Get E-Mail Updates

Howard Zinn's Last Advice to Me (and America): 'Independence from the Military-Corporation'

100128-howard-zinnTuesday morning -- just two days ago -- I wrote to half a dozen leaders of progressive thought and action in America, each separately, the letter that follows. One of the people I wrote was the historian/activist Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States, whom I have known for 45 years or so. He responded just 90 minutes later, and his response is also below.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

All day yesterday I was meeting with doctors who cleared away the last of my medical barriers to travel and to risking arrest in nonviolent civil-disobedience actions. I intended this morning, Thursday morning, to write Howard back to ask how to follow up on his comments.

But I can't. Howard died yesterday, at 87. He was one of the wisest, gentlest, dryly good-humored of progressive thinkers and activists. The best of the America he celebrated in his bottom-up history, in which the energies and currents of Blacks, of workers, of women, of religious minorities, of war resisters, were the center -- not presidents and senators.

After I share with you this last exchange I'll be able to have with him -- perhaps the last commentary he made on the American political scene -- I'll share two stories -- one long ago that has stayed lit up for me all these years, and one very recent.

This is what I wrote him Tuesday morning:

Dear Howard,

It seems to me that the confluence of massive disemployment, plus knee-jerk militarism, plus stalemate on the climate crisis and on health care, plus the Supreme Court decision on corporate financing of elections, plus the use of the filibuster in the Senate -- all in what many assumed or hoped would be a year of major progressive change -- has shocked enough people that it should, and might, make possible a progressive coalition.

I'm imagining a coalition aimed at "independence from the military-corporate alliance," with a platform that includes strong planks on climate, jobs, health, ending the present wars, major reductions in the military, transforming campaign finance, and ending the filibuster.

Perhaps with rallies, vigils, sit-downs, etc in state capitals and other centers all around the country on July 4, and support for specific progressive candidates in the 2010 Congressional elections . Do you think this would make sense? How would it be possible to begin shaping such a coalition?

Shalom, salaam, shantih -- peace,
Arthur

And this letter back from Howard:

Arthur,

You are absolutely right, this is the time for the resurgence of a national movement that begins with a co-ordinated country-wide action.

The theme you describe, "independence from the military-corporation" is one that all sorts of people and groups can unite around. I believe millions, probably tens of millions of people are ready for this because there is little left of the early euphoria that greeted Obama's election.

A huge job to organize it, but it was done for Mobilization Day Oct.15,1969, and without the advantage of the Internet.

Someone or some group that is respected throughout the progressive movement would need to take the initiative and summon supporters. With blacks, Latinos, women prominent, and not disdaining celebrities. I think of Julian Bond, Danny Glover, Rosie Perez, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Matt Damon, Oprah, Alice Walker, Marian Wright Edelman -- some well-known clergy, you and others, some labor leaders. Maybe not that exact group, but just to suggest a direction. And a few super-organizers.
I'm not up for organizing these days, maybe for consultation, and whatever help I can give.

I was going to write Howard today to ask whether he'd invite some of those people and a few others to meet to talk about the possibilities.

Now -- is it possible to see those few words as a kind of legacy that we can turn into a new chapter of the "people's history"?

Two stories: In the mid-'60s, Howard spoke at some gathering in Washington about the Vietnam War. He said that most of the time, the American people -- any people -- walk around in the dark, bumping blindly into extremely dangerous and hurtful objects -- wars, depressions, racism, drug epidemics, police violence. Blind-sided, again and again.

But occasionally, some event would become a lightning flash, illuminating the structures of power behind these disasters. He said Vietnam had become a lightning flash. We were for the first time seeing the connections between the universities and the military; we were seeing the way children were channeled from their earliest years (without regard to their intelligence or creativity) into becoming factory workers, or unemployed, or lawyers, or

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: fundamentalist

01-29-2010 @ 3:02pm

The filibuster was an attempt to prevent the majority from running over the minority in this country and it needs to stay. We are not a democracy in which the will of 51% is sacred, holy and never to be tampered with. That is the tyranny of the majority. We are a Republic where minorities have rights that the majority can never take away.

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:03pm

How about allowing each Senator 1 hour of debate on a given bill? That hour could be surrendered in part or in whole to another Senator. Then after 100 hours of debate cloture could be called by a vote of a simple majority

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:07pm

Unless I am mistaken filibuster is not a constitutional right but a Senate rule. It was just a few years back that Republicans had a majority in the Senate and were threatening to change the rule in order to appoint conservative judges.

by: Ngchen

01-28-2010 @ 7:23pm

Filibuster reform is, or at least shouldn't be, simply a liberal/progressive issue. After all, filibusters hold up stuff favored by the right too. I believe that rather than abolishing them outright, reform by going back to the earlier rules requiring non-stop speechifying would be better. In practice, such would make filibusters such that they'd be employed only for the rare instances where a minority opposes something vehemently, and is willing to put forth the huge effort to stop it. Likewise, it would force the majority to fight hard for what IT wants. It would become again the rare spectacle it used to be.

by: SamHamilton

01-29-2010 @ 8:36pm

Brian Doherty of Reason had this to say about Zinn, which I think is insightful:

Let me preface this with: I'm sure Howard Zinn, who died today, thought or wrote all sorts of perfectly awful things. And I haven't read him or thought about him much in decades, and could no longer meaningfully discuss his work without hours of refreshing my mind.

But I'll say this for the very popular historian among the progressive left: when I, as a youngish libertarian around age 19 or so, read his million-selling A People's History of the United States, I had zero problem seeing in it enormous amounts of education and intellectual ammunition for my then and now general view of government as a historical criminal.

I even wrote an article for my college paper's entertainment supplement on the 4th of July on a tragical history tour of U.S. government crimes that I recall was largely sourced from him. He helped remind me that when it comes to history, politics, and knowledge in general, it's foolish to think that only the ideologically sympatico have valuable things to teach.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/27/howard-zinn-rip

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 3:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: fundamentalist

01-29-2010 @ 3:02pm

The filibuster was an attempt to prevent the majority from running over the minority in this country and it needs to stay. We are not a democracy in which the will of 51% is sacred, holy and never to be tampered with. That is the tyranny of the majority. We are a Republic where minorities have rights that the majority can never take away.

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:03pm

How about allowing each Senator 1 hour of debate on a given bill? That hour could be surrendered in part or in whole to another Senator. Then after 100 hours of debate cloture could be called by a vote of a simple majority

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:07pm

Unless I am mistaken filibuster is not a constitutional right but a Senate rule. It was just a few years back that Republicans had a majority in the Senate and were threatening to change the rule in order to appoint conservative judges.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 1:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: SamHamilton

01-29-2010 @ 8:36pm

Brian Doherty of Reason had this to say about Zinn, which I think is insightful:

Let me preface this with: I'm sure Howard Zinn, who died today, thought or wrote all sorts of perfectly awful things. And I haven't read him or thought about him much in decades, and could no longer meaningfully discuss his work without hours of refreshing my mind.

But I'll say this for the very popular historian among the progressive left: when I, as a youngish libertarian around age 19 or so, read his million-selling A People's History of the United States, I had zero problem seeing in it enormous amounts of education and intellectual ammunition for my then and now general view of government as a historical criminal.

I even wrote an article for my college paper's entertainment supplement on the 4th of July on a tragical history tour of U.S. government crimes that I recall was largely sourced from him. He helped remind me that when it comes to history, politics, and knowledge in general, it's foolish to think that only the ideologically sympatico have valuable things to teach.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/27/howard-zinn-rip

by: uberVU - social comments

01-30-2010 @ 6:39pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by BookstoreK: Howard Zinn's last advice to Rabbi Waskow, loved reading this! http://tinyurl.com/yc8rf7r...

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:22pm

Great Article. Howard Zinn helped change the way we view History. As a History teacher, I think his contribution has been amazing. He helped show us how life was from the view of the immigrant, worker, slave, and outcast. Hopefully, we can take Zinn's outlook and help shape our own way of viewing society.

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:24pm

You are exactly right. The filibuster was never guaranteed. It is simply a loophole which has been exploited lately. The supposed "rights" of the minority have helped prevent change greatly needed change for the masses, which in turn will endanger are whole democratic process.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 1:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:22pm

Great Article. Howard Zinn helped change the way we view History. As a History teacher, I think his contribution has been amazing. He helped show us how life was from the view of the immigrant, worker, slave, and outcast. Hopefully, we can take Zinn's outlook and help shape our own way of viewing society.

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:24pm

You are exactly right. The filibuster was never guaranteed. It is simply a loophole which has been exploited lately. The supposed "rights" of the minority have helped prevent change greatly needed change for the masses, which in turn will endanger are whole democratic process.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 3:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: Ngchen

01-28-2010 @ 7:23pm

Filibuster reform is, or at least shouldn't be, simply a liberal/progressive issue. After all, filibusters hold up stuff favored by the right too. I believe that rather than abolishing them outright, reform by going back to the earlier rules requiring non-stop speechifying would be better. In practice, such would make filibusters such that they'd be employed only for the rare instances where a minority opposes something vehemently, and is willing to put forth the huge effort to stop it. Likewise, it would force the majority to fight hard for what IT wants. It would become again the rare spectacle it used to be.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Ngchen

01-28-2010 @ 7:23pm

Filibuster reform is, or at least shouldn't be, simply a liberal/progressive issue. After all, filibusters hold up stuff favored by the right too. I believe that rather than abolishing them outright, reform by going back to the earlier rules requiring non-stop speechifying would be better. In practice, such would make filibusters such that they'd be employed only for the rare instances where a minority opposes something vehemently, and is willing to put forth the huge effort to stop it. Likewise, it would force the majority to fight hard for what IT wants. It would become again the rare spectacle it used to be.

by: fundamentalist

01-29-2010 @ 3:02pm

The filibuster was an attempt to prevent the majority from running over the minority in this country and it needs to stay. We are not a democracy in which the will of 51% is sacred, holy and never to be tampered with. That is the tyranny of the majority. We are a Republic where minorities have rights that the majority can never take away.

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:03pm

How about allowing each Senator 1 hour of debate on a given bill? That hour could be surrendered in part or in whole to another Senator. Then after 100 hours of debate cloture could be called by a vote of a simple majority

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:07pm

Unless I am mistaken filibuster is not a constitutional right but a Senate rule. It was just a few years back that Republicans had a majority in the Senate and were threatening to change the rule in order to appoint conservative judges.

by: SamHamilton

01-29-2010 @ 8:36pm

Brian Doherty of Reason had this to say about Zinn, which I think is insightful:

Let me preface this with: I'm sure Howard Zinn, who died today, thought or wrote all sorts of perfectly awful things. And I haven't read him or thought about him much in decades, and could no longer meaningfully discuss his work without hours of refreshing my mind.

But I'll say this for the very popular historian among the progressive left: when I, as a youngish libertarian around age 19 or so, read his million-selling A People's History of the United States, I had zero problem seeing in it enormous amounts of education and intellectual ammunition for my then and now general view of government as a historical criminal.

I even wrote an article for my college paper's entertainment supplement on the 4th of July on a tragical history tour of U.S. government crimes that I recall was largely sourced from him. He helped remind me that when it comes to history, politics, and knowledge in general, it's foolish to think that only the ideologically sympatico have valuable things to teach.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/27/howard-zinn-rip

by: SamHamilton

01-29-2010 @ 8:36pm

Brian Doherty of Reason had this to say about Zinn, which I think is insightful:

Let me preface this with: I'm sure Howard Zinn, who died today, thought or wrote all sorts of perfectly awful things. And I haven't read him or thought about him much in decades, and could no longer meaningfully discuss his work without hours of refreshing my mind.

But I'll say this for the very popular historian among the progressive left: when I, as a youngish libertarian around age 19 or so, read his million-selling A People's History of the United States, I had zero problem seeing in it enormous amounts of education and intellectual ammunition for my then and now general view of government as a historical criminal.

I even wrote an article for my college paper's entertainment supplement on the 4th of July on a tragical history tour of U.S. government crimes that I recall was largely sourced from him. He helped remind me that when it comes to history, politics, and knowledge in general, it's foolish to think that only the ideologically sympatico have valuable things to teach.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/27/howard-zinn-rip

by: uberVU - social comments

01-30-2010 @ 6:39pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by BookstoreK: Howard Zinn's last advice to Rabbi Waskow, loved reading this! http://tinyurl.com/yc8rf7r...

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:22pm

Great Article. Howard Zinn helped change the way we view History. As a History teacher, I think his contribution has been amazing. He helped show us how life was from the view of the immigrant, worker, slave, and outcast. Hopefully, we can take Zinn's outlook and help shape our own way of viewing society.

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:22pm

Great Article. Howard Zinn helped change the way we view History. As a History teacher, I think his contribution has been amazing. He helped show us how life was from the view of the immigrant, worker, slave, and outcast. Hopefully, we can take Zinn's outlook and help shape our own way of viewing society.

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:24pm

You are exactly right. The filibuster was never guaranteed. It is simply a loophole which has been exploited lately. The supposed "rights" of the minority have helped prevent change greatly needed change for the masses, which in turn will endanger are whole democratic process.

by: Will McCorkle

02-01-2010 @ 4:24pm

You are exactly right. The filibuster was never guaranteed. It is simply a loophole which has been exploited lately. The supposed "rights" of the minority have helped prevent change greatly needed change for the masses, which in turn will endanger are whole democratic process.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 1:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 1:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 3:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.

by: Ngchen

01-28-2010 @ 7:23pm

Filibuster reform is, or at least shouldn't be, simply a liberal/progressive issue. After all, filibusters hold up stuff favored by the right too. I believe that rather than abolishing them outright, reform by going back to the earlier rules requiring non-stop speechifying would be better. In practice, such would make filibusters such that they'd be employed only for the rare instances where a minority opposes something vehemently, and is willing to put forth the huge effort to stop it. Likewise, it would force the majority to fight hard for what IT wants. It would become again the rare spectacle it used to be.

by: fundamentalist

01-29-2010 @ 3:02pm

The filibuster was an attempt to prevent the majority from running over the minority in this country and it needs to stay. We are not a democracy in which the will of 51% is sacred, holy and never to be tampered with. That is the tyranny of the majority. We are a Republic where minorities have rights that the majority can never take away.

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:03pm

How about allowing each Senator 1 hour of debate on a given bill? That hour could be surrendered in part or in whole to another Senator. Then after 100 hours of debate cloture could be called by a vote of a simple majority

by: ckgmail

01-29-2010 @ 3:07pm

Unless I am mistaken filibuster is not a constitutional right but a Senate rule. It was just a few years back that Republicans had a majority in the Senate and were threatening to change the rule in order to appoint conservative judges.

by: bryan_85

02-06-2010 @ 3:36am

thanks to great writes such as noam chomsky, saul alinsky, ralph nader, and the great howard zinn for opening up my mind to the attrocities of the world.