition. Where is the total
now?
HZ: Well, we reached a million copies and in fact, I don't
know if you knew this, the publisher, HarperCollins, organized a
celebration in New York on February 23 to recognize the fact that
a million copies had been sold.
RB: Was Rupert Murdoch there? (both laugh)
HZ: Yeah, I think he was sitting there in dark glasses in
the audience. Yes, I'm sure…It was held at the 92nd Street
Y in New York and there was a huge crowd. We had people from the
arts on stage reading the voices of people—fugitives slaves,
and mutinous soldiers and labor people and dissidents of all sorts.
We had James Earl Jones, Danny Glover, Alice Walker, Alfe Woodard,
Kurt Vonnegut, Marisa Tomei and my son Jeff. He replaced Ben Affleck,
who couldn't come because he was shooting a film on the West Coast.
And so Jeff read the words of Arturo Giovannetti, the IWW poet during
the Lawrence textile strike who was up on trial for murder and who
delivered a wonderful courtroom speech. It was a great evening.
RB: You were not anticipating updating A People's History
were you?
HZ: No, I never anticipate updating a book. I don't want
to have anything to do with a book once it's done.
RB: (laughs) Yeah.
HZ: You know, enough. But this book has come back to haunt
me again and again. The very success of the book has led to my life
being too busy. It's good to have a book that flops. Nobody hears
about it. Nobody bothers you. Nobody knows about it. But this book
has led to all sorts of offshoots. And speaking engagements, of
course. And new editions and teaching editions and now there is
going to be a young people's edition. And it led to foreign translations
a Spanish edition. It's been translated into a dozen different languages.
In fact, it's just been translated into French, and I've been invited
to come to give talks in Grenoble and Paris.
RB: Who would have thought it?
HZ: Which I am happy to do. Any excuse to go to Paris, right?
So the book has become a kind of monster. (chuckles)
RB: And there is A People’s History series,
of which you are the editor?
Generally
people are better out of office…than they are in office.
If power corrupts, then lack of power brings gentleness and
kindness and humility. |
HZ: Well, yeah. I never wanted to be the editor of a series
because that is kind of corporate job. You are not a writer. You
are not anything important. But the New Press, which is this independent
publishing house in New York run by Andre Shifrin—they got
the idea of putting out a series of books with the name of A
People's History— a people's history of this and a people's
history of that. They asked me to be the general Editor and I didn't
want to do it and then they sent me the first one …
RB: A People History of the American Revolution…
HZ: By Ray Raphael and I was so impressed with it. I thought
it was so great that I said, "Okay, I'll do it." So Ray
Raphael's book came out and it's the best single volume on the American
Revolution that I know of. We now have somebody writing A People
History of The Civil War—a guy who teaches at Valdosta
State University in Georgia. A real Southerner. Unlike fake Southerners
of whom we have many. People who put on Southern accents. This guy—his
name is David Williams and he has done some wonderful work on the
common people of the Confederacy, the people who suffered, the dissidents.
People don't know about the number of dissidents in the Confederacy,
the number of deserters…the wives back home who rioted because
the rich plantation owners were growing cotton instead of food.
Because cotton was a cash crop and food was—well what is food?
It's only necessary to feed people. So he's doing this People's
History of the Civil War and we are going to have others. Probably
A People's History of American Sports.
RB: Wow!
HZ: Yeah. Because when you think of it, sports is not usually
considered to be a political subject, but of course it is. The issues
of class and race come into sports in such a big way.
RB: And money.
HZ: And money. Yes, money.
RB: And I hope this is not a sore subject, but what has
happened to the cinemafication of A People's History?
HZ: (laughs) The dramatization. 'Cinemafication' is a very
good word actually. It should enter our vocabulary. Um, and you
are not the first one to embarrass me with this question.
RB: (Both laugh) I could excise this from the transcript
if it gets too painful. And then it will be between you and me.
HZ: No, no. Let's have an uncensored tape.
RB: Okay.
HZ: It’s still alive at HBO. And, in fact, it's at
a critical moment right now. Because the very first script which
is a script about Columbus and Las Casas, which went through two
drafts written by a Scottish writer Paul Laverty, a man who has
worked with Ken Loach in England and has written some fine screenplays.
He wrote My Name is Joe. Which isn't very well known in
this country, but was a very class-conscious film about a Scottish
family and then a film about Los Angeles women who cleaned the offices
in Hollywood, called Bread and Roses. The films didn't
get a lot of attention in this country because they are not Chicago.
And so on. But he is a very good screenwriter. He is now turning
in his third draft to HBO. This will be it. If HBO likes the draft,
a movie will be made and the series will be alive. If HBO doesn't
like it, well, goodbye to HBO.
RB: I had heard names like Howard Fast and John Sayles and
Paul Lussier…Howard Fast, of course, can't be writing it anymore.
HZ: No, no, very sad. But Lussier replaced Howard Fast.
I had a very interesting relationship with Howard Fast. I was introduced
to him after thinking he was dead. (Both laugh) That can be embarrassing.
I didn't say to him, "Howard, I thought you were dead."
Although, I have had that happen to me, actually. This is little
parenthetical aside, if you don't mind.
RB: Fine.
HZ: Noam Chomsky once sent me, forwarded something to me
that had been sent to him, by some reader. And the reader wrote
to Noam, "Tell me, is Howard Zinn dead?" And Noam forwarded
this me and I wrote back to Noam. I said, "Tell this guy, yes.
(both laugh) And I promise to do the same for you. And that will
save us a lot of trouble."
RB: If he doesn't know, why correct him?
 HZ:
But anyway. I met Howard Fast three or four years ago at an anti-Hiroshima
demonstration in Welfleet. Every year on August 6 in Welfleet I
have this little Quaker picket line—not picket line, silent
vigil. A silent vigil to commemorate the dropping of the bomb and
protest against nuclear warfare and this woman came up to me—I
was there as part of the vigil. She said, "There is a man sitting
there on the bench he wants to meet you. He would like to be on
the vigil but he just had a hip operation. And he is sitting on
the bench." I said, "Who is that?" She said, "Howard
Fast." I didn't immediately say, "I thought he was dead."
RB: Right. (both laugh) But the balloon was there over your
head.
HZ: That's right. It was. I went over to him. He said, "I
just finished reading your People's History of The United States."
Actually you can see a little blurb that he did, a wonderful little
comment that he made about the book [on the dust jacket]. So we
became…we got to know each other.
RB: You can say friends…
HZ: Yeah, we became friends. And we had coffee the next
day and we were in touch and when the issue came up about who would
write the episode on the American Revolution. I thought, "Howard
Fast, of course." He had even written a book about the very
subject that I wanted the Revolution to deal with, and that is the
mutinies of soldiers in the Revolutionary Armies. Something we don't
learn about in school when we learn about the American Revolution.
"Mutinies? Against George Washington? Yes!" I wanted to
draw out the class character of the American Revolution represented
by the mutinies and represented by Shay's rebellion after the war.
And Howard Fast wrote one of his many novels about that. So I persuaded—it
wasn't hard to persuade HBO—to let him do the script on the
Revolution. He turned in a couple of drafts. They didn't do the
trick. A great novelist, a wonderful storyteller, but there is a
difference between writing a novel and writing a screenplay.
RB: Right.
HZ: And so it didn't quite make it. It was very hard for
me to tell him that. So Paul
Lussier, who is a very accomplished screenwriter, he wrote this
very funny book [Last Refuge of Scoundrels] about the American
Revolution. He has written a lot of television. He has turned in
the first draft on the American Revolution and if the series goes
forward—well then he will be doing the American Revolution.
RB: So, you are waiting.
HZ: We are waiting. In fact, I expect tomorrow to get the
copy of the third draft. Just in time for me to take it on a plane
with me to California so on a six-hour flight I can read this draft
unperturbed. Or maybe perturbed but not disturbed. So that's where
we are with it.
RB: Wasn't there some feeling that Affleck and Damon had
enough clout to get this made, especially in a system where filmmaking
is so star-driven? They aren't actually going to appear in them,
are they?
HZ: It's not certain at all what role they will play. Whether
they will appear. That was left open. The only thing that was clear
was that they were going to be executive producers along with me
and Chris Moore. And the fact that you have stars as executive producers
is not the same as saying that Ben Affleck is going to play a Revolutionary
War soldier.
RB: Or George Washington (both laugh). I assume that your
cultural visibility was increased by references to you in Good
Will Hunting and you must be aware of the fact that you were
mentioned in an episode of The Sopranos.
HZ: I wouldn't have known it because we aren't regular viewers
of The Sopranos. In fact, we didn't have HBO. But I got
a call from Kurt Vonnegut's wife. I have gotten to be friendly with
Kurt Vonnegut these last few years and his wife called and said,
"Do you know that your book is there on the table and there
is this argument between Tony Soprano and his son?" "No,
I didn't know that." But I soon learned about it.
RB: Do you have any sense of what that meant? You know there
is a big industry based on product placement in films. Soft drink
and auto makers work hard and spend serious money to have their
goods in films and TV.
The
peace dividend has been forgotten. It never was real. That
is, the peace dividend could only be considered real if you
really considered the Cold War real. I don't consider the
Cold War real. That is, I consider that Communism played the
same role in that period of the Cold War that terrorism plays
today. That it was a useful opportunity to do what we wanted
to do in foreign policy. |
HZ: I could claim, I suppose, that I paid Tony Soprano five
dollars.
RB: Was there an uptick in book sales in New Jersey?
HZ: Truth is I don't know. It's hard to tell. Same thing
with Good Will Hunting. Because before Good Will Hunting
appeared the sales had been going up and up and up. It had been
going up steadily every year. A very unusual phenomenon in the publishing
world. Maybe after the film there was a blip and after the Sopranos
there was a blip. But nothing sensational. It's been a steady upward
climb—which is remarkable.
RB: So here we are in 2003 and we have this newly revised
edition that takes us just past September 11, 2001 and has a new
Afterward.
HZ: It ended in the '70s. So I did cover Carter.
RB: I went back and reread it anyway.
HZ: I am trying to—you say you haven't read it for
a while. I haven't read it for a while. (both laugh) It's very embarrassing
when you don't know what's in your own book. I know I went in to
the '70s but did I go as far as 1977? I'm not sure. Either I missed
Carter or just got the beginning of it because in the next edition
I did have a chapter on Carter, Reagan and Bush.
RB: That's right. So as I read the section on Carter I came
to wonder how he won a Nobel Prize.
HZ: Carter won a Nobel Prize not because of what he did
as President but he won it for what he did after he left office.
Generally people are better out of office…
RB: (Laughs)
HZ: Than they are in office. If power corrupts then lack
of power brings gentleness and kindness and humility. So Carter,
when he left office, he became a kind of peacemaker and went around
the world and …
RB: Monitored elections and negotiated…
HZ: Yes exactly. He tried to mediate in conflict situations
and while he was in office he behaved very traditionally. He had
Zbigniew Brzezinski as his foreign policy advisor, who was no dove.
While Carter didn't get us into any war he did continue military
aid to dictatorships—Indonesia, Iran, Nicaragua. So he wouldn't
have deserved a Nobel Peace Prize on the basis of his presidency.
RB: I wonder how he changed so much? And it does seem as
if he is cast as glory seeker and a meddler.
HZ: I don't mind somebody being a meddler and a glory seeker,
just as long as he seeks glory for the right reasons, for doing
good things. That wouldn't bother me about Carter. In fact, anyone
who plays a very important and dramatic role in world affairs must
have a certain amount of ego and glory seeking. That wouldn't bother
me. Did Carter change? I suspect that Carter before he became president
was not as aggressive and marshal as he became when he got into
the White House and he had to deal with this ongoing military budget
and this ongoing foreign policy. I am not trying to exonerate him
for that because that does not excuse a President that says, "I
inherited this." You can give up your inheritance. I suspect
it wasn't a very dramatic change. I suspect he went back to some
pre-presidential sensibility.
RB: You quote him as responding to people saying, "This
isn't fair," by saying, "Well, life isn't fair."
Which suggests a deeper kind of belief or attitude.
HZ: You are right. That was a terrible statement on his
part. Was it something that represented a deep belief on his part?
Or was it a kind of ad hoc response because he really felt defensive
and trapped and had to come up with something? I think it is more
like that. He said some unfortunate things like when somebody asked
about how we weren't really following through on our promise to
help reconstruct Vietnam, after all the damage. He said, "The
destruction was mutual." (laughs)
RB: What happened to the peace dividend?
HZ: (laughs) You are the first person who has mentioned
that phrase for as long time. It's been forgotten. The peace dividend
has been forgotten. It never was real. That is, the peace dividend
could only be considered real if you really considered the Cold
War real. I don't consider the Cold War real. That is, I consider
that Communism played the same role in that period of the Cold War
that terrorism plays today. That it was a useful opportunity to
do what we wanted to do in foreign policy.
RB: Isn't this the part in the show when people will start
calling in with outrage saying that you are suggesting that terrorism
is not a real threat…
 HZ:
No, no. Terrorism is real and Communism was real. The Soviet Union
was a real threat to Eastern Europe. It occupied countries in Eastern
Europe. And terrorism is a real threat today. The problem comes
in when you so exaggerate the threat as to justify doing things
that have nothing to do with countering the real threat. And so
we intervened in other countries and intervened in Central America.
Always claiming we were doing something about world Communism. When
what was happening in those countries has virtually nothing to do
with world Communism. It had to do with indigenous revolutionary
movements that we wanted to suppress because we wanted to control
governments. And revolutionary governments would, like Castro's,
be reluctant to come under our control. Terrorism is real but how
do we react to it? Do we react to it in a way that intelligently
examines the roots of terrorism and figures out what we can do about
and prevent it? No, it becomes an excuse for us to carry on the
expansion of the American Empire. And it's a very handy excuse,
just as Communism was a handy excuse. Because they are both real.
If they weren't, real it would be harder, you see.
RB: I was struck by your reference to the august George
Kennan's reaction to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. That
event was expropriated as the triumph of the Cold Warriors and how
and Reagan had forced the Soviet Union to spend themselves into
destruction. Kennan—a veritable Bible of information on the
Soviets—observed our strategy prolonged the life of the Soviet
Union.
HZ: Yes, yes. George Kennan probably knows more about the
Soviet Union, had more experience with the Soviet Union, was ambassador
to the Soviet Union studied the Soviet Union and knew that situation
probably better than anybody else. And he thought it was nonsense
that Reagan would claim that he was responsible for the disintegration
of the Soviet Union. And that, in fact, the winds of change were
blowing across the world and into the Soviet Union and there was
a certain kind of inexorable movement in the Soviet Union where
people became more aware of the outside world, became more impatient
with the lives they were living. Became more intolerant of a dictatorship
and that happened to coincide with Reagan's presidency. So he took
credit for it.
RB: I was struck by your reference to the august
George Kennan's reaction to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
That was expropriated as the triumph of the Cold Warriors and how
and Reagan had forced the Soviet Union spend themselves into destruction.
Kennan—a veritable Bible of information on the Soviets observedour
strategy prolonged the life of the Soviet Union.
HZ: It was nonsense that Reagan would claim that he was
responsible for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. And that,
in fact, the winds of change were blowing across the world and into
the Soviet Union and there was a certain kind of inexorable movement
in the Soviet Union where people became more aware of the outside
world, became more impatient with the lives they were living. Became
more intolerant of a dictatorship and that happened to coincide
with Reagan's presidency. So he took credit for it.
RB: How was it that this—this is editorializing—myth,
partisan position continued to be propagated with very little refutation
or opposition? This seems to be something that is still claimed
and still taken credit for and with no counterclaim. You even quote
CIA analysts as saying the Reagan/Bush claims were not factually
based.
HZ: It's an interesting question of how myths
are propagated and remain very large in the American consciousness.
I think it has to do with the power of the government and of a complicit
media to maintain these myths. That is, the government persists
in saying something and if the government dominates the air waves
as it always does—it’s governmental figures that dominate
television and screens and even on Public television, the people
you see most often are White House officials and former White House
officials and so the power of the government to maintain a myth
is enormous. When the media don't counter, don't play the role of
a really critical, scrutinizing journalism, then those myths will
be perpetuated. What accounts for the fact that most Americans believe
that the Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, when there
is no evidence for it?
RB: It's very peculiar that surveys and polls that I see
commented on indicate that those surveyed seem to hold and believe
contradictory views. This is something very odd.
HZ: It suggests several things. It suggests we should be
wary of polls and suggests that public opinion is volatile. And
it suggests that people are capable of contradicting themselves.
I remember during the Clinton administration, when the polls showed
that people were opposed to welfare. And then they were asked, "Do
you believe that the government should help people who are in need?"
and they said yes by sixty-five percent
RB: And so a word is demonized and it loses its meaning.
HZ: Right.
RB: 'Welfare queens' was a good one. In the last chapter
of The new edition of A People's History I came across
this:
The American system is the most ingenious system of control
in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent,
and labor power, the system can afford to distribute just enough
wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome
minority. It is a country so powerful, so big that it can afford
to give freedom of dissent to the small number who is not pleased.
There is no system of control with more openings, apertures,
leeways, flexibility, rewards for the chosen, winning tickets in
lotteries. There is none that disperses it controls more completely
through the voting system, the work situation, the church, the family,
the school, the mass media—none more successful in mollifying
opposition with reforms, isolating people from one another, creating
patriotic loyalty.
One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest
of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the
99 % against one another: Small property owners against the propertyless,
black against white, native born against foreign born, intellectuals
and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups
have resented one another and warred against one another with such
vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers
of leftovers in a very wealthy country.
It took you a long time to get to such a concise summation of your
critique. Why not put that in the Prologue? (both laugh)
HZ: And then forget about the rest.
RB: My point is that I don't recall you saying it exactly
that way.
And
[the system] is willing to take the risk that what we say
can be controlled, that what we say will be limited to a small
listening audience, or that what we say—even if we get
a large audience— that it will be ephemeral, that it
will disappear very quickly. That people will forget, that
there will be no sustained dissent of a powerful kind, powerful
enough to change the society. |
HZ: Oh not exactly that way. When you sit down to write
you say things that you never said before. And so I hadn't said
it exactly that way before and probably have never said it that
way since.
RB: (laughs)
HZ: But there it is.
RB: Those paragraphs I thought were a wonderfully
articulated expression of your sense of the fundamental problems
of this country. And this is, of course, a great counterpoint to
the well-rehearsed response such as "We live in a great country
and of course we have problems but it’s the greatest country
in history." But these cheers don't acknowledge any anomalies.
HZ: People will say, "What are you complaining about?
Look you are speaking. And you are not being arrested." And
allows Barbara
Ehrenreich and Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore to speak
out but limits us. And [the system] is willing to take the risk
that what we say can be controlled that what we say will be limited
to a small listening audience, or that what we say —even if
we get a large audience— that it will be ephemeral, that it
will disappear very quickly. That people will forget, that there
will be no sustained dissent of a powerful kind, powerful enough
to change the society.
RB: Michael Moore is an example of someone whose persona
can obscure his work and his views. I've seen lots of commentary
from people who find Moore's advocacy obnoxious. He seems to have
obscured his own message. What does that say?
HZ: (laughs) That Academy Award—my wife Roslyn and
I had different reactions to it as we watched it—you probably
heard he was sort of wild, shouting and gesticulating and waving
his arms. I said, "Great that he is breaking into that smug
pompous atmosphere of the Academy Awards when everybody is so controlled
and uptight and when people have been warned not to say anything
political. How refreshing that is." My wife said, "Yes,
but he could have said it differently. He could have said the same
thing without actually epitomizing what people consider the hysteria
of the Left." And that's true. The people on the Left, people
who are dissidents really have to think about their style. They
have to think about how they appear to people.
RB: Well, there is the calm and reassuring and avuncular
and gentle presentation that you offer. No hysteria coming from
you.
HZ: (laughs) Well, it's all inside. (both laugh) It's all
in my lower intestine. When I am in demonstrations, I don't like
people yelling and screaming in demonstrations. I don't like them
yelling slogans that have no meaning for people who are on the sides
watching. I'd rather have a wild crazy Michael Moore than no Michael
Moore at all. But that isn't our only choice. I think we can monitor
the way we do things. I remember, before we invaded Iraq but while
we were bombing Afghanistan—we had a peace march—my
wife and I were marching and of course when you are in a march you
never know what banner you are marching under—I remember once
in New York, we looked around at a huge anti-nuclear rally in New
York in 1982, about a million people demonstrating for a nuclear
freeze and my wife and I looked up and saw we were marching under
a banner that said "Lesbians From Hoboken Against Nuclear War"
(both laugh). And in this recent demonstration that I was telling
you about, somebody around us started to chant, "One, two,
three, four what do want? Class war!" I thought, "Really?"
Maybe I secretly I do want class war but…
RB: That's the shibboleth of the Republicans that
progressives are waging class war.
HZ: The Republican line is you mustn't have class war but
let's wage it.
RB: This book is continuing its meteoric ascension in the
Western canon or at least in the consciousness of right-thinking
Americans and now we are once again in a situation that you are
very familiar with. The US is engaged in a very unpopular foreign
policy initiative and in fact engaged in open hostilities. You have
been busy before the Iraq invasion, now what?
HZ: Now I am ferociously busy. I have been speaking, speaking,
speaking. Speaking to high schools, community colleges, teach-ins,
in the Boston area around the country. I spoke in New York several
times recently, Columbia University and at the New School. I spoke,
the other day at Emerson College. I am going in a few days to California
and Oregon. In April I am going to Minnesota, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee.
And I am doing a lot of radio interviews. This to me is very important
because often it is only progressive radio stations and alternative
radio like Pacifica and David Barsamian's alternative radio and
I also do get called on regular—by regular I mean AM call
in shows with conservative hosts. I love situations like that because
then I am reaching different kinds of people.
RB: Your lectures and appearances, are these instances of
preaching to the converted? Aren't these people who are already
inclined to agree with you?
HZ: That's a tough question to answer because…where
was I recently as an example? Oh, I spoke at a little Catholic college
about a week ago near Albany, New York. Siena College. Three thousand
students. The faculty who were escorting me to the auditorium said,
"Now keep in mind this is a Catholic school, very conservative…”
RB: "Keep it clean." (both laugh)
HZ: …and the kids here are generally pro-Bush."
800 hundred students of the three thousand were in that auditorium.
The place was jammed. I gave them my pro-peace, anti-war talk and
I got this wonderful standing ovation. So how do I interpret that?
Sure it could have been just courtesy. But I interpreted it this
way--that there is a certain part if that audience that is already
sympathetic with my view. There are other students who maybe are
not sure where they stand—and I like to think that I actually
have an effect and that they listened to me and it made sense to
them. Maybe the best test of that are the high schools that I speak
to. I speak to high school assemblies. Here these young people are
corralled—you know how high schools are, they are totalitarian
institutions. These people are forced at gunpoint in these high
schools assemblies. So they are not the converted. And I have been
talking to high schools and I get wonderful enthusiastic reactions
from high school students. I do believe that there are those that
are already converted and those that do not have strong opinions.
And if people don't have strong opinions and don't know very much
and they may even be in favor of the war but they don't know very
much and if they are presented with certain amount of information
that they didn't have before or given some questions that they never
thought of before, yes it's possible to think differently and have
second thoughts. And when I speak on these radio programs I am speaking
to audiences out there that I don't know. I don't know what effect
I have but I always think of the Vietnam War. I think of how the
polls showed at the beginning of the Vietnam War, two thirds of
Americans were in favor of the war. Two years later, two thirds
of Americans were against the war. Something happened in that period.
What happened is that people changed their minds. So I do believe
that people can change their minds. Sometimes it takes two years.
Sometimes its doesn't take that long.
RB: It seems a lingering or overshadowing issue that Iraq
is the first move in a broader policy and strategy. You were on
the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour recently.
 HZ:
On the Lehrer Report…
RB: So much for my television literacy. Is that an issue
that is being debated publicly?
HZ: I think that when people begin to think in that way
then they begin to worry about the war. What the administration
has wanted to do, it's wanted to build an iron curtain—to go
back to Churchill's phrase—around Iraq, and keep people focused
only on this one spot in the world. And not to think beyond it,
and not to think outside it and also not to think back in history.
What I try to do, when I talk to audiences, I try to enlarge their
view. I say, "Let's look back into back into history. Let's
look at other wars. Let's look at other deceptions. Let's look at
other claims of how we are fighting for democracy and liberty and
to liberate people. Let's look at the history. Let's expand our
view longitudinally and then let's expand it laterally. Let's go
beyond Iraq and look at the rest of the world. Ask how many other
tyrants there are besides Saddam Hussein. Ask how many other countries
have weapons of mass destruction. Ask what the United States has
been doing with other countries in the world and ask where are we
going from here." And as you were saying, it's not just Iraq.
I suggest that the reasons given by the administration don't stand
up and that what we are really watching is the continuous march
of empire—the continuous expansion of the United States starting
from the end of the Revolutionary War down to the present day. I
think when people begin to get some of that historical perspective,
it makes sense to them.
RB: To how many countries has the United Sates brought democracy?
HZ: (laughs) Well, they always cite Germany and Japan at
the end of World War II. And yes they were totally devastated by
the war and they were a kind of a vacuum and therefore you might
say that the United States helped bring democracy. It was also useful
for the United States to get rid of old regimes and to have—and
this is important—to have countries that were democracies
but that were going to be our allies. This has been the crucial
test for the United States, really. Not whether a country is democratic
or not. The United States is willing to put up with democratic countries
if they play ball.
RB: (laughs)
HZ: So the test has not has it been democratic or a dictatorship
but will they play ball? The result is that we have overthrown democratic
countries as we did in Guatemala and Chile when those governments
didn't please us. That's been the test.
RB: So the answer is perhaps two. Thanks very much, Howard.
HZ: Okay. All right.
____
|
