Howard Zinn: "The Confederacy never invaded the Philippines."

[DemBones DemBones]

I happened to read this interview with Howard Zinn last night and, given all the threads about the Confederate flag here tonight, thought his views on the flag, the Civil Rights movement, etc., would be of interest.

I assume everyone knows Howard Zinn. This is taken from an interview for Digress by David Barresi (that's who "DB" is here, not me, DemBones), available here:

http://digressmagazine.com/zinn/zinn2.html


Barresi brings up public apologies -- like Clinton's apology for slavery (Zinn says apologies substitute for real action) -- and then they segue into a discussion of the NAACP's fight to have South Carolina take the Confederate flag down from its statehouse, Barresi mentioning "but then there is the glaring contradiction of the American flag flying unquestioned." I've bolded Zinn's words.


HZ: That's interesting. If somebody suggested we take down the American flag...because the American flag was, for most of its history, really wrapped around the confederate flag... Right. In fact, it's more serious. The confederacy never invaded the Phillipines. We might call for a substitution of the confederate flag for the American flag! (laughs)


DB: It's interesting how that functions to "cut off' a part of the country, or a smaller population, to be left with the blame.


HZ: Yeah, that's a very interesting point. In fact, the whole national culture- well, especially in the North- is based on the fact that the South is racist and the North is liberal, and that slavery and racism were southern phenomena which the North was going to correct. Of course, it completely ignores the amount of racism in the North and the support of slavery by the federal government. One of the things I always tried to emphasize was that the Civil Rights movement was not a movement directed primarily against southern segregation. The fundamental problem was not the state legislatures, or the local police, or the state segregation laws. That whole network of racial segregation laws was supported by the federal government. The federal government simply refused to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. Therefore, black people had to do it themselves.

So I would never get excited about whether the American or confederate flag is hanging or not hanging. I just couldn't care less about that issue... To me it's not an important issue. There are people on the left who get all wrapped up in the issue of "should we or should we not have the right to burn the flag?" I just don't care enough about it. It's a deflection from really important things that need to be said.

[JanMichael]

1. What? That's not Patriotic! Is he some sort of Socialist?!

Oh say can you SEEEE, from the dawns early light....

[JohnKleeb]

2. I like Zinn much

DBDB did you hear who he endorsed? :D
I really like Zinn and reading him is a pleasure.

[QC]

3. Excellent link--thanks!

[MrPrax]

4. Good on Howard...

to open up an important debate and a few old wounds...
Perish the thought that the laissez faire North wanted to absorb out-moded production done by foreign countries, like the South, into a global empire and the South was an obvious first step in that March.

[The Magistrate]

5. The Confederacy, However

Rather contemplated invasion of Mexico, and various other "filibuster" styled actions toward the Caribbean and Central America. there is little doubt had it established itself through the War of Southern Treason it would have acted on these designs.

"I will fight the secesh till Hell freezes over, then fight on the ice!"

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Perhaps, but it's a fact that slave ships flew the Stars and Stripes,

never any flag associated with the Confederate States of America.

The Stars and Stripes have been associated with quite a few events that we today find shameful.

Should we then do away with the flag of the USA?

[jbutsz]

7. Zinn

Anyone with a copy of "A People's History of the US" will remember what Zinn said about the middle class as well.

Zinn calls the middle class, "the Guardians of Revolution" because they form the buffer between "them" (elite powers) and all of us.

Basically, he said that when the middle class is destroyed economically (as is the current trend), revolution is inevitable as they (middle class) become disillusioned with their place in society, learning that they are not truly "privilaged" and "part of the club."

I presume that when Zinn is talking about a "middle class buffer," he is referring to the common Republican/Conservative voter enchanted with the BS that they are told (namely, that voting Repub is in their and everybody's best interest).


This may be why Greens want or expect "things to get worse before they get better," so people will wake up from their "conservative" fantasies.