Howard Zinn on the Fourth of July

the following quotes by Zinn (linked in the title) were submitted for publication in 2006, and reprinted this year on theprogressive.org:

"On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power."

the first thing i would like to point out is that the 4th of July is a day to celebrate America's Declaration of Independence from the imperialism of Great Britain, who the colonialists didn't so much "hate" as much as they just felt it was immoral to be subject to. the imperialism of Great Britain, as "evil" as it may seem to an observer like Zinn, probably did more to civilize a great portion of the world than any other factor...

...but, to Zinn, this "civilization" is more an imposition of alien values than a positive thing. he may be right. many agree with him. the simple, uncorrupted by modernity lifestyle may be superior. but, in the eyes of the world, "modernity" is the goal. for example: millions of "westerners" have traveled to countries in the "third world". to get there required the building of airports or airstrips to land their planes...to navigate the air, the pilots required the use of the international language of air travel, ENGLISH...countries in the less-developed parts of the world covet the influx of american/western world dollars into their economies...and, the very fact that westerners can fly to these edges of the earth required american ingenuity--the creation of machines which could fly.

zinn states that "nationalism" is "useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power". if one takes his statement the way he wants you to read it, it may be true. but...he's leaving out of the equation the fact that "nations", especially the ones he criticizes most, take the lead in any effort to right "wrongs" which may befall those who can't deal with the problems themselves. true, it may be slow at times, but one must remember that international problems usually have to be dealt with through a prism of many different factors: cultural, economic, religious, etc...

zinn continues:

"National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves."

in WWII, "national spirit" raised it's ugly head in germany, japan, and, to a lesser extent...italy. it was the "national spirit" of countries like great britain, the U.S, canada, et. al...who decided to take on those who wanted to impose values that were antipathetic to the values which had made the world a more civil place. it's true, great britain was still exerting it's imperial influence throughout the world, but it's influence was felt on many levels in a positive way.

"Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."

On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to
war."

zinn fails to realize that in order to conduct a "war", at least two parties are involved. does he quote what's being said in mexican media on the eve of the "Mexican War"? No. does he acknowledge the fact that any lands gained by "mexicans" were probably gained by force? No.

every single slice of any parcel of land on this entire planet was gained by someone taking it from someone else!!! the mexican's "ownership" of the land was as much an "imperial" move against peoples who had migrated from elsewhere as any other entity's claim on this particular land...unless one can prove that a particular human had risen from this particular piece of the earth.

"As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies."

no mention of the enemy's atrocities offered here. and why would he? to balance his historical account? why would he do that??

"How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?"

i don't know, how many times? do you, professor zinn, have an answer? is the problem the quantity of times it's mentioned, or the fact that it's mentioned? is the acknowledgement of the sacrifice the problem?

"One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq."

the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT the revenge for Pearl Harbor. it was the culmination of events leading up to it, and the realization that the other options were more deadly to American soldiers and not likely to produce surrender. whether it was, in the strictest sense, a morally correct decision, depends on thinkers such as Professor Zinn to decide.

the "Sept. 11" decisions have to be seen in the context of a generation of actions directed against the United States and it's allies. from reading Mr. Zinn's own words, in this case a condemnation of the Israeli response to the Hezbollah "war" with Israel, written with a number of notable "scholars" such as Noam Chomsky,...we see that Mr. Zinn sees the US as the incubator of the world's problems.

he continues:

"And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him."

first of all, i wish he would provide this quote.

short of that, i wish he would name a president who didn't at some point look to "the heavens" for support of his argument. i.e. - didn't President Clinton, during the monica lewinsky ordeal...call on the Rev. Jesse Jackson for spiritual guidance? is this not the same thing? or was it just a politacally inspired stunt? but, even if it wasn't sincere, ......isn't it doing the same exact thing? ....or, is it meant to win over "stupid christians"?

"We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

W is doing his best to completely align the US with Mexico. what more do you want???