author photo

Alfredo Prieto: I was born in Havana, a fact that’s not so common around here these days. Most of my family emigrated a long time ago to the United States, something that motivated me to study that country a little to try and understand it. I learned some English, and later I improved a bit more through direct contact with US citizens in their homes and above all in their universities. Later I found out that this was called “sleeping with the enemy”, but I confess that I never saw one in front of me. I’ve had many invitations, but as of six years ago I can’t go back because they changed the rules of the game. I’ve been the editor of the magazines, Cuadernos de Nuestra América, Temas and Caminos. I now work at the publishing house of the Cuban Writers and Artists Association (UNEAC) and I’m writing another book. Like my aunt, I am a declared fan of strawberry cheesecakes… and of Stevie Nicks, Fleetwood Mac’s ex. If any of you know her, please give her a flower for me.

Howard Zinn: Good Among the Good

February 3, 2010 | Print Print |

Alfredo Prieto

HOWARD ZINN - Photo: esquife.cult.cu

Howard Zinn has died.  Along with Noam Chomsky and Edward Said (1935-2003), he was one of the most interesting US radical thinkers of the 20th-century.

Marked by the experiences of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandal and the associated legitimation crisis, this troika of intellectuals would construct an alternative outlook confronting the presumptions of power and their agencies, a force that united these three individuals despite their differing issues, emphasis and styles.

Resolutely anti-establishment —heretics even— they could never be described as armchair intellectuals or simple university professors.  Their reflections were continuously accompanied —and fed— by the activism in which they were engaged in their respective fields of action, always in direct contact with the grassroots and social actors.  For this reason they were subjected to arrest and firing during the most contentious moments of the 1960s anti-war protests within and outside the university.

Without a doubt Zinn’s greatest contribution resides in his writings and interpretation of history. “A People’s History of the United States” (1980), considered his best book, summarizes the key themes from his preceding essayistic-historiographic work and indicate much about his fundamental concerns: Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal (1967), Disobedience and Democracy (1968), The Politics of History (1970) and Postwar America (1973).

He always conceived the writing of history as an act of taking a position.  Indeed, he did so deliberately, without any of the aseptic pretenses of objectivity that run through the consciousnesses of those in mainstream academia.

He told us that neutrality, strictly speaking, doesn’t exist.  There is always a point of view —about war, gender equality, civil rights and other matters— that impacts on the selection of  events by every historian, as well as on the way they discuss and address these issues.

This had invaded written historical practice from Hernan Cortes to Father Las Casas, Henry Kissinger and Iqbal Ahmad.  Unequivocal in this respect is Zinn’s book of memoirs: “You Can´t Be Neutral in a Moving Train” (1994).

He also bequeathed to us a philosophy of history nurtured in great measure by classical Marxism, where the individual exists in the midst of social-historical processes that embody the person, but whom at the same time is not determined by those processes.

Contrary to the values pervasive in the dominant culture, Zinn subscribed to a focus on the independence of the 13 colonies that cut against the grain of conventional history; he didn’t revel in tales of the “founding fathers” or in presidential legacies.  Instead, he highlighted the roles of popular sectors in US independence, and in fact in the entire history of the United States.

Perhaps what constitutes the main characteristic of his “approach,” which gave him greater fame, was the recognition and validation of the historic leadership role of those who were excluded: Native Americans, Blacks, women, the poor, the marginalized, soldiers…

Differing from “official history” (if this exists in the United States), for him the Native Americans, Blacks and women all spoke.  Zinn didn’t write about Native Americans, Blacks and women; instead, he spoke from their positions, as he wanted to give “people without history” their own voices.

Explicitly or implicitly, he always stopped to deconstruct the underpinning myths contained in the school books being used.  In them, he pointed out a systematic purging that suppresses or minimizes the negative chapters of US history.  Likewise, he underscored the persistence of racist stereotypes of Native American and African-American peoples.

This was how he responded to the representation and appropriation of a past built on a white, capitalist, and male perspective that serves as a vehicle for the preservation of the status quo, one in which education contributes to the perpetuation of conservative ideology.

“He who controls the past, controls the future,” Zinn once wrote citing George Orwell, one of his favorite authors. He taught us to not allow ourselves to be controlled by the existing powers.

He was good among the good.  He not only deserves to be remembered and honored because he stood on the side of the weak, but also because he did it with the exemplary lucidity of someone who came to stay.


What's your opinion?

  • http://www.GRDPublishing.com Grady Ross Daugherty

    Zinn did his best, and that’s all that can be asked of anyone.

    Alfredo Prieto’s tribute is brilliantly written. Hats off to both him and Alfredo.

    Something else needs to be said however at this provocative time. Zinn did not do what needed to be done to save the world from monopoly capitalism. In spite of his sincerity, he did not take on the nitty-gritty question that is the key to world socialist transformation: “What is true, functional socialism?”

    If he had focused his heart and brain on that one thing, he might have helped the Cuban leadership to reform the socialist project and make it economically functional.

    There are only two “recipes” for socialist economy: 1) full state ownership and control of everything; & 2) cooperative employee-state co-ownership of major industry and commerce, with plenty of small entrepreneurial enterprise. Where was Howard?

    For all his intellectualism & work, he missed the crucial question of social transformation.

  • rob

    howard zinn was openly attracted to anarchist political philosophy which by definition is against state control of anything. more specifically it believes that society should be organized thousands of different ways. mr. zinn never said he was a socialist or marxist or anything really, just a historian who was attracted to issues of justice, and one who tried to inspire people to change things themselves. how arrogant for mr. grady ross to say that howard should have focused his heart and brain on only one thing. furthermore, since the beginning of the cuban revolution, there has been many people, inside and outside of cuba, who have tried to pursuade cuba to transform in this or that direction. what the hell differnce would howard have made. he was an american historian, not a cuban revolutionary.