Zinn’s thesis 5:
Protestors represent the people; indeed, protests represent the real democratic face of the American people. Without protest, there would be no progress due to the selfish nature of the rich and powerful in society.
Opposing view:
This thesis may seem plausible but only because of Zinn’s skill in selecting his examples. Not all protests in American history were democratic in nature and inspired by the goals of social equality. That does not mean a protest involving relatively small numbers of people should be considered unimportant—sometimes an organized group with a clearly defined purpose may well have a valuable goal to share with the larger society. Still, the number of people involved and the nature of their demands must be given due consideration.
Rather, it is Zinn’s emphasis on protest to the exclusion of other methods of change that creates too narrow a view of American history. Zinn’s book might be more aptly titled “A History of Protest” rather than “A People’s History”. The latter title suggests the work will address the history of all the people when, in fact, his work is largely limited to the protests of the underclass and the minority groups which faced the most prejudice, discrimination, and exploitation.
There is nothing wrong with writing such a book—its popularity attests to the need for such a work. However, Zinn does not always convey to the reader a fair sense of the large numbers of workers who were never involved in strikes and protests. If one focuses only on strikes a writer can create quite a comprehensive sense of rebellious workers fighting for their rights—yet without indicating what a relatively small percentage of workers went on strike overall.
In addition, Zinn does not adequately address the development of a middle class made up of managers, supervisors, administrators, and professionals such as doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers, architects, lawyers, teachers, and professors–to say nothing of the existence of an upper class of rather wealthy families.
It is not Zinn’s intention to write another account of their history, of course, but in focusing almost exclusively on the poor and downtrodden, he makes it appear as though there are no other families becoming comfortably well off
In short, Zinn barely touches on the phenomenon of America as an upwardly mobile society with a diverse and growing middle class. Since the rich necessarily must play the role of villain, he hardly does justice to the size and influence of a well-to-do upper class that is larger and more productive than their counterparts in any other society.
The only time Zinn indicates that anyone can become “rich” in this country is when he is addressing the appearance of the “robber barons” (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan)–and he does so in order to lambast them for their unethical business practices and ill-begotten riches. Zinn ignores the fact that their capital (money, assets), business skills, and organizational know-how played an indispensable role in moving the Industrial Revolution forward.
This comment is not meant as a blanket apologia for the new breed of capitalists who were often ruthlessly ambitious, if not to say corrupt. Yet the business system itself, of which these men became leaders, generated a tremendous amount of productivity and prosperity, which in turn created momentum for countless other kinds of social and political change.
Burgeoning capitalism, with all its faults, began improving the standard of living for millions of Americans, from the mass-produced goods of the Industrial Revolution down to the “Electronic Era” or “Age of Technology” of today. These large-scale socio-economic transformations did not occur primarily as a response to protest; indeed, such mass production techniques and steady stream of technological innovations have taken on a life of their own.
Wealthy individuals, scientific researchers, and creative inventors contributed enormously to the development of an industrial-technological economy that accelerates and expands, providing tremendous material advantages for people living in this country. The rich are also Americans; the capitalist class, even at its most selfish and exploitative, performed a vital function in developing new industries, increasing productivity, and creating a higher standard of living for tens of millions of people.
Did the amazingly bright inventors of the second half of the nineteenth century wait for people “to protest” before conducting their experiments with sound, light, and electricity? Scientists in every field made incredible discoveries, which gave rise to still other inventions and refinements.
Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone, Thomas Edison’s light bulb, and Nicola Tesla’s alternating electrical current ushered in a new day; their “technological children” may at times seem unrelated but nearly all modern uses of electricity communication devices trace back in large measure to their inventions.
Labor-saving devices of every kind would soon follow, making life easier and safer. Without reference to the genius of the American people, to the investments and guidance of capitalists, to the education and skills of a middle class, Zinn’s book appears as selectively one-sided as those other kinds of textbooks he set out to counter.
His almost exclusive focus on oppressed workers and exploited minorities provides a rather narrow view of America since it leaves out so many well-known social and economic phenomena. The American people have proven themselves to be extremely creative, inventive, hard-working, and productive–generation after generation–and yet very little sense of this productivity, creativity, and ability to rise in society through one’s own efforts is ever mentioned.
Many Americans from all walks of life have improved their own lives and that of their families through education and hard work—such opportunities still exist for individuals with a firm sense of purpose and sufficient energy dedicated to achieving their personal and professional goals.
“America as a land of opportunity” may sound corny to the ears of an author eager to blast America’s past with a radical critique for its injustices and shortcomings but America has always had two sides to her story: if it is permissible to criticize texts that sanitize and glorify, is it any the less proper to criticize books like Zinn’s that do the exact opposite?
For Zinn, “popular protest” as an agency of change appears to be one of the few positive facets of American history that appears worthy of commendation. Yet much change has always occurred without protest and not all protest has led to an immediate redress of grievances. Nor does Zinn touch upon protests conducted by extremist elements, such as the Ku Klux Klan, when racist or neo-fascist elements hold a rally.
Does any “popular protest” equate with “democracy from the bottom” when anti-democratic, anti-Semitic and blatantly racist groups also hold rallies and protests? According to Zinn’s views, when laborers strike for higher wages, that’s an action on behalf of a cause all can admire and understand. It overlooks the fact that members of “the working class” can be just as ignorant and prejudiced as any other group in our society. The undisguised bigotry–and the violence that accompanied it–of the anti-immigrant movement in the late 1800’s appealed to many workers; the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in California was promulgated by the Workingmen’s Party.
Historically speaking, large numbers of white workers have often been extremely prejudiced against Blacks and other minorities. When workers attack minorities, both verbally and physically, such tactics are hardly likely to usher in brotherhood or greater social equality.
Hence, for Zinn to imply “protest” always brings progressive change is misleading; it conveniently ignores the wide spectrum of viewpoints expressed through protest since not all is of the liberal-radical kind that Zinn prefers. Moreover, Zinn’s views virtually ignore change that comes through peaceful and legal means, such as the channels of representative government.
Even could we agree upon what constitutes progressive popular protest, it does not follow that all such protest leads directly to changes in the law. Not all protest movements are democratic and not all protests lead to visible change.
Finally, it is too large a leap to suggest that legislation is only passed after major protests have occurred, at least not without first considering a wide range of other factors. Floor debates, budgetary considerations, research, and commissioned studies of community needs—problems and solutions–also influence when and where new legislative acts will be passed.
Does America’s economic progress over the last two hundred years deserve the caricature of our nation as a land made up largely of the poor, exploited, and oppressed? That discrimination, racism, poverty, and exploitation are the dominant motifs of American history to the near exclusion of everything else?
Social inequalities have always existed, of course, but if it is misleading to claim most Americans are wealthy and have an easy, relaxing, and prosperous life, isn’t it just as misleading to claim that most Americans are poor, exploited, and oppressed?
At one time students did not learn the whole story of our nation from textbooks that painted too rosy a picture of America’s past, yet Zinn appears to step in almost the identical trap by over-correcting in the other direction.
A balanced view must take into account the complexity of American history and never limit itself to one or two interpretative approaches, to the exclusion of all others.
