The country is also divided, in terms of education. Southerners are generally poorly educated. Northerners are generally far more intelligent.
The trap Zinn is falling into is believing that Bush has the political capital to launch another war. He does not. (Zinn also seems to have a tendency to talk about Americans as though we're all a bunch of morons. And, as I recall, Zinn endorsed Nader, whose aides freely admitted that he only wanted to sabotage the Democratic effort, in 2004, which hardly speaks well for his desire to end the Bush reign.) Further, we don't have the resources to do it, anyway, which is probably the reason for Iran not caring about what we say. Were it not for Europe getting tough on Iran, there would, literally, be nothing to talk about.
That's why I'm not terribly concerned about a war with Iran. Bush would have to launch a military draft, which would immediately result in a collapse of American support for anything he would want to do -- not to mention that the Supreme Court and the Congress would tell him to go to hell.
Where does Zinn get the idea that we haven't faced "our" ethnic cleansing of the past? (I'm not a follower of the idea that it was "our" fault. I wasn't involved, Professor, nor were my ancestors. Speak for yourself.) I know of no American who doesn't understand what we did to the Indians. But, if you bring it up with most Americans, I think they're likely to ask and say, "What do you want me to do about it? I wasn't involved in it."
The entire "The Son Will Pay For The Sins Of The Father" line of reasoning is, in my opinion, nonsense, because it's punishment brought against people who were not involved in the crime. Is it somehow my fault that my neighbor's ancestors owned slaves? My parents and grandparents were supporters of Civil Rights, as am I. So why does Zinn believe that this is partly my fault? That's bullshit.
I'm completely in agreement that Americans and all people of the world -- because, let's be honest, no nation has a completely innocent history -- should look at both the good and the bad of history. But it's difficult for me to take people like Zinn seriously when they try to pass blame for something onto people who were neither involved nor even connected. That line of reasoning has got to go. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
But, I must agree with Zinn that Americans (of all socio/economic strata) more than the other nationals i have known have deep ignorance of history (educational density in the USA is thin, plunge into the mind of the average American and you will find it mostly shallow and unexercised) It is this smug self satisfied ignorance that seems to characterise the national persona.
The other aspect of what Zinn says i find right on is the need to call things as they are. As a youth I sat thru many saturday morning movies, cowboys and Indians. The theme was always the same, "taming the west" by violent means. Killing the savage Indians. When televison came along, my kids watched the same hackneyed themes. Never in my life until Zinn have I heard an American call it like it was, ethnic cleansing.
Lanquage and thought are inextricable. That is why for example there are words in French or Hawaiian that don't exist in English. But we need to use the right words to describe things as they are or we will never be able to change our behaviors. alohapolitics.com
You and I must have experience with completely different groups in America (perhaps understandably so) -- possibly because I've only lived in two cities, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, and both are made up of people with generally high levels of education. (The former is a college town, and the latter is where all of the wealthy Northerners who attended Ivy-League schools end up settling.) It probably also helps that my father has a degree in history, as well.
But, even among the militant Republican Southerners, who, in my experience, are the ones who constantly watch those idiotic "Cowboys and Indians" movies, I've found that people recognize that the Indians were largely exterminated, and that it is a horrible scar on American history. They do, however, hate hearing about it and too often attempt to deflect it with charges that people like Zinn are anti-American. But what can you expect from people who enjoy watching cars drive around a track for four hours (not to mention the God-awful trash that passes for "country music")?
You're not going to get an argument from me about Americans being ignorant of history, because, again in my experience, they are, relative to people in other countries.
But that doesn't change my other major criticism of Zinn: That he calls these events out as "our" fault, when, in fact, it is not "our" fault -- hence why I said (of Zinn) "Speak for yourself," and why I find it offensive that he would demand that I come to terms with what "we" did. It's a stupid argument, and it has always been so. By all means, dig up the graves of Americans who owned slaves and killed Indians, burn their skeletons, and curse them, but Zinn needs to recognize that people who were not involved are not going to apologize, nor should they.
It's the same argument I've made against paying reparations to the descendents of black slaves: "I sympathize with your anger at what whites did to your ancestors. But I didn't do it, and I'm not going to be punished for an act I did not commit." It strikes me as an issue that inevitably will result in breeding an unjustified sense of entitlement and even more racism on both sides. And, when you follow Zinn's view of these past institutional problems being "our" fault, you can't help but arrive at issues like reparations, because, if it's "our" fault, then it's "our" responsibility to pay the debt. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I actually have Zinn's A People's History of the US, buried somewhere in the depths of my messy apartment, though I haven't had a chance to read it (planning to this Summer).
You need to dig up the book and read it. It's long, but you might be able to read it in one qeekend because it's a great book. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
