Showing posts with label Intellectuals and Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectuals and Politics. Show all posts

Monday, December 7, 2020

Exemplary Public intellectual, social activist, and scholar Tim Wise On What is Required and Essential Today in the Fight for Racial Justice and True Democracy in the United States

IMPORTANT NEW BOOK:

Dispatches from the Race War
by Tim Wise
City Lights Books, 2020 
[Publication date: December 1, 2020]
 
Essays on racial flashpoints, white denial, violence, and the manipulation of fear in America today.
“What Tim Wise has brilliantly done is to challenge white folks' truth to see that they have a responsibility to do more than sit back and watch, but to recognize their own role in co-creating a fair, inclusive, truly democratic society.”—Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow
"Tim Wise's new book gives us the tools we need to reach people whose understanding of our country is white instead of right. And without pissing them off!"—James W. Loewen, author, Lies My Teacher Told Me
"Tim Wise's latest is more urgent than ever. "—Heather Ann Thompson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and its Legacy
"A white social justice advocate clearly shows how racism is America's core crisis. A trenchant assessment of our nation’s ills."—*Kirkus Reviews, Starred Review
" [Dispatches from the Race War] is a bracing call to action in a moment of social unrest."—Publishers Weekly
"Dispatches from the Race War exhorts white Americans to join the struggle for a fairer society."—Chapter 16
In this collection of essays, renowned social-justice advocate Tim Wise confronts racism in contemporary America. Seen through the lens of major flashpoints during the Obama and Trump years, Dispatches from the Race War faces the consequences of white supremacy in all its forms. This includes a discussion of the bigoted undertones of the Tea Party’s backlash, the killing of Trayvon Martin, current day anti-immigrant hysteria, the rise of openly avowed white nationalism, the violent policing of African Americans, and more.
Wise devotes a substantial portion of the book to explore the racial ramifications of COVID-19, and the widespread protests which followed the police murder of George Floyd.
Concise, accessible chapters, most written in first-person, offer an excellent source for those engaged in the anti-racism struggle. Tim Wise’s proactive approach asks white allies to contend with—and take responsibility for—their own role in perpetuating racism against Blacks and people of color.
Dispatches from the Race War reminds us that the story of our country is the history of racial conflict, and that our future may depend on how—or if—we can resolve it. “To accept racism is quintessentially American,” writes Wise, “to rebel against it is human. Be human.”
REVIEWS:
Praise for Tim Wise's Dispatches from the Race War:
"Through clear examples, inscrutable logic, and the power of direct language, Wise challenges White Americans to identify and understand the racism inscribed in the very American project and in the everyday acts of 'being American.'"—Romi Mahajan, Countercurrents
Praise for Tim Wise:
"Tim Wise is a vanilla brother in the tradition of John Brown . . . "—Cornel West
"One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the nation. He is a national treasure."—Michael Eric Dyson
"What Tim Wise has brilliantly done is to challenge white folks’ truth . . . to see that they have a responsibility to do more than sit back and watch, but to recognize their own role in co-creating what is either a fair, inclusive, truly democratic society or a society that is predicated on indifference towards those who are labeled as 'others' truth . . ."—Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness
"(Wise's) work is revolutionary, and those who react negatively are simply afraid of hearing the truth . . . "—Robin D.G. Kelley, Professor of History, University of South­ern California
"Tim Wise is one of the few people, along with perhaps Frederick Douglass, who has ever really spoken honestly and forcefully to white people about themselves . . . "—Charles Ogletree, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Di­rector, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice
"The fate of this country depends on whites like yourself speaking the truth to those who don’t want to hear it. In this, you are as one with the Biblical prophets. You are more likely to be condemned than lauded, and yet your words are no less important. So, keep speaking out. At the very least, some future archeologists sifting through the ashes of this civilization may be able to find evidence that there were some who offered truth as a cure for the disease that destroyed us."—Derrick Bell, Professor of Law, New York University
"(His) is the clearest thinking on race I’ve seen in a long while written by a white writer . . . right up there with the likes of historians Howard Zinn and Herb Aptheker as far as I’m concerned."—Dr. Joyce King, Benjamin Mays Endowed Chair for Urban Teaching, Learning and Leadership, Georgia State University
"Sparing neither family nor self . . . he considers how the deck has always been stacked in his and other white people's favor . . . His candor is invigorating."
 —Publishers Weekly
 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Tim Wise, whom scholar and philosopher Cornel West calls, "A vanilla brother in the tradition of (abolitionist) John Brown," is among the nation's most prominent antiracist essayists and educators. He has spent the past 25 years speaking to audiences throughout North America, on over 1000 college and high school campuses, at hundreds of conferences, and to community groups across the nation about methods for dismantling racism.
Wise's antiracism work traces back to his days as a college activist in the 1980s, fighting for divestment from (and economic sanctions against) apartheid South Africa. After graduation, he threw himself into social justice efforts full-time, as a Youth Coordinator and Associate Director of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism: the largest of the many groups organized in the early 1990s to defeat the political candidacies of white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. From there, he became a community organizer in New Orleans' public housing, and a policy analyst for a children's advocacy group focused on combatting poverty and economic inequity. He has served as an adjunct professor at the Smith College School of Social Work, in Northampton, MA., and from 1999-2003 was an advisor to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute in Nashville, TN.
Wise is the author of seven previous books, including Dear White America: Letter to a New Minority, Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America and has been featured in several documentaries, including "The Great White Hoax: Donald Trump and the Politics of Race and Class in America," and "White Like Me: Race, Racism and White Privilege in America." Wise is one of five persons—including President Barack Obama—interviewed for a video exhibition on race relations in America, featured at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC.
His media presence includes dozens of appearances on CNN, MSNBC and NPR, feature interviews on ABC’s 20/20 and CBS’s 48 Hours, as well as videos posted on YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms that have received over 20 million views. His podcast, "Speak Out with Tim Wise," features bi-weekly interviews with activists, scholars and artists about movement building and strategies for social change.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Excerpted from Dispatches from the Race War by Tim Wise
 
PREFACE
 
RACISM AND INEQUALITY IN A TIME OF ILLNESS AND UPRISING
By the time you read these words, we will know the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. We will know whether American voters—or at least 75,000 people or so in a handful of key states—have re-elected Donald Trump for four more years or decided to end his time in office and return him to reality television. No matter the answer, this book will remain relevant, because the issues about which it is concerned pre-date his presidency and, if history is any guide, will continue to plague us long after he is gone.
That said, this has been a strange time to compile a collection of essays on race and racism. With a man such as Trump in the White House, I knew as I began work on this volume how quickly events could change and how often race-related stories could emerge from an administration that, from the beginning, sought to divide the nation along lines of race, ethnicity, and religion, for political gain. Keeping up could prove hard, and I always suspected we could get near publication time only to have to insert something at the last minute to reflect the latest outrage. Little did I suspect, however, what 2020 would ultimately have in store for the nation.
As I write these words, it is summer, and the coronavirus pandemic is still ravaging the United States. Approximately 160,000 people have died, and estimates as to what lies ahead are not promising. If they prove prescient, as many as 300,000 will have perished by the time you laid eyes upon this sentence. Experts say that at least 60 percent of the earliest deaths could have been avoided, and then most of those after, had President Trump taken the threat seriously from the beginning. Had he even listened to members of his own administration and the intelligence community that serves him—voices that were trying to tell him in early January of the dangers ahead—hundreds of thousands of Americans who have died would still be alive today. Likewise, had he been as concened with public health as with his own private gain, he might have resisted calling for a quick re- opening of shuttered businesses in the hopes of an economic rebound. But with millions thrown out of work and the economy contracting by one-third in mid-summer—the largest single economic collapse in contemporary national history—Trump’s concerns were with spur- ring commerce and evincing optimism that the virus would magically disappear: anything to bolster his sinking poll numbers and his re- election chances. The results, of course, were predictable and have proved tragic. Sending children back to school, encouraging people to gather in restaurants, bars, churches, crowded downtown streets and beaches—lobbying tirelessly for a return to “normal”—the president and his enablers have endangered the lives of millions. This they have done for the sake of political marketing, hoping that even if hun- dreds of thousands more die, his attempts to blame the virus on China (where it originated, although the most virulent strain to hit the U.S. came from Italy) will convince enough voters that none of the suffering was his fault.

According to the data, around half of all fatalities have been persons of color, and the mortality rate for black, Latinx and indigenous folks has been about 2.5 times higher than for whites. It is not likely a coincidence that the Trump administration met the present challenge—one in which people of color have done a disproportionate share of the dying—with such nonchalance. Indifference to black and brown suffering, if not outright hostility to black and brown peoples, has been a hallmark of Trump’s presidency and most of his life. And if this had not been clear enough from the administration’s response to COVID-19, it would be made glaringly obvious from its reaction to the other major event of this year: the uprising in the wake of the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police.
Once video footage of Floyd’s murder went viral, showing officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes, while continually sporting a disinterested smirk, it was only a matter of time before the nation exploded. Although we had witnessed this scene before, seeing on film the killings of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, and John Crawford III, among others, this time was different. Perhaps it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, or perhaps it was the relative quiet and isolation of the COVID lockdown providing people the space to truly see and feel in ways that would have been more difficult had they been going about the normal hustle and bustle of their lives. But whatever it was, within weeks millions of people in the United States, including large num- bers of whites, had poured into the streets in the largest mass uprising for racial justice in the history of this country.

In the face of more than 11,000 overwhelmingly peaceful protests, the administration and local authorities have met demonstrators with tear gas, clubs, and rubber bullets. On multiple occasions, the president has threatened to call in the military to suppress lawful assembly and protest, and actually did so in response to demonstrators in the District of Columbia. Hundreds of videos available online show law enforcement attacking nonviolent protesters without prov- ocation. Dozens of people, including police officers, have attempted to run over demonstrators with their vehicles. The hostility of the “law and order” brigades, from the president on down, is apparent, and their embrace of authoritarianism has been laid bare for all to witness. Since June 2020, we have been in the midst of a full-scale rebellion, or what some have called a soft civil war. Not between North and South, or even black and white, but between those who believe in racial equity and pluralism and those who do not.
And into that breach, in late August, yet another black man, Jacob Blake, was shot in the back and killed on camera by an offi- cer in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The rebellion that followed involved widespread property destruction by those frustrated with the lack of charges brought against the officer. This uprising was then countered by white vigilante violence, including the murder of two white antiracism activists by 17-year-old Trump supporter and police super-fan, Kyle Rittenhouse. The president, in keeping with his soft-pedaling of right-wing violence, not only refused to condemn Rittenhouse, but has justified his actions as self-defense, and continued to blame the black community and its supporters for the chaos.
This volume is divided into seven sections containing essays written from 2008 to the present. The first two chapters track, in chrono- logical order, the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. They seek to show both the continuity of race as the background noise of everything that happens in America, as well as the way that the nation can quickly careen from hope and optimism around race to the depths of cynicism. The third section looks specifically at this unique moment in our history, and the way in which both COVID-19 and the current uprising for black lives have rendered 2020 a year that few others can match for historical significance. Sections four through six contain essays that speak to three broad themes: white denial about the reality of racism in the United States, historical memory and the way our tendency to misremember our past contributes to racial strife, and the propensity of the nation’s right wing to rely on faulty data to craft their narratives in opposition to racial justice efforts. The final section seeks to provide some direction for antiracism work, activism, and advocacy, both for individuals and for institutions, moving forward.

There is one thing, however, that binds these chapters together: They all speak to the core crisis at the heart of this nation. Because however unprecedented this moment may be in our lives, in some ways what it reveals is as old as the country itself. Some lives matter more than others in America. It was true at the founding. It remains true today. It will remain true forever, unless and until we decide we have had enough.

A few words about citations and sourcing of fact claims in this volume: Because this is an essay collection, I have opted to forego formal footnotes, endnotes, or parenthetical citations within the body of the work itself. To insert such notes would have proved visually distracting in short pieces, and would have increased the size of the book to an unwieldy length. However, because it is important to make citations available, especially for references, data or histori- cal material that is not widely known or understood, City Lights and I will be posting references on their website, www.citylights. com. These notes will be textual, meaning they will be broken down by chapter, and then reference particular page numbers, with a few words of the text cited so as to orient the reader to what is being referenced. These will then be followed by formal citations. I hope this will satisfy the aesthetics best for most readers while also meeting the needs for scholarly legitimacy desired by those seeking truth in these dangerous (and often surreal) times.
—Tim Wise, Nashville, August 2020

OUR FEAR IS REAL BUT FAR FROM UNIQUE

Empathy in a time of pandemic

Is it safe to leave the house? To go to the store? To get in the car and drive, even if only to break the monotony of days or weeks inside? Is it OK to go for a walk around the neighborhood to get some fresh air? Will my job be there next week, next month, in six months? If I get sick, will I be able to get care? And even if I can, will I be able to afford it?
Questions such as these have become commonplace for millions in recent days and weeks in the face of COVID-19. Whether having chosen to shelter-in-place or having been told to do so by state and local officials, they are queries on the minds if not lips of much of America right now. They are questions filled with far more emotion than mere words on a page can convey. They are laden with anxiety and dread at the new normal and what it might portend for our families, our children, ourselves. And in such a moment, in which so much insecurity has been visited upon so many, it is perhaps the perfect opportunity to reflect on a few things we are often reluctant to consider in more sanguine times. Indeed, reflection may be the one gift offered up by this pandemic. All the rest, to be sure, is shit. But having been offered the time to engage in it, reflecting is the one positive thing we can do now, even as it often eludes us in the hustle and bustle of our regular lives. And so, let us think for a second.
Let us think, in particular, about those questions with which I began. To be precise, let us think about how eerily normal they are, if not for some of us, certainly for others; and not just now, but always, every day, with or without a virus lurking in the background. Because what many are only now experiencing—the disorienting feeling of not knowing where we can go and what we can do safely, and the financial and health insecurity haunting our dreams—is hardly revelatory for everyone. It is nothing if not ordinary for millions of persons with whom we share a nation but have rarely shared a reality.

Let us think about the routine act of leaving the house and going to the store. Let us consider how fraught that act can be even in normal times for Black folks, so often followed around inside, asked for multiple forms of identification when making a purchase, perhaps even shot and killed, as John Crawford was, simply for holding an air rifle at his side, which he had gotten off a store shelf at an Ohio Walmart.

Our fear is real. It is justified. But it is far from unique.

Let us think about getting in the car and driving around, or walking or jogging through the neighborhood. Let us consider what that experience is regularly like for people of color, identifiable Muslims of all colors, or those who are Sikh. Imagine, if you are white, what it must be like to be presumed out of place, stopped by police, or followed by a wanna-be cop like George Zimmerman, who has decided that solely because of the color of your skin, you are likely a criminal. For that matter, let those of us who are men consider how maddeningly typical it is for women (of whatever race, class, or ethnicity) to have to worry about leaving the house for a walk or a run, never knowing if they may become the victims of sexual assault. Let all of us consider the utterly normative concerns of trans folk seeking to go anywhere at any time of day, knowing that they are so frequently the targets of abuse, verbal or physical or both.

Our fear is real. It is justified. But it is far from unique.

Let those who are white and middle class think about the job insecurity we now feel, the uncertainty about our careers, despite having done everything right. We got our educations, we’ve worked hard, and still, we are left to wonder how long before the wolf is at the proverbial door. And let us reflect for a moment on how often people of color experience that same anxiety not because of a worldwide pandemic but because of a little thing called everyday life in America. Because while all of this might be new to many of us, Black folks with a college degree have long been nearly twice as likely as whites with one to be unemployed.Latinos and Latinas with a degree have been about 50 percent more likely than similar whites to be unemployed. Asian Americans have been about 25 percent more likely, and Indigenous folks about two-thirds more likely than whites to be unemployed, even when possessing a degree.
Our fear is real. It is justified. But it is far from unique.
Let us think about our uncertainty in the face of potential illness, the fear that grips us as we contemplate what will happen if we contract this lethal virus: will we be able to receive the care we need? And if so, at what cost? Will hospitalization, perhaps several days on a ventilator (presuming there are enough to go around) result in a hefty bill, bankrupting our families, even in the event we manage to survive? And let us consider how many millions of people have wondered those same things, not because of the novel coronavirus, but because of a broken health care system that treats health as a commodity rather than human right to which all are entitled.
In other words, let us take this moment to reflect on the way that our present vulnerability has rendered us more normal than we knew. Let us think of this as a lesson on how much more interconnected we are than we had perhaps suspected. Let us see this as evidence, glaring, and obvious, of the cost of indifference in the face of pain. It’s an indifference that has kept us from creating the needed infrastructure to sustain life and health and to prioritize safety and security for all. Perhaps if we had listened before, the terror that presently grips so many for the first time could have been avoided.
And now, with so many having paid the price for our prior nonchalance, perhaps we can begin to construct the empathic scaffolding upon which society and humanity depends. It is the edifice upon which they have always depended, however little some may have recognized it.
Because although our fear is real, and undoubtedly justified, it is far from unique.
 
TIM WISE  
(b. October 4, 1968)

NOTE: This post can also now be found here at the Panopticon Review On Facebook page.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Never Settle for Less In the Struggle For Democracy, Freedom, and Justice--No Matter What the Odds Are Or Who the President Is!

(White House/Pete Souza)


http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=race_talk_in_the_obama_era

All,

One of the fundamental truths of ANY relationship--be it personal, social, political, philosophical, or moral--is that if you are foolish enough to "settle for less" you will most definitely get/receive less and you will most certainly NOT get what you deserve and most importantly NEED. May that basic and crucial fact serve as a somber cautionary warning to the national black community in the 'Age of Obama...'

Kofi


Race Talk in the Obama Era

The paradoxical reticence of America’s first black president and how progressives must fill the vacuum

by RANDALL KENNEDY
March 21, 2011

American Prospect


“Race talk” has occupied a contradictory place in Barack Obama’s political strategy. On the one hand, Obama has made it newly salient. The speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that elevated him to political stardom focused on his vision of reconciliation, racial and otherwise: “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America,” Obama declared, “there’s the United States of America.” The single speech for which he has been most lauded was his “A More Perfect Union” March 2008 address in Philadelphia, delivered to quell the uproar over his relationship with the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In that speech, Obama declared that his life story as the child of a black father and white mother “has seared into [his] genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.”

He went on to say that “race is an issue that … this nation cannot afford to ignore.” Yet as president, Obama has largely avoided discussing race. He was compelled to give his celebrated speech on Wright during the campaign only because the controversy threatened to destroy his candidacy. Otherwise, except on ceremonial occasions before predominantly black audiences, he has rarely initiated discussion of racial matters. Since his Inauguration, Obama has evaded the very issue he said the nation cannot afford to ignore. Should we sympathize with his ironic plight — the first black president ducking racial controversy? Or press him to do more?

Some activists, politicians, intellectuals, and pundits (for example, Cornel West, Paul Street, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Black Agenda Report) fault Obama for laying low on the racial front. Disappointed by Obama’s reticence, Georgetown University sociologist Michael Eric Dyson charges derisively that “this president runs from race like a black man runs from a cop.” Dyson wants Obama to use his presidential bully pulpit to educate the country about America’s ongoing but neglected struggles over racial justice.

If Dyson’s sentiment became influential in black America, it might prompt Obama to reconsider his reluctance to discuss race. After all, black voters are the anchor of the pro-Obama coalition. But the Dyson view is marginal within black America and likely to stay that way. The vast majority of black Americans are not sympathetic to the demand that Obama engage in more race talk. They are willing to defer to Obama almost unconditionally, so deep is their appreciation for his presence in the White House. From their own experience, most blacks are well aware of the tightrope that Obama necessarily walks on race.

Critics object with exasperation, contending that blacks are too easily satisfied by the vicarious pleasure of merely witnessing the triumph of one of their own — even if he takes them for granted and relegates race-specific issues to the lower rungs of the national agenda. That complaint is weighty. Socialized to expect hostility or indifference, many blacks are unduly impressed when politicians show them even minimal respect, much less affection. For merely treating blacks as peers, Bill Clinton was fondly adopted by many African Americans as an honorary Brother. A still more powerful dynamic is at hand with Obama, whom blacks will continue to support enthusiastically — almost regardless of the extent to which he discusses race and almost regardless of the substance of his policies in general.

Reinforcing this solidarity is a widespread recognition of Obama’s ironic plight: Powerful though he is, the president is subject to a predominantly white electorate, many of whose members are ignorant about the history and current state of white-privileging pigmentocracy and are quick to denounce any complaints about it as unjustified whining or opportunistic playing of the race card. Hence, most blacks agree with the president that (regardless of what he suggested previously) it would be foolhardy for him now to offer the country instruction in an ongoing and contentious seminar on race.

Candid race talk in front of a national audience could easily backfire on Obama. Unless carefully scripted, such talk coming from the president is more likely to exacerbate anxiety than to nourish understanding. That is why some of Obama’s most vocal right-wing enemies — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck — delight in associating Obama with any sort of racial controversy and seek to draw him into racial disputes. It is their most effective way of blackening him.

Recall the ruckus that erupted in the summer of 2009 when a white police officer in Cambridge, Massachusetts, arrested the black celebrity-academic Henry Louis (“Skip”) Gates in his own home after the professor had produced the identification the officer demanded. Asked about this highly publicized incident, Obama, speaking off the cuff, suggested that the officer had acted “stupidly” and that “separate and apart from this incident … there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

This should not have been seen as a bold statement. Obama did not charge the officer with racial bias; he simply stated that the officer acted wrongly. Moreover, the comment about disproportion is, as Obama stated, simply a fact. To Glenn Beck, however, Obama’s remarks revealed something sinister. They showed, Beck said on Fox and Friends, that the president is “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”

Readers of these pages will scoff at such a ridiculous claim, and with good reason: It is ludicrous. Obama has gone out of his way to avoid making charges of racial discrimination. When a Republican representative from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, screamed “You lie” during Obama’s address on health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, many observers, including former President Jimmy Carter, posited that racism had played a role in his brazen rudeness. Obama, by contrast, notably refused to interpret Wilson’s egregious misconduct as racial effrontery. The right, however, gave him no credit for that. Its propagandists much prefer to portray the president as a racial opportunist intent on exacting reverse discrimination, racial revenge, and reparations.

It is a mistake, though, to dismiss as insignificant these rantings. The right has turned the trope of “reverse discrimination” into a powerful rhetorical tool that has prompted liberals to inhibit themselves unduly, even to the point of taking self-destructive steps. Recall the dismal episode in which right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart accused Shirley Sherrod, a black official in the Department of Agriculture, of having withheld assistance from white farmers because of racial bias. Officials in the Obama administration were so keen to deprive Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and the rest of the Fox News apparatus of a potentially hurtful talking point that they pressured Sherrod into resigning without even hearing her account of the situation. It turns out, as we now know, that contrary to Breitbart’s portrayal, Sherrod did all that she could to assist the farmers — aid for which they publicly thanked her even as she was being vilified as a “reverse racist.”

Some liberals long for President Obama to address race in a major speech or even to restart the national conversation on race that President Clinton initiated (and then aborted) in 1997. They believe that Obama is uniquely capable of raising the level of discussion. They point with admiration to his “A More Perfect Union” address and note that it received plaudits even from many conservatives. But perhaps they give Obama too much credit.

That rare address on race was not nearly as candid or visionary as Obama’s admirers wishfully imagine. It did accomplish its primary aim — to quell the uproar over Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Wright. Otherwise, though, it was wanting. Striving for a rhetoric of mutual empathy, it sought to equate white racial resentment and black racial resentment as if white and black America had played equal roles in the racial division of the society. Such a portrayal, is, of course, a gross distortion; white America enslaved and segregated black America, not the other way around. In Obama’s famous speech, there is talk of slavery and segregation but no reference to masters or segregationists. In his narrative, bad things just tragically happened to African Americans. Obama’s studious use of the passive voice was by no means inadvertent; he meant to avoid pointing an accusatory finger at white folks. His speech, moreover, was devoid of any specific prescriptions regarding such matters as affirmative action or reform of mass incarceration. Giving a speech on race now as president would require that he confront such divisive topics.

Obama will avoid such a risky undertaking. This is in part due to his own temperament. Audacious in terms of personal ambition — it took real boldness for a black man to capture the White House — Obama is deeply, perhaps excessively, cautious when it comes to propounding public policy. His avoidance of race is also due in part to the constraints that would impinge upon any person serving as the nation’s first black chief executive. Any black president speaking with informed candor about the continued subordination of black America would widely be seen as a whiner perpetrating racial favoritism and thus would invite electoral retribution. In other words, it is, I think, virtually impossible for a black president today to lead a productive conversation on race without committing himself to political martyrdom.

Since Obama prides himself on being a survivor and clearly relishes the prospect of a second presidential term, he will decline to enter into a conversation on race before the 2012 campaign. I suspect that he will avoid initiating such a conversation even if he wins.

Evaluating his decisions will be difficult. Presidential race talk should be assessed not in the abstract but according to whether its presence or absence is likely to advance progressive thinking and policy. Under the circumstances, Obama is probably ill-positioned to lead a probing and useful exploration of the race question in 21st-century America. That doesn’t mean abandoning discussion, which is much needed. It simply means recognizing that in racial matters, as in other areas, progressives should move ahead on their own, with or without presidential sponsorship.


Randall Kennedy has been a contributing editor of the Prospect since 1995. He is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and is completing a book on race relations and the Obama presidency.


Thursday, August 18, 2011

The Major New Crisis Facing 21st Century Black Intellectuals and Activists

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2011/01/08/obama-and-the-crisis-of-neo-liberal-black-intellectuals/

All,

This is an important, trenchant, and sober analysis of the most significant challenges, issues, and demands facing black intellectuals and activists in the 21st century and we will all be compelled to seriously address and confront them no matter what our specific ideological and theoretical/practical stances happen to be both now and well into the future--whether Barack Obama is President or not...

Kofi

Obama and the crisis of neo-liberal black intellectuals
by Antonio Monteiro
20th August, 2010
In These New Times

Posted by seumasach on January 8, 2011

African American Futures: This site is about African Americans and their possible futures. It is devoted to social theoretic, philosophical, historical and political economic inquiry, critical reviews and cultural analysis. It is founded and maintained by Anthony B Monteiro, professor of African American Studies. All essays, unless otherwise indicated, are written and copyrighted by Dr. Monteiro. Comments are welcomed. The site seeks to encourage critical thinking and debate on burning questions of our time.

BOOK REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

Charles Pete Banner-Haley’s book From Du Bois to Obama: African American Intellectuals in the Public Forum (2010) is a history of African American intellectuals from the standpoint of Barack Obama ‘s presidency. From his Obama post racial dream-world, Banner-Haley tells us, “African American intellectuals in the twenty-first century can take their cue from an Obama presidency and the words he spoke in Philadelphia during the race for the nomination. They can become ‘transformative black intelligentsia’ (123).” It should be obvious, the last thing black intellectuals need to do is “take their cue” from a pro-war, pro Wall Street, pro American imperialism presidency. Rather than fulfilling the legacy of W.E.B Du Bois (as the author claims) it is its opposite. Obama’s presidency represents a rupture with Du Bois and the progressive wing of black intellectuals. Obama’s Philadelphia speech was a neo-Booker T Washington compromise speech (equivalent to Washington’s Atlanta Compromise Address delivered in 1895). Obama decidedly argued that we had pretty much moved beyond racism’s most lethal forms. For him, while slavery was the nation’s ‘original sin’ racism left scars that damaged both whites and blacks. Hence, both his white grandmother and Reverend Jeremiah Wright represented the past of racial prejudice, stereotypes, fear, animus and anger. He positioned himself as representing the future of racial compromise and reconciliation. In neo-Booker T Washington style he urged black folk literally to “put your buckets down where you are”, instead of challenging white supremacy. The Obama presidency, in the end, seeks to fashion a racial compromise with conservatives, similar to Washington’s compromise with the Jim Crow South.

In Banner-Haley’s dreamscape, Obama’s election is both an end and a beginning. He insists, “Barack Hussein Obama in many ways was a culmination of the Civil rights movement and the starting point for African American intellectuals to confront those new definitions of race and identity (7).” The implication is “the new definitions of race and identity” are those that arise from an alleged post-racial America. African Americans, to cite Obama, have come 90% of the way to freedom. Obama, and by implication Banner-Haley, accept the neo-liberal position that the major problems confronting black folk are rooted in black culture, psychology and behaviors, especially of the poor. The author says Obama gravitated to Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson’s “synthetic analysis” that drew from both political liberalism and right wing conservatism. Wilson claims that since 1968 we have been in a period of the “declining significance of race”.

The book points to a new crisis of African American intellectuals. Cloistered in elite universities and increasingly leaning towards neo-liberal ideas on race, economics and politics, they are separated from black working people, the poor and the black middle class. While Obama, remains popular among African Americans as symbol of racial progress, his policies, that favor large banks, Wall Street and the military, places him and those black intellectuals who “take their cue” from him, at odds with the fundamental economic and social interests of the vast majority of African Americans. On the other hand, Obama’s insulting and practiced indifference to black suffering, his performance of post racialism, while savage racism engulfs him,his family, his presidency and all African Americans, his practice of keeping most blacks at arms length, yet on occasion inviting chosen Negroes to the White House, is nothing short of a put down of African Americans; behavior none of us would accept from a white President, Democrat or Republican.

Banner-Haley says, “Unable to make the connection either with the immiserated black poor or many of those newly arrived in the black middle class, black intellectuals found themselves visible, but encapsulated in an insulated academic world that may listen but often does not hear and does not act on the ideas, analyses, and prescriptions that these women and men present (45).” Because they are preoccupied with talking to white elites, they lack moral standing with black people. This is the price they pay to integrate white elite and capitalist circles. This, however, is only part of the problem. The larger part is that politically they are race neo-liberals. At the highest levels there is hardly a radical among them, unlike most in the past who were race radicals. The other problem is that they choose not to live among black people. They have separated themselves in their life styles, culture, and aspirations from the working class and poor in particular. Finally, they’re caught in the bind of trying to appear to serve opposing social and economic class constituencies. Elite universities demand that black intellectuals assume a post-racial sensibility and lifestyle; on the other hand, the black masses daily experience the most savage racism. Faced with this dilemma, neo-liberal black intellectuals become apologists for race and class oppression, while performing a not very convincing symbolic blackness.

Banner–Haley has it wrong, there is no trajectory from Du Bois to Obama. A more accurate description would be from Booker T Washington, and race compromise to Barack Obama and race neo-liberalism. Du Bois started his public intellectual career in 1897 founding, along with Alexander Crummell, Anna Julia Cooper and others, the American Negro Academy. In 1903 he publically presented his position on black leadership in the essay “The Talented Tenth”. He assumed that leadership would come from the educated. Reviewing talented tenth stance in 1948, he said, “I assumed that with knowledge sacrifice would automatically follow.” Rather, he insisted selfishness was a far greater impulse. He criticized himself for not realizing that most in a privileged group would tend to constitute themselves as an aristocracy, rather than a leadership connected to the masses and their uplift. In the year that he published in Talented Tenth essay he published The Souls of Black Folk. He made the famous prediction that the problem of the twentieth century would be the problem of the color line. What he meant was that liberal, or bourgeois democracy, could not advance, in fact would turn in upon itself, if the race issue went unresolved. While not being in the camp of liberalism, or of bourgeois democracy per se, he rightly understood that the obstacle to democracy for all excluded groups rested on resolving the race problem, especially the issue of black civil rights and the vote. But its resolution demanded the agency and activism of black folk, and black folk needed consistent and reliable leadership. At a time when Booker Washington was arguing that race and civil rights should be taken out of public and political discourse and that black leadership should take a back seat to white intellectuals, Du Bois argued the opposite. In 1948, he disappointedly concluded, most of the talented tenth abandoned its possible historic mission and became consumed in universal selfishness. He called for a new configuration of black leadership and black intellectuals. Rather than a talented tenth he called for a guiding one hundredth; a new leadership cadre drawn not only from the educated, certainly not from the ranks of those chosen “to lead Negroes” by white elites, but from the educated lower middle classes and the working masses. At this point he saw class origins and class loyalties as a critical determinant of black leadership.

With the Civil Rights and Black Power movements completed and civil rights legislation on the books, rather than a new racial democracy we witnessed a counter-revolution against black equality, rooted in preserving white racial privilege, branded as a new conservatism (Reaganism). Yet a small segment of blacks has progressed. A new talented tenth, which attempts to straddle the ideological divide between Booker T Washington and Du Bois. They claim Du Bois in words, but substantively are Bookerites.

Banner-Haley implies Du Bois ceased thinking after 1903, the year of The Souls of Black Folk. In truth, Du Bois became more radical the older he got. In the last quarter of his life he was a radical, anti-imperialist, socialist and communist. On this matter Martin Luther King Jr declared, ” We cannot talk of Dr Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact that he was a Communist in his later years.” Most scholars wish either to ignore this fact or claim that Du Bois had by the 1940’s lost his way and chosen “another path”.

The break by significant elements of the black elite with Du Bois started with the Cold War and McCarthyism. The US government labeled him “an agent of a foreign government ” for his pro-peace and anti-nuclear war stance. Many took solace in looking at the Du Bois of the early twentieth century, saying that his radicalism signified his separation from the struggle for black freedom. He was, they insisted, no longer a part of the civil rights movement, but of the far left. In the universities his name was seldom if ever mentioned. It was only with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that it became permissible to mention his name and write books and article on him. Still his radicalism was viewed as that of a disappointed and isolated elder. His detractors explained his radicalism as the result of bitterness towards the talented tenth and not of his on going engagement with the realities of racism, war, colonialism and imperialism. Du Bois biographer David Levering Lewis, along with Cornel West and most recently Harvard professor Martin Kilson have looked on the last quarter of Du Bois’ life as a rupture with his “great period”, the period before 1945.

If we, as Dr King suggests, look at Du Bois’ life as a whole and view his latter years as part of an intellectual and scientific continuum of philosophical and practical development of the race question, his radicalism makes all the sense in the world. Elite African American intellectuals, most educated in white universities and who teach in these institutions, have made a break with Du Bois, while many, oddly enough, claim to be Du Boisian. American liberalism reached its high point in the 1930’s with the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Since the 1980’s American democracy has become more right wing and more authoritarian and liberalism has become increasingly neo-liberal rationalizations of American empire. The banks, Wall Street and the military have undermined most avenues of democracy, including elections.

Black intellectuals in the second decade of the 21st century should not take a cue from Obama’s presidency, but from Du Bois. They should stop being afraid of Du Bois’ radicalism and anti-imperialism and end their cow towing to the conservatism of the white academic establishment. King, one of the greatest black intellectuals was right, “It is time to cease muting the fact that Dr. Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a Communist. Our obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires.”

Charles Pete Banner-Haley’s book is a political failure, but more, it distorts the truth and obscures the paths to developing a 21st century radical African American intelligentsia. Anchored in Obamism, and by implication neo-liberalism, Banner-Haley is blind to the real history of black intellectuals and of Du Bois. We do need a history of black intellectuals, (a project that professor Martin Kilson for some years has been working on) which is not an apologia for American capitalism and empire. We need 21st century intellectuals who are not afraid to reject neo-liberalism, who will speak the truth about the Obama Administration and race and US Empire, who are not fearful of criticizing free market capitalism, and indeed like Du Bois stand for a human future beyond capitalism. Black folk need a new radical intelligentsia in the Du Boisian tradition.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Howard Zinn: Historian, Critic, Activist, Public Intellectual, 1922-2010

Howard Zinn
1922-2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29zinn.html

All,

There is a great deal of loose, self serving, and irresponsible talk about "public intellectuals" in American culture and politics today. Many have been given this distinct and even rare honor but the truth is many if not most of those so anointed don't really deserve the honor. The reason is that being a true public intellectual requires far more than merely acquiring a bunch of college degrees or being lauded, even feted, by academe and the established order. In fact many of the most important, accomplished, and enduring public intellectuals over the past century in the United States either didn't attend college at all or stopped attending altogether before going on to the so-called hallowed halls of graduate school where far too many keen and inquiring minds have been wasted and discarded by the lazy, unexamined dogmas and doctrines of the academy.

Thankfully Howard Zinn was a human being, scholar, historian, critic, and activist who truly embodied and epitomized the very best in the public intellectual tradition despite having three academic degrees. He did so because he was always even more personally committed to the larger transformation of society via a deeply passionate and disciplined engagement with the struggles of the working classes and the poor, the oppressed and exploited, the disenfranchised and discarded. It was this lifelong personal, intellectual, and political involvement that further enhanced and grounded his outstanding scholarly work in social , cultural, and political history and philosophy. In a period where so many are tragically addicted to the shallowness, narcissism, and inanity of 'celebrity culture--a social disease that has even penetrated the formerly immune worlds of historical scholarship, social activism and teaching--it was individuals like Howard Zinn (and generational friends and colleagues like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Ralph Nader, Amiri Baraka, and Toni Morrison) who have kept the serious, mature, and committed public intellectual tradition alive and thriving amidst all the distracting hype, noise, and nonsense of contemporary American life.

So thank you Mr. Zinn. Your extraordinary work and life will continue to serve as an inspiration and a beacon for those who still love, respect, and honor what is most valuable and useful in our lives as activists, artists, intellectuals, and human beings.

Kofi


Interview with Howard Zinn at University of California Berkeley (Video)














Howard Zinn, Historian, Is Dead at 87

By MICHAEL POWELL
Published: January 28, 2010
New York Times

Howard Zinn, historian and shipyard worker, civil rights activist and World War II bombardier, and author of “A People’s History of the United States,” a best seller that inspired a generation of high school and college students to rethink American history, died Wednesday in Santa Monica, Calif. He was 87 and lived in Auburndale, Mass.

The cause was a heart attack he had while swimming, his family said.

Proudly, unabashedly radical, with a mop of white hair and bushy eyebrows and an impish smile, Mr. Zinn, who retired from the history faculty at Boston University two decades ago, delighted in debating ideological foes, not the least his own college president, and in lancing what he considered platitudes, not the least that American history was a heroic march toward democracy.

Almost an oddity at first, with a printing of just 4,000 in 1980, “A People’s History of the United States” has sold nearly two million copies. To describe it as a revisionist account is to risk understatement. A conventional historical account held no allure; he concentrated on what he saw as the genocidal depredations of Christopher Columbus, the blood lust of Theodore Roosevelt and the racial failings of Abraham Lincoln. He also shined an insistent light on the revolutionary struggles of impoverished farmers, feminists, laborers and resisters of slavery and war.

Such stories are more often recounted in textbooks today; they were not at the time.

“Our nation had gone through an awful lot — the Vietnam War, civil rights, Watergate — yet the textbooks offered the same fundamental nationalist glorification of country,” Mr. Zinn recalled in a recent interview with The New York Times. “I got the sense that people were hungry for a different, more honest take.”

In a Times book review, the historian Eric Foner wrote of the book that “historians may well view it as a step toward a coherent new version of American history.” But many historians, even those of liberal bent, took a more skeptical view.

“What Zinn did was bring history writing out of the academy, and he undid much of the frankly biased and prejudiced views that came before it,” said Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton University. “But he’s a popularizer, and his view of history is topsy-turvy, turning old villains into heroes, and after a while the glow gets unreal.”

That criticism barely raised a hair on Mr. Zinn’s neck. “It’s not an unbiased account; so what?” he said in the Times interview. “If you look at history from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated, it’s a different story.”

Few historians succeeded in passing so completely through the academic membrane into popular culture. He gained admiring mention in the movie “Good Will Hunting”; Matt Damon appeared in a History Channel documentary about him; and Bruce Springsteen said the starkest of his many albums, “Nebraska,” drew inspiration in part from Mr. Zinn’s writings.

Born Aug. 24, 1922, Howard Zinn grew up in New York City. His parents were Jewish immigrants, and his father ran candy stores during the Depression without much success.

“We moved a lot, one step ahead of the landlord,” Mr. Zinn recalled. “I lived in all of Brooklyn’s best slums.”

He graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School and became a pipe fitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where he met his future wife, Roslyn Shechter. Raised on Charles Dickens, he later added Karl Marx to his reading, organized labor rallies and got decked by a billy-club-wielding cop.

He joined the Army Air Corps in 1943, eager to fight the fascists, and became a bombardier in a B-17. He watched his bombs rain down and, when he returned to New York, deposited his medals in an envelope and wrote: “Never Again.”

“I would not deny that war had a certain moral core, but that made it easier for Americans to treat all subsequent wars with a kind of glow,” Mr. Zinn said. “Every enemy becomes Hitler.”

He and his wife lived in a rat-infested basement apartment as he dug ditches and worked in a brewery. Later they moved to public housing and he went to college on the G.I. Bill.

He earned a B.A. at New York University and master’s and doctoral degrees at Columbia University. In 1956 he landed a job at Spellman College, a historically black women’s college, as chairman of the history department. Among his students were Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund; Alice Walker, the novelist; and the singer and composer Bernice Johnson Reagon.

Mr. Zinn served on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and marched for civil rights with his students, which angered Spellman’s president.

“I was fired for insubordination,” he recalled. “Which happened to be true.”

Mr. Zinn moved to Boston University in 1964. He traveled with the Rev. Daniel Berrigan to Hanoi to receive prisoners released by the North Vietnamese, and produced the antiwar books “Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal” (1967) and “Disobedience and Democracy” (1968).

He waged a war of attrition with Boston University’s president at the time, John Silber, a political conservative. Mr. Zinn twice organized faculty votes to oust Mr. Silber, and Mr. Silber returned the favor, saying the professor was a sterling example of those who would “poison the well of academe.”

Mr. Zinn’s book “La Guardia in Congress” (1959) won the American Historical Association’s Albert J. Beveridge Award. “A publisher went so far as to publish my quotations, which my wife thought was ridiculous,” Mr. Zinn said. “She said, ‘What are you, the pope or Mao Tse-Tung?’ ”

Mr. Zinn retired in 1988, concluding his last class early so he could join a picket line. He invited his students to join him.

Mr. Zinn wrote three plays: “Daughter of Venus,” “Marx in Soho” and “Emma,” about the life of the anarchist Emma Goldman. All have been produced. His last article was a rather bleak assessment of President Obama for The Nation. “I’ve been searching hard for a highlight,” he wrote.

Rosyln Zinn died in 2008. Mr. Zinn is survived by a daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of Lexington, Mass.; a son, Jeff Zinn, of Wellfleet, Mass.; and five grandchildren.

Mr. Zinn spoke recently of more work to come. The title of his memoir, he noted, best described his personal philosophy: “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.”



Howard Zinn
Born
August 24, 1922
Brooklyn, New York, U.S.
Died
January 27, 2010 (aged 87)
Santa Monica, California
Occupation
Professor, Historian, Playwright

Spouse(s)
Roslyn Zinn (died 2008)


Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010) was an American historian and Professor of Political Science at Boston University from 1964 to 1988.[2] He was the author of more than 20 books, including A People's History of the United States (1980). Zinn was active in the civil rights, civil liberties and anti-war movements in the United States, and wrote extensively on all three subjects.


Life and career

Early life

Zinn was born to a Jewish immigrant family in Brooklyn. His father, Eddie Zinn, born in Austria-Hungary, immigrated to the U.S. with his brother Phil before the outbreak of World War I. Howard's mother Jenny Zinn emigrated from the Eastern Siberian city of Irkutsk.

Both parents were factory workers with limited education when they met and married, and there were no books or magazines in the series of apartments where they raised their children. Zinn's parents introduced him to literature by sending 25 cents plus a coupon to the New York Post for each of the 20 volumes of Charles Dickens' collected works.[3] He also studied creative writing at Thomas Jefferson High School in a special program established by poet Elias Lieberman.[4]


World War II

Zinn eagerly joined the Army Air Force during World War II to fight fascism, and he bombed targets in Berlin, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.[5] Zinn's later anti-war stance was, in part, informed by his own experiences in the military. In April, 1945, he participated in one of the first military uses of napalm, which took place in Royan, France.[6]

The bombings were aimed at German soldiers who were, in Zinn's words, hiding and waiting out the closing days of the war. The attacks killed not only the German soldiers but also French civilians, facts Zinn uncovered nine years after the bombings when he visited Royan to examine documents and interview residents. In his books, The Politics of History and The Zinn Reader, he described how the bombing was ordered at the war's end by decision-makers most probably motivated by the desire for career advancement rather than for legitimate military objectives.

Zinn said his experience as a bombardier, combined with his research into the reasons for and effects of the bombing of Royan, sensitized him to the ethical dilemmas faced by G.I.s during wartime.[7] Zinn questioned the justifications for military operations inflicting civilian casualties in the Allied bombing of cities such as Dresden, Royan, Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Hanoi during the U.S. war in Vietnam, and Baghdad during the U.S. war in Iraq. In his pamphlet "Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence", Zinn laid out the case against targeting civilians.[8]


Education

After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951 and Columbia University, where he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958). His master's thesis examined the Colorado coal strikes of 1914.[9] His doctoral dissertation LaGuardia in Congress was a study of Fiorello LaGuardia's congressional career, and it depicted LaGuardia representing "the conscience of the twenties" as LaGuardia fought for public power, the right to strike, and the redistribution of wealth by taxation.[9] "His specific legislative program," Zinn wrote, "was an astonishingly accurate preview of the New Deal." It was published by the Cornell University Press for the American Historical Association. While at Columbia, his professors included Harry Carman, Henry Steele Commager, and David Donald.[9] La Guardia in Congress won the American Historical Association's Beveridge Prize as the best English-language book on American history.

He was also a post-doctoral Fellow in East Asian Studies at Harvard University from 1960 to 1961.


Academic career

Zinn was Professor of History at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia from 1956 to 1963. Later he was Professor of Political Science, Boston University from 1964 to 1988. He was also Visiting Professor at both the University of Paris and University of Bologna.

Zinn came to believe that the point of view expressed in traditional history books was often limited. He wrote a history textbook, A People's History of the United States, to provide other perspectives on American history. The textbook depicts the struggles of Native Americans against European and U.S. conquest and expansion, slaves against slavery, unionists and other workers against capitalists, women against patriarchy, and African-Americans for civil rights. The book was a finalist for the National Book Award in 1981.[10]

In the years since the first edition of A People's History was published in 1980, it has been used as an alternative to standard textbooks in many high school and college history courses, and it is one of the most widely known examples of critical pedagogy. According to the New York Times Book Review it "routinely sells more than 100,000 copies a year".[11]

In 2004, Zinn published Voices of A People's History of the United States with Anthony Arnove. Voices expands on the concept of ""A People's History and it provides a large collection of dissident voices in long form. It is intended as a companion to A People's History and it parallels its structure.

The People Speak, scheduled for release on DVD in February 2010, is a documentary movie inspired by the lives of ordinary people who fought back against oppressive conditions over the course of the history of the United States. The film includes performances by Zinn, Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Viggo Mortensen, Josh Brolin, Danny Glover, Marisa Tomei, Don Cheadle, and Sandra Oh.[12][13][14]


Civil Rights movement

In 1956, Zinn was appointed chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, where he participated in the Civil Rights movement. There he lobbied with historian August Meier[15] "to end the practice of the Southern Historical Association of holding meetings at segregated hotels."[16]

At Spelman, Zinn served as an adviser to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and in 1964, he wrote the book SNCC: The New Abolitionists. He also collaborated with historian Staughton Lynd and mentored young student activists, among them writer Alice Walker and Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president of the Children’s Defense Fund. In a journal article, Edelman discusses Zinn as a major influence in her life and she tells of his accompanying students to a sit-in at the segregated white section of the Georgia state legislature.[17]

Although Zinn was a tenured professor, he was dismissed in June 1963, after siding with students in their desire to challenge Spelman's traditional emphasis on turning out "young ladies" when, as Zinn described in an article in The Nation, Spelman students were likely to be found on the picket line, or in jail for participating in the greater effort to break down segregation in public places in Atlanta. Zinn's years at Spelman are recounted in his autobiography You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times. His seven years at Spelman College, Zinn said, "are probably the most interesting, exciting, most educational years for me. I learned more from my students than my students learned from me."[18]

While at Spelman, Zinn wrote that he observed 30 violations of the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution in Albany, Georgia, including the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and equal protection under the law. In an article on the civil rights movement in Albany, Zinn described the people who participated in the Freedom Rides to end segregation, and the reluctance of President John F. Kennedy to enforce the law.[19] Zinn has also pointed out that the Justice Department under Robert F. Kennedy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, headed by J. Edgar Hoover, did little or nothing to stop the segregationists from brutalizing civil rights workers.[20]

Zinn wrote frequently about the struggle for civil rights, both as a participant and as a historian[21] His second book, The Southern Mystique[22] was published in the same year as his book on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), 1964. In his book on the SNCC, Zinn describes how the sit-ins against segregation were initiated by students and, in that sense, were independent from the efforts of the older, more established civil rights organizations.

He returned to Spelman in 2005 to give the commencement address.[23][24] His speech "Against Discouragement,"[25] is available online at numerous sources.


Anti-war efforts

Fresh from writing two books about his research, observations, and participation in the Civil Rights movement in the South, Zinn accepted a position in the political science department at Boston University in 1964. His classes in civil liberties were among the most popular offered at BU with as many as 400 students subscribing each semester to the non-required class. He taught at BU for 24 years and retired in 1988. Zinn wrote one of the earliest books calling for the U.S. withdrawal from its war in VietNam. VietNam: The Logic of Withdrawal was published by Beacon Press in 1967 after articles that would later form the basis for the book had appeared in Commonwealth, The Nation, The Register-Leader, and Ramparts.

Zinn was a member of the Advisory Board of the Disarm Education Fund.[26]


Vietnam

Zinn's diplomatic visit to Hanoi with Rev. Daniel Berrigan, during the Tet Offensive in January 1968, resulted in the return of three American airmen, the first American POWs released by the North Vietnamese since the U.S. bombing of that nation had begun. The event was widely reported in the news media and discussed in a variety of books including Who Spoke Up? American Protest Against the War in Vietnam 1963–1975 by Nancy Zaroulis and Gerald Sullivan.[27] Zinn and the Berrigan brothers, Dan and Philip, remained friends and allies over the years.

Daniel Ellsberg, a former RAND consultant who had secretly copied The Pentagon Papers, which described the internal planning and policy decisions of the United States government during the Vietnam War, gave a copy of them to Howard and Roslyn Zinn.[28] Along with Noam Chomsky, Zinn edited and annotated the copy of The Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg entrusted to him. Zinn's longtime publisher, Beacon Press, published what has come to be known as the Senator Mike Gravel edition of The Pentagon Papers, four volumes plus a fifth volume with analysis by Chomsky and Zinn.

At Ellsberg's criminal trial for theft, conspiracy, and espionage in connection with the publication of the Pentagon Papers by The New York Times, defense attorneys called Zinn as an expert witness to explain to the jury the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam from World War II to 1963. Zinn discussed that history for several hours, later reflecting on his time before the jury. "I explained there was nothing in the papers of military significance that could be used to harm the defense of the United States, that the information in them was simply embarrassing to our government because what was revealed, in the government's own interoffice memos, was how it had lied to the American public. The secrets disclosed in the Pentagon Papers might embarrass politicians, might hurt the profits of corporations wanting tin, rubber, oil, in far-off places. But this was not the same as hurting the nation, the people," Zinn wrote in his autobiography. Most of the jurors later said that they voted for acquittal. [p. 161] However, the federal judge dismissed the case on the ground that it had been tainted by President Nixon's administration's burglary of the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist.

Zinn's testimony as to the motivation for government secrecy was confirmed in 1989 by Erwin Griswold, who as U.S. solicitor general during the Nixon administration, prosecuted The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971.[29] Griswold persuaded three Supreme Court justices to vote to stop The New York Times from continuing to publish the Pentagon Papers, an order known as "prior restraint" that has been held to be illegal under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The papers were simultaneously published in The Washington Post, effectively nulling the effect of the prior restraint order. In 1989, Griswold admitted that there was no national security damage resulting from the publication of the papers.[29] In a column in the Washington Post, Griswold wrote: "It quickly becomes apparent to any person who has considerable experience with classified material that there is massive over classification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another."

Zinn supported the G.I. antiwar movement during the U.S. war in Vietnam. In the 2001 film Unfinished Symphony, Zinn provides a historical context for the 1971 antiwar march by Vietnam Veterans against the War. The marchers traveled from Lexington, Massachusetts, to Bunker Hill, "which retraced Paul Revere's ride of 1775 and ended in the massive arrest of 410 veterans and civilians by the Lexington police." The film depicts "scenes from the 1971,[30] during which former G.I.s testified about atrocities" they either participated in or witnessed in Vietnam.[31]


Iraq

Zinn opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and wrote several books about it. He asserted that the U.S. would end its war with, and occupation of, Iraq when resistance within the military increased, in the same way resistance within the military contributed to ending the U.S. war in Vietnam. He compared the demand by a growing number of contemporary U.S. military families to end the war in Iraq to the parallel "in the Confederacy in the Civil War, when the wives of soldiers rioted because their husbands were dying and the plantation owners were profiting from the sale of cotton, refusing to grow grains for civilians to eat."[32] Zinn argued that "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable."[33]

Jean-Christophe Agnew, Professor of History and American Studies at Yale University, told the Yale Daily News in May 2007 that Zinn’s historical work is "highly influential and widely used".[34] He observed that it is not unusual for prominent professors such as Zinn to weigh in on current events, citing a resolution opposing the war in Iraq that was recently ratified by the American Historical Association.[35] Agnew added, “In these moments of crisis, when the country is split — so historians are split.”[36]


Death

While traveling, Zinn died of an apparent heart attack while swimming[37] in Santa Monica, California on January 27, 2010. He is survived by his daughter Myla Kabat-Zinn, son Jeff Zinn and five grandchildren.[38]


Awards

Zinn received the Thomas Merton Award and the Eugene V. Debs Award. In 1998, he won the Lannan Literary Award[39] for nonfiction and the following year won the Upton Sinclair Award, which honors social activism. In 2003, Zinn was awarded the Prix des Amis du Monde diplomatique[40] for the French version of his seminal work, Une histoire populaire des Etats-Unis.

On October 5, 2006, Zinn received the Haven's Center Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship in Madison, Wisconsin.[41]





Howard Zinn

Bibliography

Artists in Times of War (2003) ISBN 1-58322-602-8.
The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years (Noam Chomsky (Editor) Authors: Ira Katznelson, R. C. Lewontin, David Montgomery, Laura Nader, Richard Ohmann,[42] Ray Siever, Immanuel Wallerstein, Howard Zinn (1997) ISBN 1-56584-005-4.
Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology (1991) ISBN 0-06-092108-0[43]
Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order (1968, re-issued 2002) ISBN 0-89608-675-5.
Emma: A Play in Two Acts About Emma Goldman, American Anarchist (2002) ISBN 0-89608-664-X.
Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian (1993) ISBN 0-89608-676-3.
The Future of History: Interviews With David Barsamian (1999) ISBN 1-56751-157-0.
Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence (pamphlet, 1995) ISBN 1-884519-14-8.
Howard Zinn On Democratic Education Donaldo Macedo, Editor (2004) ISBN 1-59451-054-7.
Howard Zinn on History (2000) ISBN 1-58322-048-8.
Howard Zinn on War (2000) ISBN 1-58322-049-6.
You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times (1994) ISBN 0-8070-7127-7
Justice in Everyday Life: The Way It Really Works (Editor) (1974) ISBN 0-89608-677-1.
Justice? Eyewitness Accounts (1977) ISBN 0-8070-4479-2.
La Otra Historia De Los Estados Unidos (2000) ISBN 1-58322-054-2.
LaGuardia in Congress (1959) ISBN 0-8371-6434-6, ISBN 0-393-00488-0.
Marx in Soho: A Play on History (1999) ISBN 0-89608-593-7.
New Deal Thought (editor) (1965) ISBN 0-87220-685-8.
Original Zinn: Conversations on History and Politics (2006) Howard Zinn and David Barsamian.
Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice (2003) ISBN 0-06-055767-2.
The Pentagon Papers Senator Gravel Edition. Vol. Five. Critical Essays. Boston. Beacon Press, 1972. 341p. plus 72p. of Index to Vol. I-IV of the Papers, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, editors.
A People's History of the Civil War: Struggles for the Meaning of Freedom by David Williams, Howard Zinn (Series Editor) (2005) ISBN 1-59558-018-2.
A People's History of the United States: 1492 – Present (1980), revised (1995)(1998)(1999)(2003) ISBN 0-06-052837-0.
A People's History of the United States: Teaching Edition Abridged (2003 updated) ISBN 1-56584-826-8.
A People's History of the United States: The Civil War to the Present Kathy Emery Ellen Reeves Howard Zinn (2003 teaching edition) ISBN 1-56584-725-3.
A People's History of the United States: The Wall Charts by Howard Zinn and George Kirschner (1995) ISBN 1-56584-171-9.
A People's History of American Empire (2008) by Howard Zinn, Mike Konopacki and Paul Buhle. ISBN 978-0805087444.
The People Speak: American Voices, Some Famous, Some Little Known (2004) ISBN 0-06-057826-2.
Playbook by Maxine Klein, Lydia Sargent and Howard Zinn (1986) ISBN 0-89608-309-8.
The Politics of History (1970) (2nd edition 1990) ISBN 0-252-06122-5.
Postwar America: 1945 – 1971 (1973) ISBN 0-89608-678-X.
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress (2006) ISBN 978-0872864757.
The Power of Nonviolence: Writings by Advocates of Peace Editor (2002) ISBN 0-8070-1407-9.
SNCC: The New Abolitionists (1964) ISBN 0-89608-679-8.
The Southern Mystique (1962) ISBN 0-89608-680-1.
Terrorism and War (2002) ISBN 1-58322-493-9 (interviews, Anthony Arnove (Ed.)).
The Twentieth Century: A People's History (2003) ISBN 0-06-053034-0.
Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century (Dana Frank, Robin Kelley, and Howard Zinn) (2002) ISBN 0-8070-5013-X.
Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal (1967) ISBN 0-89608-681-X.
Voices of a People’s History of the United States (with Anthony Arnove, 2004) ISBN 1-58322-647-8.
A Young People's History of the United States, adapted from the original text by Rebecca Stefoff; illustrated and updated through 2006, with new introduction and afterword by Howard Zinn; two volumes, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2007.
Vol. 1: Columbus to the Spanish-American War. ISBN 978-1-58322-759-6.
Vol. 2: Class Struggle to the War on Terror. ISBN 978-1-58322-760-2.
The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy (1997) ISBN 1-888363-54-1.

Contributor

Admirable Radical: Staughton Lynd and Cold War Dissent, 1945–1970 (2010), Kent State University Press by Carl Mirra ISBN 978-1-60635-051-5
A Gigantic Mistake by Mickey Z, (2004) ISBN 1-930997-97-3.
A People's History of the Supreme Court by Peter H. Irons (2000) ISBN 0-14-029201-2.
A Political Dynasty In North Idaho, 1933-1967 by Randall Doyle (2004) ISBN 0-7618-2843-5.
American Political Prisoners: Prosecutions Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts by Stephen M. Kohn (1994) ISBN 0-275-94415-8.
American Power and the New Mandarins by Noam Chomsky (2002) ISBN 1-56584-775-X.
Broken Promises Of America: At Home And Abroad, Past And Present: An Encyclopedia For Our Times by (Douglas F. Dowd (2004) ISBN 1-56751-313-1.
Deserter From Death: Dispatches From Western Europe 1950-2000 by Daniel Singer (2005) ISBN 1-56025-642-7.
Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples by Donald Grinde, Bruce Johansen (1994) ISBN 0-940666-52-9.
Eugene V. Debs Reader: Socialism and the Class Struggle by William A. Pelz (2000) ISBN 0-9704669-0-0.
From a Native Son: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1985 – 1995 by Ward Churchill (1996) ISBN 0-89608-553-8.
Green Parrots: A War Surgeon's Diary by Gino Strada, (2005) ISBN 88-8158-420-4.
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear And The Selling Of American Empire by Sut Jhally editor, Jeremy Earp editor, (2004) ISBN 1-56656-581-2.
If You're Not a Terrorist…Then Stop Asking Questions! by Micah Ian Wright, (2004) ISBN 1-58322-626-5.
Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal by Anthony Arnove, (2006) ISBN 978-1-59558-079-5.
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney Dennis Loo (Editor), Peter Phillips (Editor) Seven Stories Press: 2006) ISBN 1583227431.
Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman Reader by Alexander Berkman Gene Fellner, editor, (2004) ISBN 1-58322-662-1.
Long Shadows: Veterans' Paths to Peace by David Giffey editor, (2006) ISBN 1-89185-964-9.
Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution Through the Clinton Years by Clara Nieto, Chris Brandt (trans) (2003) ISBN 1-58322-545-5.
Peace Signs: The Anti-War Movement Illustrated by James Mann, editor (2004) ISBN 3-283-00487-0.
Prayer for the Morning Headlines: On the Sanctity of Life and Death by Daniel Berrigan (poetry) and Adrianna Amari (photography), (2007) ISBN 978-1-934074-16-9.
Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-9-11 Anti-terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties by Nancy Chang, Center for Constitutional Rights (2002) ISBN 1-58322-494-7.
Soldiers In Revolt: GI Resistance During The Vietnam War by David Cortright, (2005) ISBN 1-931859-27-2.
Sold to the Highest Bidder: The Presidency from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush by Daniel M. Friedenberg (2002) ISBN 1-57392-923-9.
The Autobiography of Abbie Hoffman Intro by Norman Mailer, Afterword by HZ (2000) ISBN 1-56858-197-1.
The Case for Socialism by Alan Maass, (2004) ISBN 1-931859-09-4.
The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam, a History of U.S. Imperialism by Sidney Lens (2003) ISBN 0-7453-2101-1.
The Higher Law: Thoreau on Civil Disobedience and Reform by Henry David Thoreau, Wendell Glick, editor, (2004) ISBN 0-691-11876-0.
The Iron Heel by Jack London, (1971) ISBN 0-143-03971-7.
The Sixties Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America by Edward P. Morgan, (1992) ISBN 1-56639-014-1.
You Back the Attack, We'll Bomb Who We Want by Micah Ian Wright, (2003) ISBN 1-58322-584-6.
A People's History of the American Revolution by Ray Raphael, (2002) ISBN 0-06-000440-1 Howard Zinn Foreword for New Press People's History Series.

Recordings


A People's History of the United States (1999)
Artists in the Time of War (2002)
Heroes & Martyrs: Emma Goldman, Sacco & Vanzetti, and the Revolutionary Struggle (2000)
Stories Hollywood Never Tells (2000)
You Can't Blow Up A Social Relationship, CD including Zinn lectures and performances by rock band Resident genius (Thick Records, 2005)[44]

Theatre

Emma (1976)
Daughter of Venus (1985)
Marx in Soho (1999)

Biographies

Deb Ellis and Denis Mueller, Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (film 2004)[45]
Davis D. Joyce, Howard Zinn: A Radical American Vision (Prometheus Books, 2003), ISBN 1-59102-131-6