8 A PEOPLE’S HISTORY FOR THE CLASSROOM

The following is condensed from an interview withHoward Zinn. He was interviewed in 1994 by Barbara Miner of Rethinking Schools magazine.

Why should students study history?

I started studying history withone view in mind: to look foranswers to the issues and prob-lems I saw in the world aboutme. By the time I went to col-lege I had worked in a shipyard,had been in the Air Force, hadbeen in a war. I came to historyasking questions about war andpeace, about wealth andpoverty, about racial division.

Sure, there’s a certain inter-est in inspecting the past and itcan be fun, sort of like a detec-tive story. I can make an argu-ment for knowledge for its ownsake as something that can addto your life. But while that’sgood, it is small in relation to the very large objec-tive of trying to understand and do somethingabout the issues that face us in the world today.

Students should be encouraged to go into his-tory in order to come out of it, and should be dis-couraged from going into history and getting lostin it, as some historians do.

What do you see as some of the major problemsin how U.S. history has been taught in thiscountry?

One major problem has been the intense focus onU.S. history in isolation from the world. This is a

problem that all nations have, their nationalisticfocus on their own history, and it goes to absurdlengths. Some states in this country even require ayearlong course in the history of that state.

But even if you are willing to see the UnitedStates in relation to world his-tory, you face the problem thatwe have not looked at theworld in an equitable way. Wehave concentrated on theWestern world, in fact onWestern Europe. I remembercoming into my first class inSpelman College in Atlanta in1956 and finding that therewas no required course inblack history, or Asian orAfrican history, but there wasa required course in the his-tory of England. And there onthe board was this chart of theTudors and the Stuarts, thedynasties of England.

For the United States, emphasis has been par-ticularly glaring in terms of Latin America, whichis that part of the world closest to us and withwhich we’ve had the most to do economically andpolitically.

Another glaring problem has been theemphasis in teaching American history throughthe eyes of the important and powerful people,through the presidents, the Congress, theSupreme Court, the generals, the industrialists.History textbooks don’t say, “We are going to tellthe story of the Mexican War from the stand-point of the generals,” but when they tell us it

Why Students Should Study History

An Interview with Howard Zinn

Ros

lyn

Zinn

WHY STUDENTS SHOULD STUDY HISTORY 9

was a great military victory, that’s exactly whatthey are doing.

Taking that as an example, if one were to have amore inclusive view of the war with Mexico,what would be some of the themes and perspec-tives one would include?

The Mexican War is an example of how one eventraises so many issues. You’d have to see the warfirst of all as more than a military action. So oftenthe history of war is dominated by the story ofbattles, and this is a way of diverting attentionfrom the political factors behind a war. It’s possi-ble to concentrate upon the battles of the Mexi-can War and just to talk about the triumphantmarch into Mexico City, and not talk about therelationship of the Mexican War to slavery and tothe acquisition of territories which might possi-bly be slave territories.

Another thing that is neg-lected in the Mexican War is theviewpoint of the ordinary sol-diers. The soldiers who had vol-unteered for the MexicanWar—you didn’t need a draftbecause so many people in theworking classes were so destitutethat they would join the militaryon the promise of a little bit of payand mustering-out money and alittle bit of prestige—the volun-teers went into it not really know-ing the bloodshed it wouldinvolve. And then so many of them deserted. Forexample, seven regiments of General WinfieldScott deserted on the road to Mexico City.

You should tell the story of the Massachusettsvolunteers who went into the Mexican War. Half ofthem died, and the half who returned were invitedto a homecoming party and when a commandingofficer got up to address the gathering, they booedhim off the platform.

I think it’s a good idea also to do somethingwhich isn’t done anywhere so far as I know in his-tories in any country, and that is: tell the story ofthe war from the standpoint of the other side, of“the enemy.” To tell the story of the Mexican Warfrom the standpoint of the Mexicans means to ask:

How did they feel about having 40 percent of theirterritory taken away from them as a result of thewar? How did they view the incident that PresidentPolk used as a reason for the beginning of the war?Did it look real or manufactured to them?

You’d also have to talk about the people in theUnited States who protested against the war. Thatwould be the time to bring up Henry Thoreau andhis essay, “Civil Disobedience.”

You’d have to look at Congress and how itbehaved. You’d have to look at Abraham Lincoln,who was in the House of Representatives duringthe Mexican War. You’d learn a lot about politi-cians and politics because you’d see that AbrahamLincoln on the one hand spoke up against the war,but on the other hand voted to give money tofinance the war. This is so important because thisis something that is repeated again and again in

American history: the feebleopposition in Congress to presi-dential wars, and then the votingof funds for whatever war thePresident has initiated.

How do you prevent history les-sons from becoming a recitationof dates and battles and Con-gresspersons and presidents?

You can take any incident inAmerican history and enrich itand find parallels with today. Oneimportant thing is not to concen-trate on chronological order, but

to go back and forth and find similarities andanalogies.

You should ask students if anything in a par-ticular historical event reminds them of somethingthey read in the newspapers or see on televisionabout the world today. When you press students tomake connections, to abstract from the unique-ness of a particular historical event and find some-thing it has in common with another event—thenhistory becomes alive, not just past but present.

And, of course, you must raise the controver-sial questions and ask students, “Was it right for usto take Mexican territory? Should we be proud ofthat; should we celebrate that?” History teachersoften think they must avoid judgments of right

So often the history ofwar is dominated bythe story of battles,and this is a way ofdiverting attentionfrom the political

factors behind a war.

10 A PEOPLE’S HISTORY FOR THE CLASSROOM

and wrong because, after all, those are matters ofsubjective opinions, those are issues on which stu-dents will disagree and teachers will disagree.

But it’s the areas of disagreement that are themost important. Questions of right and wrongand justice are exactly the questions that should beraised all the time. When students are asked, “Isthis right; is this wrong?” then it becomes interest-ing, then they can have a debate—especially if theylearn that there’s no simple, absolute, agreed-upon, universal answer. It’s not like giving themmultiple-choice questions where they are right orwrong. I think that’s a tremendous advance intheir understanding of what education is.

Teachers must also address the problem thatpeople have been miseducated to become depend-ent on government, to think that their supremeact as citizens is to go to the polls and vote everytwo years or four years. That’s where the history ofsocial movements comes in. Teachers should dwellon Shay’s Rebellion, on colonial rebellions, on theabolitionist movement, on the populist move-ment, on the labor movement, and so on, andmake sure these social movements don’t get lost inthe overall story of presidents and Congresses andSupreme Courts. Emphasizing social and protestmovements in the making of history gives students

a feeling that they as citizens are the most impor-tant actors in history.

Students, for example, should learn that dur-ing the Depression there were strikes and demon-strations all over the country. And it was thatturmoil and protest that created the atmosphere inwhich Roosevelt and Congress passed Social Secu-rity and unemployment insurance and housingsubsidies and so on.

How can teachers foster critical thinking so thatstudents don’t merely memorize a new, albeitmore progressive, set of facts?

Substituting one indoctrination for another is adanger and it’s very hard to deal with. After all,the teacher, no matter how hard she or he tries, isthe dominant figure in the classroom and has thepower of authority and of grades. It’s easy for theteacher to fall into the trap of bullying studentsinto accepting one set of facts or ideas. It takeshard work and delicate dealings with students toovercome that.

The way I’ve tried to deal with that problemis to make it clear to the students that when westudy history we are dealing with controversialissues with no one, absolute, god-like answer.And that I, as a teacher, have my opinion and they

Police escort a group of black children to jail in Birmingham, Ala. on May 4, 1963. They were among the more than 900 childrenarrested for protesting the city’s segregation laws.

AP

Imag

es/B

ill H

udso

n

WHY STUDENTS SHOULD STUDY HISTORY 11

can have their opinions, and that I, as a teacher,will try to present as much information as I canbut that I may leave out information. I try tomake them understand that while there areexperts on facts, on little things, on the big issues,on the controversies and the issues of right andwrong and justice, there are no experts, and theiropinion is as good as mine.

But how do you then foster a sense of justiceand avoid the trap of relativity that, “Well, somepeople say this and some people say that”?

I find such relativity especially true on the collegelevel, where there’s a great tendency to indecisive-ness. People are unwilling to take a stand on amoral issue because, well, there’s this side andthere’s that side.

I deal with this by example. I never simplypresent both sides and leave it at that. I take a stand.If I’m dealing with Columbus, I say, look, there arethese people who say that we shouldn’t judgeColumbus by the standards of the 20th century.But my view is that basic moral standards are notdifferent for the 20th century or the 15th century.

I don’t simply lay history out on a platter andsay, “I don’t care what you choose; they’re bothvalid.” I let them know, “No, I care what you

choose; I don’t think they’re both valid. But youdon’t have to agree with me.” I want them to knowthat if people don’t take a stand the world willremain unchanged, and who wants that?

Are there specific ways that teachers can fosteran anti-racist perspective?

To a great extent, this moral objective is not con-sidered in teaching history. I think people have tobe given the facts of slavery, the facts of racial seg-regation, the facts of government complicity inracial segregation, the facts of the fight for equality.But that is not enough.

I think students need to be aroused emotion-ally on the issue of equality. They have to try to feelwhat it was like, to be a slave, to be jammed intoslave ships, to be separated from your family. Nov-els, poems, autobiographies, memoirs, the remi-niscences of ex-slaves, the letters that slaves wrote,the writings of Frederick Douglass—I think theyhave to be introduced as much as possible. Stu-dents should learn the words of people themselves,to feel their anger, their indignation.

In general, I don’t think there has been enoughuse of literature in history. People should readRichard Wright’s Black Boy; they should read thepoems of Countee Cullen; they should read the

Feminists march on August 26, 1970, the 50th anniversary of women’s suffrage, in a nationwide “strike for equality” called by theNational Organization for Women.

© J

P L

affo

nt/S

ygm

a/C

OR

BIS

12 A PEOPLE’S HISTORY FOR THE CLASSROOM

novels of Alice Walker, the poems of LangstonHughes, Lorraine Hansbury’s A Raisin in the Sun.These writings have an emotional impact thatcan’t be found in an ordinary recitation of history.

It is especially important that students learnabout the relationship of the United States govern-ment to slavery and race.

It’s very easy to fall into the view that slav-ery and racial segregation were a Southernproblem. The federal government is very oftenexempted from re-sponsibility for the prob-lem, and is presented as abenign force helping blackpeople on the road toequality. In our time, stu-dents are taught howEisenhower sent histroops to Little Rock,Ark., and Kennedy senttroops to Oxford, Miss.,and Congress passed civilrights laws.

Yet the federal govern-ment is very often anobstacle to resolving thoseproblems of race, andwhen it enters it comes inlate in the picture. Abra-ham Lincoln was not theinitiator of the movement against slavery but afollower of a movement that had developed for30 years by the time he became president in 1861;it was the antislavery movement that was themajor force creating the atmosphere in whichemancipation took place following the Civil War.And it was the president and Congress and theSupreme Court that ignored the 13th, 14th, and15th Amendments after they were passed. In the1960s it wasn’t Johnson and Kennedy who werethe leaders and initiators of the movement forrace equality, but it was black people.

In addition to focusing on social movementsand having a more consciously anti-racist per-spective, what are some other thematic ways inwhich the teaching of history must change?

I think the issue of class and class conflict needsto be addressed more honestly because it isignored in traditional nationalist history. This istrue not just of the United States but of othercountries. Nationhood is a cover for extreme con-flicts among classes in society, in our country,from its founding, from the making of the Con-stitution. Too often, there’s a tendency to over-look these conflicts, and concentrate on thecreation of a national identity.

How does a teacherdeal with the inter-section of race, class,and gender in termsof U.S. history, inparticular that thewhite working classhas often been com-plicit, consciously or unconsciously,in some very unfor-givable actions?

The complicity of poorwhite people in racism,the complicity of malesin sexism, is a veryimportant issue. Itseems to me that com-plicity can’t be under-

stood without showing the intense hardshipsthat poor white people faced in this country,making it easier for them to look for scapegoatsfor their condition. You have to recognize theproblems of white working people in order tounderstand why they turn racist, because theyaren’t born racist.

When discussing the Civil War, teachersshould point out that only a small percentage ofthe white population of the South owned slaves.The rest of the white population was poor andthey were driven to support slavery and to beracist by the messages of those who controlledsociety—that they would be better off if theNegroes were put in a lower position, and thatthose calling for black equality were threateningthe lives of these ordinary white people.

Picket sign from a protest in 1941 during a time ofheightened labor unrest, when Walt Disney fired union organizers on his art staff.

WHY STUDENTS SHOULD STUDY HISTORY 13

In the history of labor struggles, you shouldshow how blacks and whites were used againstone another, how white workers would go outon strike and then black people, desperate them-selves for jobs, would be brought in to replacethe white workers, how all-white craft unionsexcluded black workers, and how all this createsmurderously intense racial antagonisms. So theclass and race issues are very much intertwined,as is the gender issue.

One of the ways of giving some satisfaction tomen who are themselves exploited is to make themmasters in their own household. So they may behumiliated on the job, but theycome back home and humiliatetheir wives and their children.There’s a wonderful short story bya black woman writer, Ann Petry,“Like a Winding Sheet” thatshould be required reading inschool. It’s about a black man whois humiliated on the job andcomes home and, on the flimsiestof reasons, beats his wife. Thestory is told in such a way as tomake you really understand the pent-up anger thatexplodes inside a family as a result of what hap-pens out in the world. In all these instances ofracial and sexual mistreatment, it is important forstudents to understand that the roots of such hos-tility are social, environmental, situational, and arenot an inevitability of human nature. It is alsoimportant to show how these antagonisms sodivide people from one another as to make it diffi-cult for them to solve their common problems inunited action.

How can you teach white students to take ananti-racist perspective that isn’t based merely onguilt over the things that white people havedone to people of color?

If such a perspective is based only on guilt, it does-n’t have a secure foundation. It has to be based onempathy and on self-interest, on an understandingthat the divisions between black and white havenot just resulted in the exploitation of black peo-ple, even though they’ve been the greatest victims,

but have prevented whites and blacks from gettingtogether to bring about the social change thatwould benefit them all. Showing the self-interest isalso important in order to avoid the patronizingview of feeling sorry for someone, of giving some-body equality because you feel guilty about whathas been done to them.

At the same time, to approach the issue merelyon the basis of self-interest would be wrong,because people should learn to empathize withother people even where there is no visible, imme-diate self-interest.

In response to concerns aboutmulticulturalism, there’s morelip service to include events andperspectives affecting womenand people of color. But oftenit’s presented as more facts andpeople to learn, without anyfundamental change in per-spective. What would be theapproach of a truly anti-racist,multicultural perspective inU.S. history?

I’ve noticed this problem in some of the new text-books, which obviously are trying to respond tothe need for a multicultural approach. What I findis a bland eclecticism where everything has equalweight. You add more facts; you add more conti-nents; you add more cultures; you add more peo-ple. But then it becomes a confusing melange inwhich you’ve added a lot of different elements butwithout any real emphasis on what had previouslybeen omitted. You’re left with a kind of unemo-tional, cold combination salad.

You need the equivalent of affirmative actionin education. What affirmative action does is tosay, look, things have been slanted one way for along time. We’re going to pay special attention tothis person or to this group of people because theyhave been left out for so long.

People ask me why in my book, A People’s His-tory of the United States, I did not simply take thethings that I put in and add them to the orthodoxapproaches so, as they put it, the book would bebetter balanced. But there’s a way in which this so-

Questions of right andwrong and justice areexactly the questionsthat should be raised

all the time.

14 A PEOPLE’S HISTORY FOR THE CLASSROOM

called balance leaves people nowhere, with nomoral sensibility, no firm convictions, no outrage,no indignation, no energy to go anywhere.

I think it is important to pay special attentionto the history of black people, of Indians, ofwomen, in a way that highlights not only the factsbut the emotional intensity of such issues.

Is it possible for history to be objective?

Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable.It’s not possible because all history is subjec-

tive, all history represents a point of view. Historyis always a selection from an infinite number offacts and everybody makes the selection differ-ently, based on their values and what they think isimportant. Since it’s not possible to be objective,you should be honest about that.

Objectivity is not desirable because if we wantto have an effect on the world, we need to empha-size those things which will make students moreactive citizens and more moral people.

How can a progressive teacher promote a radicalperspective within a bureaucratic, conservativeinstitution? Teachers sometimes either push thelimits so far that they alienate their colleaguesor get fired, or they’re so afraid that they tonedown what they really think. How can a teacherresolve this dilemma?

The problem certainly exists on the college anduniversity level—people want to get tenure; theywant to keep teaching; they want to get promoted;they want to get salary raises; and so there are allthese economic punishments if they do some-thing that looks outlandish and radical and dif-ferent. But I’ve always believed that the mainproblem with college and university teachers hasbeen self-censorship. I suspect that the samething is true in the high schools, although youhave to be more sympathetic with high schoolteachers because they operate in a much morerepressive atmosphere. I’ve seen again and againwhere college and university teachers don’t reallyhave a problem in, for instance, using my People’sHistory in their classrooms, but high schoolteachers always have a problem. They can’t get itofficially adopted; they have to get permission;

they have to photocopy parts of it themselves inorder to pass it out to the students; they have toworry about parents complaining, about whatthe head of the department or the principal orthe school superintendent will say.

But I still believe, based on a lot of contactwith high school teachers over the past fewyears, that while there’s a danger of becomingoverly assertive and insensitive to how othersmight view you, the most common behavior istimidity. Teachers withdraw and use the real factof outside control as an excuse for teaching inthe orthodox way.

Teachers need to take risks. The problem ishow to minimize those risks. One important wayis to make sure that you present material in classmaking it clear that it is subjective, that it is contro-versial, that you are not laying down the law forstudents. Another important thing is to beextremely tolerant of students who disagree withyour views, or students who express racist or sexistideas. I don’t mean tolerant in the sense of notchallenging such ideas, but tolerant in the sense oftreating them as human beings. It’s important todevelop a reputation that you don’t give kids poorgrades on the basis of their disagreements withyou. You need to create an atmosphere of freedomin the classroom.

It’s also important to talk with other teachersto gain support and encouragement, to organize.Where there are teacher unions, those are logicalplaces for teachers to support and defend oneanother. Where there are not teacher unions,teachers should always think how they can organ-ize and create a collective strength.

Teachers don’t always know where to get thoseother perspectives. Do you have any tips?

The orthodox perspective is easy to get. But onceteachers begin to look for other perspectives, oncethey start out on that road, they will quickly be ledfrom one thing to another to another.

So it’s not as daunting as people might think?

No. It’s all there. It’s in the library. !

This interview first appeared in the Rethinking Schoolsbook, Rethinking Our Classrooms: Teaching for Equity andJustice, Vol. 1.