A People’s Readalong: Tyranny Is Tyranny
by Jenners • 02/06/2012 • A People's Readalong, History, Non-Fiction, P Titles, Z Authors • 18 Comments
Fizzy Jill and I (and a bunch of others) are reading a chapter a week of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Each Monday, we’ll be posting our thoughts on that week’s chapter. Feel free to join us in whatever way you prefer—by reading along, commenting, or writing your own posts. To keep things organized, link up posts over at Jill’s blog as she is the quasi-official host who designed the button and reading schedule. This week, we read Chapter 4: Tyranny Is Tyranny.
What This Chapter Is About
In this chapter, Zinn traces the causes of the American Revolution and provides a new way of looking at the Declaration of Independence. The chapter is best summed up by its opening paragraphs:
Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.
When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.
My Thoughts
This was the most “history” lesson type chapter so far, with Zinn sweeping through a host of rebellions—from the reactions to the Stamp Act of 1765 to the Regulators Movement in North Carolina to the Boston Tea Party. The famous Common Sense pamphlet by Thomas Paine is also discussed. All of this leads up to the big moment when the colonists established the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence gave most colonists something to hang their hat on. As Zinn writes:
All this, the language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens and military attacks, was language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.
Of course, Zinn must point out who is excluded from the “circle of united interest drawn by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, blacks, slaves and women.”
Zinn does grant that the phrase “all men are created equal” was “probably not a deliberate attempt to make a statement about women. It was just that women were beyond consideration as worthy of inclusion. They were politically invisible.” He goes on to say that, although the Declaration of Independence really was talking about life, liberty and happiness for white males, to expect otherwise, is to “lay impossible moral burdens on that time.”
Still, I think it is interesting that, in modern times, we like to think that the Declaration of Independence was more inclusive than it was initially meant to be. Over time, as the country has granted more rights to those initially excluded, we’ve gone back and collectively revised the statement of “all men are created equal” to be more expansive—having it now apply to women, blacks and Indians. I think it is important to view the Declaration of Independence in the context in which it was written—just like it is important to view the Bible in the context in which it was written. Over time, we’ve taken these documents and made them fit what we need and want them to mean to us today. It is an interesting exercise to go back and look at them in the proper context. By looking at the events and society at the time, I think Zinn provides a new lens through which to view this document that has been so critical in U.S. history and how the U.S. thinks about itself.
See, among the reasons that Zinn is so grating is his insistence all the way through the (boring) book that all people in positions of leadership must necessarily be acting from a kind of dark corporate self-interest. It’s certainly valid to say of the Washington-Jefferson-Franklin crowd that “by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits and political power from favorites of the British Empire…. and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.” Hell, people have been thinking that way about the American Revolution since long before Howard Zinn was born. The bullshit comes in the two words immediately before: “they found.” That’s where he sweepingly implies both INTENT and OMNISCIENCE — that what Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin et al were setting out to do was purely and simply to create a power structure that would work to their benefit, and that they knew it would work. This is obviously nonsense for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that the gentlemen in question were doing very well indeed, thank you, under the old power structure; individual economic interest could not have survived a thirty-second risk analysis.
People’s History is filled with this kind of shoddy innuendo. I think of it as best read as conspiracy theory with a dynamite bibliography of the work of much better historians.
The more I’m reading these posts the more I’m thinking this would be a great choice for Jason and I to read together. I’ll have a leg up on what to expect which is good because Jason has probably already thought of many of these things in his smarty pants way.
Great idea for a feature. I enjoying examining history now that Iam older. Better appreciation.
I love how you’re doing this, one chapter at a time. This chapter is a bit easier to digest than some of the preceeding chapters you’ve shared.
Though I may not be in a hurry to pick up this book (it’s non-fiction and it sounds like it can get technical at times), I must say that I thoroughly enjoy reading your thoughts on it.
So glad I’m observing your Readalong, since the discussions are pushing me to pick up the book myself
Did I miss the post where you indicated how/why the group of you chose to read this? I haven’t seen any majorly dissenting opinions, did you expect it to be that way when you set out?
Enjoying this feature so much even if this is not a book I would have picked up myself.
I was actually surprised that he pointed out that it’s important not to judge history by modern standards, when the whole point of the book is to give voice to those who were overlooked.
Hmmmm…I think I might skip this one.
Great post, Jenners. I somehow fell behind you guys but posted a list of books for chapters 2 and 3 today. And I finally got my revised edition of A People’s History!
Very true about looking back on history in the context of that time and place.
We’ve come a long way though, for the most part. Still have a ways to go.
This reminds me of when I read a book about Abe Lincoln’s letters, although he wanted to free the slaves, he still repeatedly mentioned in his letters that they were inferior to him.
You comparison between The Bible and The Declaration is spot on. Both of these historical documents evolve alongside humanity in whatever way humanity needs them to.
This chapter did feel a bit like a history lesson, but I enjoyed that since I visited Boston a couple of years ago, took all the amazing tours, and could really visualize all riots and upheavals that had taken place among its streets.
You are so right about viewing history in the context of the times. I think what Zinn does most effectively is open our eyes with another way to look at our history. I definitely don’t agree with everything he says but he makes some very good points.
Excellent post, Jenners. This book sounds quite informative. Women were invisible in many ways until recently. Luckily, we’ve expanded our “vision” in America to include all races and genders.
I am a little behind with this chapter, but I think the point that is made about women being politically invisible is interesting, as I am currently reading two other books right now that are basically dealing with this exact issue. It’s frustrating to read about, and I wonder how it is that I have never thought of it before. It’s like reading synergy to be reading three different books that all mention that in detail!
It does sound like a thought provoking book. I do think it’s interesting that the founding father were not talking about women and minorities – just land owning white men for the most part.
“I think it is important to view the Declaration of Independence in the context in which it was written—just like it is important to view the Bible in the context in which it was written. Over time, we’ve taken these documents and made them fit what we need and want them to mean to us today.”
Well said. (even if I’m guilty of trying to make one or the other suit my purposes at times)
Sounds a really interesting book.
As you say, all history has to be viewed in the context of its own times.