Kicking Howard Zinn in His Grave — Neocons, Rotten Unions, the Sign of the Times

This must be repeated, kept in the news, and fought against — more dumb-downing, neoconning, neoliberal-izing of American schools.

Open Veins of Conquest — AFT Union Disinternment of Howard Zinn, Tells PK12 Teachers to Drop People’s History of the United States?

  H-Net Labor History Discussion List

It seems pretty clear to me that the attacks on Zinn’s “People’s History” are politically motivated even though the critics ostensibly frame their arguments in terms of methodology and historical practice (and in Wineburg’s case, dubious psychological profiling). We can put aside the right-wing critics who, par for the course, attack Zinn’s left-wing politics and the focus on workers and the oppressed. But the attacks on Zinn from Kazin, Radosh, Wineberg et.al. all use contentious political issues that clearly divide radical and liberal historians and political
commentators.

Thus in the HNN article from 2010 ( Kazin makes much of Zinn’s supposedly one-sided view of American elites, the ruling class and, most important for Kazin et. al,, the Democratic Party. He even slips in a snide critique of Zinn’s support of Ralph Nader in the 2000 elections. What is important for Kazin is the fact that Zinn maintains a radical perspective, criticizing the ruling class and the Democratic Party when what Kazin et. al. want is for the left to make alliances with elites and the Democratic Party. No problem, but it would better to own up.

Ditto for Wineburg: the examples he uses in the AFT magazine article are all instructive. He criticizes Zinn’s demolition of WWII as a “People’s War,” the continuing racism against African Americans in the period, the Allied Bombing of Germany and the launching of the Atomic Bomb. Basically Wineburg’s critique is centered on Zinn’s political interpretation of these issues.

Cheers, Sean Purdy, University of Sao Paulo

&

 Sniping at Zinn’s People’s History of the United States has been going  on since it first appeared.  In the late 1970s, I assigned it for a survey  course, and faced a noisy lobby by a clique of right-wing suburban white  kids who insisted that he had written nothing worth reading about race  because he had mistakenly located Fort Pillow in Kentucky rather than  Tennessee.

I’m not sure that the relative standing of Zinn and Wineberg in a Google  search tells us much definitive, but it does indicate some things.  If I  have the correct Sam Wineberg, he does not object to Zinn because his  training was not that of a professional historian since Wineberg himself is in Education.  For some years he has simultaneously had his efforts funded by the Teaching American History program of the Department of Education,  while raising questions whether such spending has really made a difference. Go figure.

The real question seems to be why the AFT is showcasing the issue the way  it is.  For a public sector union facing repeated demands to tighten the  belt by the very politicians it helped to elect, the union seems to be  responding with the kind of institutional brand of solidarity that has made  the American labor movement what it is.  That is, it’s identifying where it  is most willing for management to focus the attacks.  It’s not hard to  understand this, if we have the historical sense that the system that has  rewarded those labor organizations for their pragmatic acceptance of the  divide-and-rule strategies.  That kind of understanding shouldn’t be  restricted to those with scholarly training but as accessible to any who  seek it.

And they can get it in Howard Zinn.

Solidaritet,  Mark Lause

&

Thanks to WSWS –

American Federation of Teachers’ journal slanders historian Howard Zinn

By Charles Bogle and Fred Mazelis
18 February 2013

The Winter 2012-2013 issue of American Educator, a quarterly journal published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), features an article on Howard Zinn’s well-known A People’s History of the United States. The article, by Stanford University professor Sam Wineburg, is entitled, “Undue Certainty: Where Howard Zinn’s A People’s History Falls Short.”

Zinn’s work is justly famous for its exposure of certain myths about American capitalism and crimes of the US ruling class. Two million copies of A People’s History are in print, and generations of teachers and students have learned from the book.

The radical activist and historian, who taught at Boston University for a quarter of a century, died three years ago. Why have the editors of American Educator chosen this moment to publish an eight-page article devoted to A People’s History ?

The answer to this question becomes clearer as Wineburg proceeds with his review. He begins with almost exaggerated praise for Zinn, devoting five introductory paragraphs to this. Wineburg calls the book “a cultural icon.” His first paragraph refers to Matt Damon’s applause for A People’s History in the 1997 film Good Will Hunting .

In the rest of the article, however, Wineburg reveals that this introductory approbation is essentially window dressing, designed to ward off any charge of bias on his part against Zinn, any claim that this lengthy article is unfair or “unbalanced.” Indeed, that is his main charge against Zinn. Wineburg claims to uphold basic standards of objectivity. By the end of his article, Wineburg has gone so far as to slander Zinn’s work as posing the danger of “a slide into intellectual fascism.”

Wineburg begins by claiming to agree with some of Zinn’s views. He couches his criticism in terms of method and procedure. “I am less concerned with what Zinn says than his warrant for saying it, less interested in the words that meet the eye than with the book’s interpretive circuitry that doesn’t,” he writes. These words are disingenuous, to say the least. Wineburg is indeed very concerned with “what Zinn says.”

His charge is that Zinn is careless, partisan and inaccurate. Zinn, Wineburg explains, uses secondary instead of primary sources for the most part. A People’s History is not footnoted. Zinn engages in counterfactual history—reconsidering past events as if certain events and decisions hadn’t taken place, which Wineburg considers risky if not improper.

These claims are, whatever Wineburg may say, largely a smokescreen to hide the real grievances he has with Zinn. The historian never hid his partisanship. On the contrary, he was proud of it. He also never claimed thatA People’s History was the final word, but definitely saw it as a necessary antidote to the way history was generally taught. This is really what has Wineburg upset.

Zinn had serious weaknesses, as the WSWS has discussed in some detail. (See “Howard Zinn, 1922-2010”) His approach to US history, including his treatment of the American Revolution and the Civil War, suffered from an anachronistic and abstract moralizing that prevented him from grasping the revolutionary character of these earlier struggles. This approach, a tendency to see history as an endless and to a great extent unchanging and doomed battle of oppressed against oppressor, was bound up with a pessimistic approach to present struggles.

This is not what concerns Wineburg, however. He and the AFT are attacking Zinn’s strengths, not his weaknesses. Wineburg zeroes in on Chapter 16 of A People’s History —A People’s War?”—among the strongest sections of the book. Here Zinn deals with seminal events of the 20th century, tracing American capitalism’s preparations for the Second World War and then dealing with the war itself and the Cold War that followed.

While this is perhaps the most compelling portion of Zinn’s book, for Wineburg it is the weakest. He devotes more than half of his piece to attacks on this single chapter. As we shall see when we examine his arguments, this sensitivity to Zinn’s treatment of the war and the anti-communist witch-hunt that followed it reveals the pro-imperialist foundation of the AFT and the entire AFL-CIO.

Wineburg is scandalized by Zinn’s exposure of the democratic and anti-fascist pretensions of American imperialism in the conflict with the Nazi regime. Zinn shows that World War II was, for the US government, bound up with the drive for the supremacy of American capitalism in the postwar world. He also explains that opposition to the war within the American working class was far greater than has been revealed in official histories.

Zinn also discusses, in addition to the thousands of strikes in defiance of the no-strike pledges enforced by the AFL and CIO during this period, opposition to the war among African-Americans, many of whom recognized the hypocrisy of the claim that the US was fighting for democracy against fascism while upholding Jim Crow segregation at home.

Wineburg is particularly outraged by this argument. He accuses Zinn of relying on anecdotes, and then delivers what he obviously considers a body blow to Zinn’s account—statistical evidence showing that the percentage of black Selective Service registrants who were enrolled as conscientious objectors was tiny compared to the percentage of white registrants.

This supposedly proves that Zinn is a liar, and that African-American support for the war effort was overwhelming. In fact, it proves nothing of the kind. Wineburg only demonstrates his own bias and ignorance. Conscientious objectors, including pacifists and those who claimed religious motives, came overwhelmingly from middle class layers of the population. At that time, the great majority of the black population would have barely known of the conscientious objection option. Even where black men were aware of it, they were not inclined to take that route as an expression of their hostility to capitalism and Jim Crow.

Wineburg goes on to fault Zinn for his exposure of the ruthless British and American bombings of German cities, including the notorious firebombing of Dresden in early 1945 that cost tens of thousands of lives. He does not seriously attempt to defend these attacks, but instead tries to deflect the criticism by complaining about Zinn’s methods and also referring to the even more vicious crimes of the Nazis.

The Stanford academic then deals with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which incinerated hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, in August 1945. He defends the US use of nuclear weapons for the first time in history. His arguments add nothing to the apologias offered in the past for that monstrous crime, referring to the alleged insincerity of Japanese offers to surrender and the need for unconditional surrender to avoid the casualties that would have resulted from an American ground assault. He accuses Zinn of improper and insufficiently “humble” use of “counterfactual” arguments.

Zinn’s account of this period is powerful in large part because it points out that the real war aims of American imperialism in 1941-45 were actually demonstrated by subsequent events. Wineburg, despite his efforts to dress up the atomic bombings and Dresden in “democratic” clothing by comparing these atrocities to those of the Nazis, cannot explain the mass killings against defenseless populations carried out by the US military all over the world since 1945, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, nor can he say anything about state assassinations and drone killings under the Obama administration.

Finally, there is Wineburg’s reference to the Cold War and to the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as spies for the Soviet Union. Here Wineburg shows his hand perhaps most explicitly. According to him, Zinn must apologize for the two and a half pages he devotes to the case in A People’s History .

Zinn shows how the Rosenbergs’ conviction for espionage on behalf of a wartime ally was used to fuel the anti-communist witch-hunt. When co-defendant Morton Sobell acknowledged at the age of 91, 55 years after the Rosenbergs’ execution in 1953, that Julius was guilty of helping the Soviets, Zinn was asked to comment, and replied, “To me it didn’t matter whether they were guilty or not. The most important thing was they did not get a fair trial in the atmosphere of cold war hysteria.” As far as Wineburg is concerned, this is proof of Zinn’s prejudice.

What exactly is Zinn guilty of? He was right to cast doubt on the trial, conducted in McCarthyite fashion at the height of the purges. He was right to show that the Rosenbergs were casualties of the anti-communist hysteria. Julius was a victim of this ruthless campaign, and Ethel, even defenders of the trial now admit, was guilty of nothing but refusing to turn her husband over to the executioners.

Wineburg’s lengthy treatment of Chapter 16 of A People’s History shows what really motivates him and the AFT officialdom as a whole. Zinn and Wineburg stand on opposite sides at key moments of the 20th century—the former, with all his limitations, on the side of the oppressed and the latter consistently defending the interests of American capitalism, the most reactionary force on the planet.

The AFT’s hostility to Zinn’s work, especially concerning the critical era from the 1930s to the 1950s, is intimately bound up with its own history. The American Federation of Teachers, now claiming some 1.5 million members, traces its origins back more than a century, but it only emerged as a significant force about 50 years ago, and grew in size from about 65,000 to 400,000 members in the decade of the 1960s.

Like the rest of the AFL-CIO, the AFT—formed out of the merger of the AFL and CIO in 1955—was steeped in anti-communism. The union bureaucracy carried out its own witch-hunt to eliminate all left-wing dissidents and those who sought to build a genuine revolutionary leadership during these difficult years.

Within the right-wing AFL-CIO bureaucracy, the leadership of the AFT was among the most consistent in its support for US imperialism. Its longtime president, Albert Shanker, had been trained by ex-Marxists who moved rapidly to the right. Chief among the influences on Shanker was Max Shachtman, a founder of the Trotskyist movement who broke from it in 1940 when, on the eve of US entry into the Second World War, he abandoned the Trotskyist analysis and struggle against Stalinism.

For Shachtman and his faction, the crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy meant it was no longer possible to defend the USSR against imperialism. This was the start of Shachtman’s sharp turn to the right, which would lead him, 10 years later, to support imperialism in the Korean War. Shanker was a member of the Shachtmanite youth movement at around this time at the University of Illinois.

By the 1960s, Shachtman had become an influential behind-the-scenes adviser to the AFL-CIO bureaucracy under George Meany. Shanker led the AFT during this same period. He gave his enthusiastic support to the most right-wing elements within the bureaucracy, supporting the Vietnam War and the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the political lobby founded by Democratic Senator Henry Jackson in 1972.

Shanker’s successor, Randi Weingarten, has made some tactical modifications in the union’s political role, but only to further solidify its alliance with the Democratic Party. The AFT has accepted proposals for standardized testing and collaborated with the nationwide campaign for charter schools. In the Winter 2010 issue of American Educator, the union editorialized in favor of the Obama administration’s proposed Common Core Curriculum, which is inseparably connected with these attacks on public education. American Educator at one point endorsed this curriculum on the grounds that it would make the US more competitive with its imperialist rivals and because it “specifies what to teach.” Opponents of the Common Core Curriculum have noted that its stated goal of improving reading test scores is to be achieved by forcing students to read more “information texts” and less literature, fiction and criticism.

One aim of the Common Core Curriculum is to steer students toward a sanitized version of American history and to ensure that they are not introduced to textbooks or literature, including A People’s History, that encourage a critical attitude toward the profit system and the role of American imperialism in particular.

The AFT’s attack on Zinn, like its support for the Common Core Curriculum, demonstrates that the union loyally defends the status quo. Wineburg’s attack is in part a preemptive attack, a warning that it will do its best to see that no exposure of the ruling elite is presented in middle- and high school classrooms. Just as it actively assisted the witch-hunt 60 years ago, it will back or organize similar attacks in the future. Many teachers are rightly enraged by American Educator ’s attack on Zinn. They must also see, however, that the AFT’s treachery is part of the role played by the unions as a whole. The defense of public education and historical truth is bound up with the defense of living standards and all basic social rights, and requires a political struggle against the bipartisan attacks of big business and their union accomplices.

United Fruit Co.

by Pablo Neruda

When the trumpet sounded
everything was prepared on earth,
and Jehovah gave the world
to Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other corporations.
The United Fruit Company
reserved for itself the most juicy
piece, the central coast of my world,
the delicate waist of America.

It rebaptized these countries
Banana Republics,
and over the sleeping dead,
over the unquiet heroes
who won greatness,
liberty, and banners,
it established an opera buffa:
it abolished free will,
gave out imperial crowns,
encouraged envy, attracted
the dictatorship of flies:
Trujillo flies, Tachos flies
Carias flies, Martinez flies,
Ubico flies, flies sticky with
submissive blood and marmalade,
drunken flies that buzz over
the tombs of the people,
circus flies, wise flies
expert at tyranny.

With the bloodthirsty flies
came the Fruit Company,
amassed coffee and fruit
in ships which put to sea like
overloaded trays with the treasures
from our sunken lands.

Meanwhile the Indians fall
into the sugared depths of the
harbors and are buried in the
morning mists;
a corpse rolls, a thing without
name, a discarded number,
a bunch of rotten fruit
thrown on the garbage heap.

Paul Haeder has been a journalist since 1977. He's covered police, environment, planning and zoning, county and city politics, as well as working in true small town/community journalism situations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico and beyond. He's been a part-time faculty since 1983, and as such has worked in prisons, gang-influenced programs, universities, colleges, alternative high schools, language schools, as a private contractor-writing instructor for US military in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington, and with life long learners and gifted and talented high school students. Poetry and short fiction, the novel and creative non-fiction are also his stem cells. Check out his stuff at www.cirquejournal.com. He can be reached at: paul@dissidentvoice.org. Read other articles by Paul, or visit Paul's website.

3 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Paul Haeder said on March 2nd, 2013 at 2:33pm #

    Note: A comment coming into my email box. I will post, without the fellow’s name.

    Quote:

    I haven’t read Zinn’s book, indeed, I’ve only vaguely heard of him, and the book doesn’t cover a field that particularly interests me, but from what I have read about it, including your article, it seems to be “presentism”, that is to say, a book that purports to be a history book but in fact uses, and most of the time distorts, a historical discourse to support a present-day political proposition. Unfortunately, that sort of pseudo-history, and that is what it is, is very common among recent American authors, although almost unknown outside the US. Here in Europe, for example, presentists are regarded with contempt by professional historians and the criticism of Zinn’s book, which has been out for quite some time I see, may well mean that the tide of historical scholarship is turning against the presentists.

    The presentists are just one small part of a wider American problem: Americans have forgotten how to reason and to a large extent, I think Zinn’s generation, i.e the people born between about 1910 and 1940, are the principal culprits. When I lived in the US during my teenage years in the 1960s, the quality of American scholarship was superb. Now, what passes for serious academic debate amounts to little better than a slanging match between groups of not always very literate “clods” bawling the mantras of their chosen guru at each other (and it doesn’t matter which guru they parrot) in a wholly fruitless dialogue of the deaf. That phenomenon doesn’t exist in Europe, nor, indeed, anywhere else that I know of, and the result is that American academia, with the exception of the natural sciences (in which facts are a lot harder to distort!), has become largely irrelevant to the wider world and has retreated ever more into its own private cloudcuckooland.

    What needs to be done is to return to teaching young people to reason for themselves and not just spoonfeeding them the “holy writ” of whatever ideological guru the teacher happens to sympathise with. With Zinn’s blindly dogmatic generation now all retired and largely dead, some people in the teaching profession may well be thinking about and that, in its turn, may explain why Zinn’s book is now being criticised.

    End quote –

    Now, this is an easy comment to foil or deflect, but it’s not up to me the writer. First, though, not knowing Zinn’s work as a writer, teacher and activist is one large whole. Call this presentism when in fact not spending time with the original text and then all the text Zinn worked with, well, that’s more than disingenuous. One huge blow to the comments made.

    Moral relativism, Eurocentrism, breaking out of old white man’s literary and cultural canons, oh my, oh my — what might be a huge big leaping question mark as to who defines scholarship and then reframes scholarship from a historian’s point of view, well, what a bunch of mixed up issues to deal with, and with one comment quoted above, I don’t have the time to do the work in a retort. Just read why DV and other blogs would even been in existence.

    I’d say that the American Historical Association, while like many old associations, is deeply flawed, as we might say the AMA or APA are, even amongst those members in the historical clique. I’d say that presentism is not a hands down dunk against relearning how to research, present and teach history.

    How many people of the “other” might want to challenge this commenter on the validity of history as written and thought through before the 1960s. This is an age-old canard saying that what has come down the pike in so-called Western Culture through Western University Research is the litmus test and everything else fails, including Zinn.

    Nope.

    http://www.historians.org/

    There is also a Zinn Education Project for Teaching a People’s History, quite a following too — http://zinnedproject.org/

  2. Paul Haeder said on March 3rd, 2013 at 9:54am #

    Here comes another comment against this idea that Zinn is a presentist and is manifestly wrong-wrong, wrong — again, a foil.

    Quote — Uh…wasn’t it Zinn and others of his “blindly dogmatic generation” the ones who were doing that superb scholarship in the 1960s? I mean…he wasn’t a spring chicken when he died several years ago. Chomsky, Herman, and “presentist” Studs Terkel were teaching at the same time more “respectable” — to this asshole, I would assume — scholars like Marcuse and Norman O. Brown were… I must admit though, Timothy Leary was one of my favorite gurus…

    End quote . . . and thanks!

  3. Paul Haeder said on March 3rd, 2013 at 10:10am #

    Which history of the world, of the Catholic Church, of Britain’s policies of deporting kids to Australia, of it all, circa 1900, are we now allowed to dump?

    Reviews

    “A vivid, thoughtful, deeply researched exploration of one of the main problems of human societies and a fascinating reflection on the ‘extreme plasticity of civilizations’.” — Times Higher Education

    “This is one of Robert Muchembled’s best books, a lucid and persuasive combination of broad sweep with vivid detail and of synthesis with original research.” — Peter Burke, University of Cambridge

    “In this wide-ranging book, Robert Muchembled, one of France’s most talented historians, draws on a lifetime of study to elucidate the history of violence in Europe from the late middle ages to the present. In showing how Western Europe by the twentieth century had achieved the lowest level of interpersonal violence yet known to the world, Muchembled employs modern gender analysis to challenge historians to reconsider many long-held assumptions about the control of violent behaviour in the West.” — Julius R. Ruff, Marquette University and author of Violence in Early Modern Europe, 1500-1800

    Description

    Violence is so much in the news today that we may find it hard to believe that it is less prevalent than it was in the past. But this is exactly what the distinguished historian Robert Muchembled argues in this major new work on the history of violence. He shows that brutality and homicide have been in decline since the thirteenth century. The thesis of a ‘civilizing process’, of a gradual taming, even sublimation, of violence, seems, therefore, to be well-founded.

    How are we to explain this decline in public displays of aggression? What mechanisms have modernizing societies employed to repress and control violence? The increasingly strict social control of unmarried, male adolescents, together with the coercive education imposed on this age group, are central to Muchembled’s explanation. Masculine violence gradually disappeared from public space, to become concentrated in the home. Meanwhile, a vast popular literature, precursor of the modern mass media, came to play a cathartic role: the duels of The Three Musketeers and the amazing exploits of Fantômas, as described in the new crime literature invented in the nineteenth century, now helped to purge the violent impulses.

    And yet we seem, in the first few years of the twenty-first century, to be witnessing a resurgence of violence, especially among the youths of the inner cities. How should we understand this resurgence in relation to the long history of violence in the West?

    END —

    In the 21st century, might some of the controls for regulating violence be breaking down? In many parts of Europe, a generation of young men and (interestingly) women have emerged for whom there are few rewards for acting with restraint. The collective frustration of protesters from the French banlieues, the indignados in Madrid and the aganaktismenoi in Athens is palpable. Muchembled is correct to argue that there is a long history of such protests; he is wrong to say that these 21st-century protesters represent the continued acceptability of “macho traditions inherited from the European working-class world”, to which is added “American mass culture”. The “disinherited” people at the margins of society are right to be angry. Perhaps they are even right to be violent. Muchembled will not agree.

    This is a thought-provoking extended essay on extreme civilian violence, primarily in France and western Europe, but with brief comparative reflections around the globe. Muchembled takes a self-consciously multidisciplinary approach, which means that many of the psycho-biological reflections are not fully integrated into his arguments. He is also more comfortable in the 16th through to the 18th centuries. I wanted him to reflect more explicitly on how his arguments tie into those of historians such as Martin Wiener, whose Men of Blood: Violence, Manliness and Criminal Justice in Victorian England (2004) is narrower in focus but remains indispensable reading for anyone interested in shifts in the nature and legitimacy of violence. Nevertheless, this is a vivid, thoughtful, deeply researched exploration of one of the main problems of human societies and a fascinating reflection on the “extreme plasticity of civilizations”.

    Reviewer :

    Joanna Bourke is professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London, and author of What it Means to be Human: Reflections from 1791 to the Present (2011).

    And,
    Martin J. Wiener. Men of Blood: Violence, Manliness, and Criminal Justice in Victorian England. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. xvi +296 pp.

    Reviewed for H-Law by Marjorie Levine-Clark, Department of History, University of Colorado at Denver

    The press, the public, and the Home Office in different ways became more
    central actors in the legal drama, as the time between sentence and execution was extended, thus calling into play petitions for reprieve which necessitated Home Office interventions. Wiener provides fascinating discussions of the willingness of judges and juries more frequently to bring a verdict of murder, as long as there was a possibility for reprieve from execution. Wiener also shows that while the tendency in the Victorian era was towards the reduction of violent crime, this was not the case with regard to men’s violence against women. The power of domestic ideology might have produced a greater willingness to prosecute and punish more severely men who used violence towards their wives, but it did not necessarily curb the violence itself.

    Wiener draws his argument from an impressive collection of materials. In
    addition to newspaper accounts of legal proceedings, Wiener has mined the
    assizes courts and the Home Office, both the public records and the private
    correspondence of those involved in decision-making concerning male violence.

    He has constructed a database of “several thousand Victorian criminal cases, including virtually every case of spouse murder that went to trial, and large sample of spouse manslaughter, and other homicide and rape cases” (p. xiii).

    Like much good cultural history, Wiener’s work is an analysis of the
    relationships between discourse and experience, between ideologies and
    practice. Wiener examines the ways that material changes such as the
    increasing presence of police and coroners’ inquiries, the growth of the press, and legal shifts away from execution, combined with greater ideological pressures for respectability to produce a culture in which crimes against property took a back seat for the first time to crimes against the person.

    Wiener nicely entwines legal and cultural norms, exploring the rifts between law and public sentiment, and how each acted upon the other.

    End . . . .

    As stated above in the Socialist web site –

    The AFT’s attack on Zinn, like its support for the Common Core Curriculum, demonstrates that the union loyally defends the status quo. Wineburg’s attack is in part a preemptive attack, a warning that it will do its best to see that no exposure of the ruling elite is presented in middle- and high school classrooms. Just as it actively assisted the witch-hunt 60 years ago, it will back or organize similar attacks in the future. Many teachers are rightly enraged by American Educator ’s attack on Zinn. They must also see, however, that the AFT’s treachery is part of the role played by the unions as a whole. The defense of public education and historical truth is bound up with the defense of living standards and all basic social rights, and requires a political struggle against the bipartisan attacks of big business and their union accomplices.

    End . . .

    I can’t wait for Mumia’s book:

    MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: We are, shall we say, Zinnian historians. So, we’re looking at the world, looking at the empire, through our own eyes and writing out of not just our research, although the research is extensive, we’re writing out of our hearts and out of our experiences. And in the spirit of Howard Zinn, it is from below, deep, deep below—

    OPERATOR: This call is from the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy and is subject to monitoring and recording.

    MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: But I assure you, we will present something richer than many people have ever seen before. It is a labor of historical lust, and great fun.

    AMY GOODMAN: What are you calling the book?

    MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: Murder Incorporated.

    AMY GOODMAN: Why that title?

    MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: Well, it comes from LBJ, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, upon the assassination of John F. Kennedy, when he acceded to the presidency and he began getting reports about what was happening in Central America, he was famously quoted as saying “My god! We’re running a goddamn Murder Incorporated down here.” And indeed they were.