Philosopher views


WILSON’S SOCIAL IDEAS WEREN’T NOT PROGRESSIVE, BUT REPRESSIVE



Download 5.81 Mb.
Page428/432
Date28.05.2018
Size5.81 Mb.
#50717
1   ...   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432

WILSON’S SOCIAL IDEAS WEREN’T NOT PROGRESSIVE, BUT REPRESSIVE

1. WILSON’S RHETORIC WAS PRO-DEMOCRATIC, BUT HIS SOCIAL POLICIES WEREN’T

Victoria Bissell Brown, Historian AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002.

His greatest contradiction from my point of view, is that his rhetoric was pro-democratic, but his behavior was often very paternalistic, very controlling, very unsympathetic with and having very little patience for the messiness of democracy, the noise of democracy. He saw democracy as a tool for creating harmony, civilized mediation. He wasn’t always comfortable with the fact that democracy is a noisy and messy business.


2. WILSON’S PHILOSOPHY INCLUDED RACISM AND WAR-MONGERING
Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of History at Boston University, Z MAGAZINE NETWORK DAILY COMMENTARY, May 7, 2000, p. np, http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2000-05/07zinn.htm,

accessed April 22, 2002.


As for Woodrow Wilson, also occupying an important place in the pantheon of American liberalism, shouldn't we remind his admirers that he insisted on racial segregation in federal buildings, that he bombarded the Mexican coast, sent an occupation army into Haiti and the Dominican Republic, brought our country into the hell of World War I, and put anti-war protesters in prison. Should we not bring forward as a national hero Emma Goldman, one of those Wilson sent to prison, or Helen Keller, who fearlessly spoke out against the war?
3. WILSONIAN POLICIES AREN’T IDEALISTIC: JUST THE SAME OLD REALPOLITIK
Korwa G. Adar, professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, p. np, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002.
The principles of democracy and human rights have been persistent, if at times secondary, themes within the rhetoric of American foreign policy toward Africa since the end of World War II. The linking of such Wilsonian precepts with foreign policy practice, however, has been an altogether different story. US policy makers consistently followed the dictates of realpolitik in the era of the Cold War, leaving concerns for democracy and human rights aside. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, conditions are now in place for the tangible and coherent pursuit of an American foreign policy based on democracy and human rights. In the current era, the question emerges as to the resonance of such Wilsonian principles in US foreign policy towards Africa.
3. WILSON’S IDEAS JUSTIFY VICIOUS COLONIALISM
Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE,

November 1994, p. 10.


"Perspective" on what is taking place was provided in the New York Times by R. W. Apple, who reviewed the lessons of history. "For two centuries," he wrote, "political opponents in Haiti have routinely slaughtered each other. Backers of President Aristide, followers of General Cedras and the former Tontons Macoute retain their homicidal tendencies, to say nothing about their weapons" -- which the homicidal maniacs in the slums have cleverly concealed. "Like the French in the 19th century, like the Marines who occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, the American forces who are trying to impose a new order will confront a complex and violent society with no history of democracy." One takes for granted that the vicious terror and racism of the Wilson administration and its successors will be transmuted to sweet charity as it reaches the educated classes, but it is a novelty to see Napoleon's invasion, one of the most hideous crimes of an era not known for its gentleness, portrayed in the same light. We might understand this as another small contribution to the broader project of revising the history of Western colonialism so as to justify the next phase.

HOWARD ZINN

Howard Zinn is a historian and activist to take note of by any measure. The author of more than 15 books, Zinn is not only prolific but is considered one of the most accessible modern historical writers. His progressive history text, A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, has sold more than 800,000 copies.88 In addition to his historical writing, he has authored several plays, spoken word CDs, and an autobiographical commentary on politics and history. He received his Doctorate in history from Columbia and is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University.


There are a number of different values and philosophical arguments that Zinn writes about. Because many of them are framed in terms of their historical context, either nationally or in terms of his own life, this essay will engage each of these values in the context he provides.

CRITIQUES OF HISTORIOGRAPHY

Zinn’s seminal text, A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, revolutionized the way history is told. There are four ways in particular that Zinn’s historical methodology radically different from the norm: he recognizes (and even embraces) the bias in perspective that is a natural part of historiography; he tells the narrative of history from the bottom up, that is, from the perspective of those who have been disempowered throughout each era; rather than shying away from controversy, he actively engages it; he integrates the concepts of historiography with activism. I will address each of these in turn.


History has traditionally been told as though there was an objective truth waiting to be discovered and written. This is particularly the case in texts that claim to be at all comprehensive, such as history textbooks used in schools. These books have a vested interest in making their version of history appear definitive, because, from the author’s perspective, it makes them appear more credible and authoritative than their competitors.
Howard Zinn takes an entirely different approach to the writing of history. In his essay “The Uses of Scholarship,” Zinn critiques what he sees as the sometimes unspoken, but almost universally accepted, rules for “good” scholarship. These are that writing should be disinterested, objective, narrowly tailored to one academic discipline, scientific (i.e., neutral), and rational (unemotional).89
One of Zinn’s primary arguments against this approach is that the disinterested and “rational” approach to history facilitates a distance between the historian and the subject matter that leads to complicity with evils in history:
Thus, exactly from the standpoint of what intellect is supposed to do for us--to extend the boundaries of our understanding--the "cool, rational, unemotional" approach fails. For too long, white Americans were emotionally separated from what the Negro suffered in this country by cold, and therefore inadequate, historical description…. Reason, to be accurate, must be supplemented by emotion, as Reinhold Niebuhr once reminded us. Refusing, then, to let ourselves be bound by traditional notions of disinterestedness, objectivity, scientific procedure, rationality--what kinds of work can scholars do, in deliberate unneutral pursuit of a more livable world?90
It is precisely by describing the brutality of war, the character flaws of our leaders, and the lies propagated by “politicians, the mass media, the church, [and] popular leaders,”91 for example, that students can be taught to think critically about the world that they live in, within the context of history.
The second way that Zinn’s historical methodology challenges the dominant orthodoxy is that it describes history from the standpoint of the oppressed. Most United States history is told from a perspective that puts the government and politicians at the center, and ignores the daily lives of ordinary citizens. In contrast, “Zinn is a champion of the notion that historical change occurs more through mass movements of ordinary people than through the wisdom and insight of so-called Great Men.”92 This is due, in part, to Zinn’s personal background with the civil rights movement and the labor movement, but extends to all of his writing, such as his retelling of the colonization of North America from the perspective of indigenous peoples.
Third, and closely related to the last point, Zinn does not shy away from controversy in either his historical writing or his commentary on modern political events in magazines such as THE PROGRESSIVE, Z MAG, MOTHER JONES, and others. This makes him simultaneously one of the most loved and hated historians of this era, “[D]espite his popularity, Zinn's brand of "bottom-up" history has been reviled by political conservatives, and he confesses that he isn't surprised…."Whenever you introduce a new view of historical events, the guardians of the old order will spring to the attack," Zinn says.”93 His perspective is that revolutionary and even utopian ideas are crucial for shaking up the stronghold conservatives have over academia.
Finally, in part because of his commitment to stirring up controversy, Zinn is well known for integrating his own personal advocacy and activism with his writing. This stems, to a great degree, from his role as a professor. In 1956 Zinn moved his wife and children to Atlanta, Georgia, to take a position as the chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, a “Negro college” in a deeply segregated area. Inspired by his students, who were engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, he participated in extensive protest with his students, and as a result eventually wrote the book DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY (his treatise on civil disobedience), A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as many essays about his specific experience at Spelman. Zinn explained: “I could see history being made before my eyes by ordinary people who are never written about in the history books.”94
In addition to these issues of racism, the role socioeconomic class played throughout history greatly effected Zinn. Zinn came from a working class background, lived in tenements, and at a young age was influenced by the writing of Charles Dickens, John Stienbeck, Upton Sinclair, Marx, and various communist, anarchist, and anti-fascist writers. At age eighteen, during the depression, he won a New Deal job as an apprentice shipfitter, which was painful, physically demanding, and prohibited union membership.
Despite the benefits of that job, and his next job as an Air Force bomber, his youth heavily influenced his perspective on class in the United States: “If you look at the laws passed in the United States from the very beginning of the [A]merican republic down to the present day, you'll find that most of the legislation passed is class legislation which favors the elite, which favors the rich. You'll find huge subsidies to corporations all through [A]merican history.”95 Despite being someone who might be described as having “pulled himself up by his bootstraps” to raise from a working class background to a famous intellectual, he does not identify with those who argue that hard work is all that is needed to get ahead. Instead, he is a proponent of progressive social and economic policy. This is the perspective of much of his historical writing (A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES includes lots of infrequently taught labor union history) as well as the chapter of his memoir called “Growing Up Class Conscious” from YOU CAN’T BE NEUTRAL ON A MOVING TRAIN.



Download 5.81 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
best form
philosophical basis