Howard Zinn was a successful historian of the twentieth century. He was unusual in that he shifted the historical paradigm away from the norm – instead of mainly talking about white males, who had been the focus of history up to that point due to the power structure of the times, he focused instead on the stories less told; the roads less travelled. The book You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train tracks his own journey through history by means of reflecting on how he himself sees history; not necessarily his own history, but history as a whole.
What are Zinn’s Ideas About how History Should be Portrayed?
We see Zinn’s ideas about history come to the fore even in the preface to his book, when he expresses his distaste for the glorification of war and violence in recent movies.
My refusal to justify war has a simple logic. War in our time inevitably means the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of innocent people (no matter what claims are made by confident government officials about “smart bombs” and “we only aim at military targets”). (Zinn, 70)
War is, to Zinn, not something which should be glorified in any way. We might use movies and other media to convince ourselves that war is noble and right, but when it comes down to it, we can see the results of war for ourselves today. Refugees are the result; fear, hatred and terrorism are the result. This viewpoint of war is necessarily affected by his own experiences – in World War II; in the Vietnam protests.
What Shaped Zinn’s Ideas About History?
Howard Zinn seems to favour the idea that history should be portrayed – or taught – according to one’s own particular life experiences (217). Early in the book, he describes being unable to answer a question posed to him during a session in Kalamazoo (Zinn, 201), because it would have required him to explain details about his own history, and how he managed to piece together a life and family through everything that his history had thrown at him.
Returning to the theme of history being a personal thing (which was touched on above), Zinn seems to be saying that we ourselves – no matter if we are not personally involved in conflict - are defined by war. His assertions make sense, even if they could also be explained away by his own life being bracketed by war – even when we are not, as most of us in the West aren’t, personally involved in theatre of war, our lives are affected by it. Politicians use it as on the campaign trail, governments debate it, refugees move into our countries to look for safety. Existing during a time of war is to defend your own position on that war.
Why is Zinn Optimistic that Progress Will be Made Regarding Human Rights?
While Howard Zin could be forgiven for being naturally pessimistic regarding the state of humanity as we move into the future, particularly in light of (again) his own experiences of war and hatred, he is nonetheless optimistic. His entire attitude on the subject of civil disobedience (Zinn, 2270-2313) shows that, even in the depths of the horrors of the Vietnam war, even against all the difficulties that protestors faced at home, human perseverance kept people going.
In the final event of the veterans’ Washington encampment, a thousand of them, many in wheelchairs or on crutches, tossed their medals over a fence that the police had built around the Capitol steps to keep them away. (Zinn, 2281)
Zinn uses these men and their actions to show the inherent invincibility of the human spirit. Even in the face of circumstances which made it clear that they were unwanted, the veterans still turned out and made their opinions known.
Zinn may not have experienced the Vietnam War as a soldier, but he lived through it nonetheless – and he saw what happened to people who tried to speak out against it. His own life will have shown him the differences in the way in which people are treated, whether it be people of different races, religions, or ability levels (bringing it back to the veterans of the Vietnam War).
Zinn Believed in Bringing his own Experiences into the Classroom. Do you Agree or Disagree with this Approach?
Zinn makes the case for people bringing their own histories into the classroom almost at the start of the book (217), because to him, the level of compartmentalisation that would be required was troubling. This viewpoint seems to be the right one – I agree that one’s “deepest convictions about right and wrong” (217) are things which are formed, even if only partially, by experiences and thoughts, which evolve over time. It seems almost illogical to draw a line between our own personal histories and the history of the world at large, because that cuts us off from a method of understanding.
While it might be said that personal histories have no place in the teaching of history, it is my belief that this is untrue. A teacher can tell their students about a personal attachment to a piece of history while still maintaining the lack of bias needed in order to fully teach the class in a complete way. Obviously care must be taken to keep the teaching of history as unbiased as possible, but a teacher who is unafraid to show their own experiences in a particular period of history is one who can provide students with a different viewpoint. Having personal attachments to the history being taught can allow for an entirely new perspective to emerge in the classroom or lecture theatre.
Work Cited
Zin, Howard. You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train. Kindle ed, Beacon Press: 2002.
