Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Zinng!

The writer who has done more than anyone else to make me re-think history, Howard Zinn, has published a fine piece in the January 2006 edition of The Progressive. In it, he discusses the prospect of building on the growing distaste for the war on Iraq to create momentum to end war itself.

Crazy, huh? He is, after all, usually referred to as "Howard Zinn, the radical historian." Here's a part of his answer:

There is a persistent argument against such a possibility, which I have heard from people on all parts of the political spectrum: We will never do away with war because it comes out of human nature. The most compelling counter to that claim is in history: We don't find people spontaneously rushing to make war on others. What we find, rather, is that governments must make the most strenuous efforts to mobilize populations for war. They must entice soldiers with promises of money, education, must hold out to young people whose chances in life look very poor that here is an opportunity to attain respect and status. And if those enticements don't work, governments must use coercion: They must conscript young people, force them into military service, threaten them with prison if they do not comply.

Furthermore, the government must persuade young people and their families that though the soldier may die, though he or she may lose arms or legs, or become blind, that it is all for a noble cause, for God, for country.

You can read the whole piece here.

And if you got gift certificates for Christmas, and you don't already own A People's History of the United States, you now know what to buy.

Thanks to TruthOut.org for calling my attention to Zinn's piece.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fascinating point of view -- that governments have had to entice and coerce citizens to war. As one who came out early and often against this war, I'm fascinated by those who have changed their minds since it began. (And according to polls, there are many of you out there.) What were you thinking when it started? That no one really would die? That the Iraqis would welcome us? That WMD made it all worthwhile?

Another thing: I don't buy Colin Powell's argument that if we break it, we've bought it. Get out of there. Now.

bjkeefe said...

You don't think that as soon as we left, the simmering tensions already present would explode into an all-out civil war?

Anonymous said...

I think that will happen -- whether we leave now or five years from now. You cannot graft a democracy onto a country that has no history of democracy.

bjkeefe said...

You know, my old boss, who came from Hong Kong, said almost that exact thing to me once.

The sad part is, I'm afraid that you're both right.

I used to be more idealistic.

bjkeefe said...

Here's a follow-up to the original post, and not really so much a response to the comments posted thus far.

I once read in a pretty cool book, whose title I wish I could remember, a dialog wherein the first speaker makes the usual argument that organized religion is the root cause of all wars.

Our heroine responds, "Religion isn't the reason for war. It's just the excuse."

Anonymous said...

Yeah. How many wars have been fought in the name of peace?

ShareThis