An Ocean of Resistance

W e have to become not just a military superpower, but a ‘humanitarian’ superpower,” historian Howard Zinn told a large audience at the University of Georgia in April. “Terrorism is the extreme fanatical edge of an ocean of resistance.” 

Best known as the author of A People’s History of the United States , Zinn has also written more than 20 other books since he began writing history in 1959 with his book La Guardia in Congress . His other works of history include The Southern Mystique (1964), Disobedience and Democracy (1968), The Politics of History (1970), Declarations of Independence (1991), Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian (1993), The Future of History (1999), Terrorism and War (2002), and his recent Artists in Times of War , published last year. Zinn also is the author of two plays, Marx in Soho and Emma —a play about Emma Goldman. 

TANT: You are called a radical historian. Did you arrive at your philosophy by evolution or by epiphany? 

ZINN: By evolution. Growing up in a working class environment in New York, working in the shipyards, going to war, teaching at a predominantly black college in Atlanta, and becoming involved in the civil rights and antiwar movements gradually made it clear to me that so much history, such as the history of black people, has been ignored. 

What’s the difference between a liberal and a radical? 

A liberal thinks that the system is basically good, but that it has a few flaws. A liberal will say that we made a mistake in Vietnam, while a radical will say that we didn’t make a mistake—it was deliberate. Liberals think that you can work within the system and maybe get a better president. Radicals think that the whole system is so corrupt that it will swallow you up and spit you out. Radicals also think that you need to create powerful social movements outside the system that will put pressure on the system, what has been called a permanent culture of resistance. 

What do you think are the real motivations for Bush’s war on Iraq?

Everything that the United States does in the Middle East is based on a desire to control the oil resources. A second reason is to have another military base in the region. Military bases are like money to some people—they can never have enough. The third reason is political. Bush knows that if he gets the nation into a war, there will be a rallying around the president. 

In an interview with C-SPAN, you called Theodore Roosevelt “the most overrated American president.” Which U.S. president do you consider the worst?

I consider George W. Bush to be the worst American president. He has aligned himself with the most reactionary elements in the country—with corporate wealth and Christian fundamentalists. He sees as our enemies the Islamic fundamentalists and in the U.S. he is representing the Christian fundamentalists. 

If Bush is the worst, which president is the best?

I would have to call Franklin D. Roosevelt the best. Maybe one of the reasons he was the best was because he was married to Eleanor Roosevelt. She had a real compassion for black people and a warm outlook. FDR was a kind of compassionate aristocrat, even though he had all kinds of flaws, including his close ties to Southern racist politicians whose support he depended on. To his credit, he incurred the wrath of the rich and powerful. In one of his campaigns, FDR said, “The rich hate me and I welcome their hatred.” He believed in capitalism, but thought capitalism would be better served by a more gentle approach.