• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

4: Tyranny is Tyranny

#153: July - Sept. 2017 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

4: Tyranny is Tyranny

Unread post

Howard Zinn would see recent Fourth of July celebrations as perpetuating a myth that, just as we all commemorate together the declaration of separation from England, we joined the ensuing struggle in 1776 as a united people. We learned in history class about the loyalists to England, those recalcitrants who failed to rally to the cause of liberty. I remember assuming, even if teachers didn't say it, that cowardice was the reason for their being "turncoats," even though the label isn't accurate. They were just a handful of bad apples anyway (no, Wikipedia says there were as many as 400,000, or 15-20 percent of the population). Zinn says that the reason for loyalism has more to do with the bitter experience of colonists with the wealthy elite who controlled the economy and society and were seen by many, claims Zinn, as more oppressive than the mother country. The discontent, riots, and protests that Zinn tells of were as much against local establishments as they were against England. Zinn then describes machinations of colonial leaders to direct popular rage to their preferred target, the British. That was the way for the elite to capture the wealth being lost to England. But this was a tricky dance, because power should not be given to "the mob;" democracy should not be allowed to rear its ugly head. Accordingly, leaders stressed their interest in enlisting the "middling classes" of mechanics, tradesmen, and small merchants.

The question here might not be whether Zinn is right or wrong in charging that it was not in the real interests of the middle classes to go in with the wealthy, and was not in fact a free choice but one brought about through manipulation. The question might be whether such a charge can be evaluated in any summary fashion, given the complexity of the data. My opinion is that it can't be and that history isn't put to its best use in trying. But Zinn has made me consider the interesting aspect of this bifurcation of resentment that I'm sure did exist, variously against the Crown on the one hand and the representatives of the Crown who would have been seen as abusing their authority, on the other. And the loyalists or Tories may come out better than I ever had imagined possible.
User avatar
Cattleman
Way Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1141
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:19 pm
11
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: 4: Tyranny is Tyranny

Unread post

After reading this chapter, I looked up Zinn. Not surprisingly, he refers (referred?) to himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." It is obvious he takes the Marxist view of history, that it is an unending class struggle between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.' I will admit there is some validity to his position, a bit too simplistic to me. The wealthy colonists may have been primarily interested in maintaining their position (at the top of the food chain), but they were also risking life and limb for their position. Had the revolution failed, Washington, Adams (John and Samuel), Hancock, and all the rest would have been imprisoned, or more likely, hanged.
Love what you do, and do what you love. Don't listen to anyone else who tells you not to do it. -Ray Bradbury

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. -Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: 4: Tyranny is Tyranny

Unread post

Cattleman wrote:Zinn referred to himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." It is obvious he takes the Marxist view of history, that it is an unending class struggle between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'
It is interesting, with such an approach, to consider the chain of reasoning. Does Zinn start from righteous indignation at the inequality and injustice and oppression of the world, and develop his theory of socialism as a response to these problems? Or does he start from the principle of the ideal socialist society, where government enforces equality of outcomes, and then use these examples of outrage from history to justify his principle?
Cattleman wrote: I will admit there is some validity to his position, a bit too simplistic to me.
I agree that socialist politics is simplistic, given its syndrome of failing to deliver on its promises. If you look around the world to see which societies have succeeded in reducing poverty, the common factor is the creation of wealth through free enterprise. Even the Scandinavian social democrats have relied on having a strong capitalist wealth creating sector to generate the resources for redistribution.
Cattleman wrote: The wealthy colonists may have been primarily interested in maintaining their position (at the top of the food chain), but they were also risking life and limb for their position.
It is often the case that the wealthy are actually more talented and capable than the poor, with greater courage and willingness to take risks, and these traits have much to do with their success. Zinn seems to reject that possibility out of hand, due to his socialist values which assume Jack is as good as his master. In principle, it is entirely just that the best citizens should rule, but the problem is that we do not know who the best are. Even the most ethical person requires democratic constraints in order to prevent them from abusing their power.
Cattleman wrote: Had the revolution failed, Washington, Adams (John and Samuel), Hancock, and all the rest would have been imprisoned, or more likely, hanged.
I think that there was little prospect of long term British control of the USA. Even if things had gone better for the crown it would only have delayed independence. That is partly because there were already a lot of Germans in America who would never submit to rule from London.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: 4: Tyranny is Tyranny

Unread post

DWill wrote:Howard Zinn would see recent Fourth of July celebrations as perpetuating a myth that, just as we all commemorate together the declaration of separation from England, we joined the ensuing struggle in 1776 as a united people.
Zinn's program is actually the same as that of most of leftist (or "critical") historians these days. He just wants to tell the other side of the story. The old mode of telling history was all about why this or that group came to domination. Professional historians these days (my brother-in-law is one) generally recognize that lots of lives were destroyed in the process, and that the domination systems were not healthy for human culture. They therefore make a profession of finding the (limited) sources which tell how things went down for the common people. And, not surprisingly, some of the most interesting and "telling" aspects of that concern their oppression by the masters.
DWill wrote:Zinn says that the reason for loyalism has more to do with the bitter experience of colonists with the wealthy elite who controlled the economy and society and were seen by many, claims Zinn, as more oppressive than the mother country.
Okay, but I think that is "some" loyalists. The typical attitude of the frontiersman seems to have been that he wanted to escape and avoid the maneuvers of the lords and lawyers (getting this from Zinn, entirely). Zinn gives good reason why this should be so - the Patriots were out to replace the British lords with their own commanding position.

I'm not sure I buy it. Washington, probably the richest American at the time, had his hands full with his plantation and left it only because he was more ambitious than the "Cincinnatus" myth would have us believe. I don't think he really wanted to become a baron or a duke who would rule over a large area and lead serfs in defending it. The Patriots seemed to be "middle class" in sensibility in that way. They were generally rich beyond their wildest imaginings growing up, and probably just wanted the Brits not to take it for the support of their Empire. (Famously, Franklin and Jefferson were inventors and scientists. In that sense, as well as the generally well-read status of the Patriots, they seemed more like the aristocrats of Europe who did much of the science. As interested in intellectual pursuits made possible by leisure as in domination and social status.)
DWill wrote:But this was a tricky dance, because power should not be given to "the mob;" democracy should not be allowed to rear its ugly head. Accordingly, leaders stressed their interest in enlisting the "middling classes" of mechanics, tradesmen, and small merchants.
The same dance of extending the franchise for political leverage went on in Britain at the time. But in America this analysis is up against a couple of serious problems. First, the idealism of Jefferson which became the mob rule led by Jackson was a real force. John Quincy Adams, for example, an intellectual snob and the son of the leading Federalist John Adams, joined right in partly because he really believed in democracy (and opposed slavery in Congress and famously argued against slavery in the Amistad case). Similar idealism can be seen in the maneuverings in the Disraeli/Gladstone years which brought universal male suffrage to England.

I don't mind Zinn's pointing out the complexities which can be read as manipulation by the ruling class, as part of "telling the other side." All well and good. But I find that when I come away from his presentation and reflect on things, I don't always come to the conclusions he wants to propose.
DWill wrote: And the loyalists or Tories may come out better than I ever had imagined possible.
Probably not. The Loyalists, especially those in power, seem to have been just as obnoxious as the Patriots.
Post Reply

Return to “A People's History of the United States - by Howard Zinn”