Understanding -- Howard Zinn

Understanding

A few words: Howard Zinn is a very important historian and his book, A Peoples’ History of the United States, took him 10 years to write and has sold over a million copies. It has the truths in it that are systematically excised from High School history books, the sorts of things that perhaps teachers are aware of, but dare not say for fear of the PTA. I knew enough of these facts to get into great trouble in high school as the teachers were obliged to ignore these facts.

His website makes much of it available on-line.

Znet, at www.zmag.org is the best source for facts not available in the corporate media and this article was first published there. An mgp version of it is also available.

Another great site is www.chomsky.info .

I mention these as I am currently getting a bit burned out on this blog and the apparent lack of interest in it so you have at least these sources (which will lead you to others) in my absence.

Charles

*ZNet | U.S.*

*The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism*

*by Howard Zinn; Democracy Now

<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/24/1442258>;

November 26, 2006*

Madison is a very special place. I always have a special feeling

when I come here. I have a feeling I am in a different country.

And I’m glad, you know. Some people get disgusted of the

American policy, and they go to live in some other country. No.

Go to Madison.

So, now I’m supposed to say something. I am glad you’re there,

whoever you are, and this light is shining in my eyes to wake me

up.

Well, do you get the feeling sometime that you’re living in an

occupied country? Very often that’s a feeling I get when I wake

up in the morning. I think, “I’m living in an occupied country.

A small group of aliens have taken over the country and are

trying to do with it what they will, you know, and really are.”

I mean, they are alien to me. I mean, those people who are

coming across the border from Mexico, they are not alien to me,

you see. You know, Muslims who come to this country to live,

they are not alien to me, you see. These demonstrations, these

wonderful demonstrations that we have seen very recently on

behalf of immigrant rights, say, and you’ve seen those signs

saying, you know, “No human being is alien.” And I think that’s

true. Except for the people in Washington, you see.

They’ve taken over the country. They’ve taken over the policy.

They’ve driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our

country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East.

And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it

to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to

Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They’re ruining

the environment. And they’re holding on to 10,000 nuclear

weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran

may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon. You see, really, how

mad can you be?

And the question is, how has this been allowed to happen? How

have they gotten away with it? They’re not following the will of

the people. I mean, they manufactured a will of the people for a

very short time right after the war started, as governments are

able to do right after the beginning of an armed conflict, in

order to able to create an atmosphere of war hysteria. And so

for a short time, they captivated the minds of the American

people. That’s not true anymore. The American people have begun

to understand what is going on and have turned against the

policies in Washington, but of course they are still there. They

are still in power. The question is, you know, how did they get

away with that?

So, in trying to answer the question, I looked a little at the

history of Nazi Germany. No, it’s not that we are Nazi Germany,

but you can learn lessons from everybody and from anybody’s

history. In this case, I was interested in the ideas of Hermann

Göring, who, you may know, was second in command to Hitler, head

of the Luftwaffe. And at the end of World War II, when the Nazi

leaders were put on trial in Nuremberg, Hermann Göring was in

prison along with other of the leaders of the Nazi regime. And

he was visited in prison by a psychologist who was given the job

of interviewing the defendants at Nuremberg.

And this psychologist took notes and, in fact, a couple of years

after the war, wrote a book called /Nuremberg Diary/, in which

he recorded -- put his notes in that book, and he recorded his

conversation with Hermann Göring. And he asked Göring, how come

that Hitler, the Nazis were able to get the German people to go

along with such absurd and ruinous policies of war and

aggression?” And I happen to have those notes with me. We always

say, “We happen to have these things just, you know, by chance.”

And Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why

would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war?

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine

the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of

the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being

attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It

works the same way in any country.”

I was interested in that last line: “It works the same way in

any country.” I mean, here, these are the Nazis. That’s the

fascist regime. We are a democracy. But it works the same way in

any country, whatever you call yourself. Whether you call

yourself a totalitarian state or you call yourself a democracy,

it works the same way, and that is, the leaders of the country

are able to cajole or coerce and entice the people into war by

scaring them, telling them they’re in danger, and threatening

them and coercing them, that if they don’t go along, they will

be considered unpatriotic. And this is what really happened in

this country right after 9/11. And this is happened right after

Bush raised the specter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

and got for a while the American people to go along with this.

But the question is, how did they get away with it? What about

the press? What about the media? Isn’t it the job of the press,

isn’t it the job of the media, isn’t it the job of journalism to

expose what governments do? Don’t journalists learn from I.F.

Stone, who said, “Just remember two words,” he said to young

people who were studying journalism, he said, “Just remember two

words: governments lie”? Well, but the media have not picked up

on that. The media have gone along, and they embraced the idea

of weapons of mass destruction. You remember when Colin Powell

appeared before the United Nations just before the onset of the

Iraq war and laid out to the UN this litany of weaponry that

Iraq possessed, according to him, and gave great details in how

many canisters of this and how many tons of this, and so on and

so forth. And the next day, the press was just aglow with

praise. They didn’t do their job of questioning. They didn’t do

their job of asking, “Where? What is your evidence? Where did

you get this intelligence? Who did you talk to? What are your

sources?”

Isn’t this what you learn as a freshman in college? “Hey, what

are your sources? Where are your footnotes?” No, no. They were

just -- the /Washington Post/ said, “It is hard to imagine how

anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass

destruction.” And the /New York Times/, you know, it was just

beside themselves with admiration for Colin Powell. Of course,

it all turned out to be untrue, all turned out to be lies. But

the press did not do its job, and as a result, the American

people, watching television, reading the newspapers, had no

alternative source of information, no alternative opinion, no

alternative critical analysis of what was going on.

And the question is, why still did the people believe what they

read in the press, and why did they believe what they saw on

television? And I would argue that it has something to do with a

loss of history, has something to do with, well, what Studs

Terkel called “national amnesia,” either the forgetting of

history or the learning of bad history, the learning of the kind

of history that you do get, of Columbus was a hero, and Teddy

Roosevelt is a hero, and Andrew Jackson is a hero, and all these

guys who were presidents and generals and industrialists, and so

on. They are the great -- they are the people who made America

great, and America has always done good things in the world. And

we have had our little problems, of course -- like slavery, for

instance, you know -- but we overcome them, you know, and, you

know. No, not that kind of history.

If the American people really knew history, if they learned

history, if the educational institutions did their job, if the

press did its job in giving people historical perspective, then

a people would understand. When the President gets up before the

microphone, says we must go to war for this or for that, for

liberty or for democracy, or because we’re in danger, and so on,

if people had some history behind them, they would know how many

times presidents have announced to the nation, we must go to war

for this reason or that reason. They would know that President

Polk said, “Oh, we must go to war against Mexico, because, well,

there was an incident that took place on the border there, and

our honor demands that we go to war.”

They would know, if they knew some history, how President

McKinley took the nation into war against Spain and Cuba,

saying, “Oh, we’re going in to liberate the Cubans from Spanish

control.” And in fact, there was a little bit of truth to that:

we did go in, we fought against Spain, we got Spain out of Cuba,

we liberated them from Spain, but not from ourselves. And so,

Spain was out, and United Fruit was in, and then the American

banks and the American corporations were in.

And if people knew their history, they would know, you know,

that President McKinley said, when -- as the American army was

already in the Philippines and the American navy was already in

the Philippines, and Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great

presidential heroes, was lusting for war, then people would know

that McKinley, who did not know where the Philippines were, but

very often now presidents need to be briefed and told where

something is. You know, George Bush, “This is Iraq is,” you

know. Lyndon Johnson, “This is where the Gulf of Tonkin is.” You

know, they need it.

And president -- they would know, if they knew history, that

President McKinley said, “We’re going into the Philippines to

civilize and Christianize the Filipinos.” And if they knew their

history, if the history books spent some time on the war in the

Philippines in the early part of the 20th century, instead of,

as history books do -- they spend a lot of time on the

Spanish-American War, which just lasted three months -- they

spend virtually no time on the war on the Philippines, a bloody

war which lasted, oh, seven years, and which involved massacres

and the extermination of populations. That history doesn’t

appear. You know, we had civilized and Christianized the

Filipinos and established our control.

They would know, if they heard the President say, “We are going

to bring democracy to the Middle East,” they would know how many

times we brought democracy to other countries that we invaded.

They would know if we brought democracy to Chile, when we

overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973.

They would know how we brought democracy to Guatemala when we

overthrew, again, a democratically elected -- oh, we love

democratic elections, we love free elections, except when they

go the wrong way. And then we send either our army in or the CIA

in or secret agents in to overthrow the government.

If people knew that history, they would never for a moment

believe President Bush, when he says, oh, we’re going into Iraq,

you know, because of this reason and that reason and liberty and

democracy, and they’re a threat, you know. I mean, it takes --

yeah, it takes some historical understanding to be skeptical of

the things that authorities tell you.

When you know history, you know that governments lie, as I.F.

Stone said. Governments lie all the time. Well, not just the

American government. It’s just in the nature of governments.

Well, they have to lie. I mean, governments in general do not

represent the people of the societies that they govern. And

since they don’t represent the people and since they act against

the interest of the people, the only way they can hold power is

if they lie to the people. If they told people the truth, they

wouldn’t last very long. So history can help in understanding

deception and being skeptical and not rushing to embrace

whatever the government tells you.

And if you know some history, you would understand something

which is even more basic, perhaps, than the question of lying

about this war or lying about this invasion, lying about this

intervention, something more basic, if you knew some history:

you would understand a sort of fundamental fact about society,

and including our society, that the interests of the government

and the interests of the people are not the same.

It’s very important to know this, because the culture tries very

hard to persuade us that we all have a common interest. If they

use the language “national interest” -- there’s no national

interest. There’s their interest and our interest. National

security -- now, whose security? National defense, whose

defense? All these words and phrases are used to try to encircle

us all into a nice big bond, so that we will assume that the

people who are the leaders of our country have our interests at

heart. Very important to understand: no, they do not have our

interests at heart.

You will hear a young fellow who is going off to Iraq. I

remember hearing the same thing when a young fellow went off to

Vietnam. And a reporter goes up to the young fellow and says,

“You know, young man, you’re going off, and what are your

thoughts and why are you doing this?” And the young man says,

“I’m doing this for my country.” No, he’s not doing it for his

country. And now, she’s not doing it for her country. The people

who go off to war are not doing fighting for their country. No,

they’re not doing their country any good. They’re not doing

their families any good. They’re certainly not doing the people

over there any good. But they’re not doing it for their country.

They’re doing it for their government. They’re doing it for

Bush. That would be a more accurate thing to say: “I’m going off

to fight for George Bush. I’m going off to fight for Cheney. I’m

going off to fight for Rumsfeld. I’m going off to fight for

Halliburton.” Yeah, that would be telling the truth.

And, in fact, you know, to know the history of this country is

to know that we have had conflict of interest in this country

from the very beginning between the people in authority and the

ordinary people. We were not one big happy family that fought

the American Revolution against England. I remember, you know,

in school, that’s how it seemed, you know: they’re the patriots,

and there’s all of us, working, fighting together at Valley

Forge and Bunker Hill, and so on, against the Redcoats and the

British, and so on. It wasn’t that way at all. It wasn’t a

united country.

Washington had to send generals down south to use violence

against young people to force them into military service.

Soldiers in the revolutionary army mutinied against Washington,

against officers, because there was class conflict in the army,

just as there had been class conflict all through the colonies

before the Revolutionary War. Well, anybody who knows the

military, anybody who’s been in the military, knows that the

military is a class society. There are the privates, and there

are the officers. And in the Revolutionary War, the privates

were not getting shoes, and they were not getting clothes and

not getting food, and they were not getting paid. And the

officers were living high in resplendence. And so, they

mutinied, thousands of them.

I don’t remember ever learning about that when I studied history

in school, because the myth comes down: oh, we’re all one big

happy family. You mean, including the black slaves? You mean,

including the Native Americans, whose land we were taking from

them, mile by mile by mile by mile? We’re all one big happy

family? The women, who were left out of all of this, were -- no,

very important to understand that fundamental fact: those people

who run the country and we, our interests are not the same.

So, yes, history is useful for that, for understanding --

understanding that we are a nation like other nations, for

understanding that we are not, as again we are taught from early

on, we are the greatest, we are number one, we are the best. And

what -- it’s called American exceptionalism in the social

sciences. The United States is an exception to the rule of

nations. That is, the general rule of nations is they’re pretty

bad. But the United States, our country, we are good. We do good

in the world.

Not long ago, I was on a radio program, interviewed by -- this

was sort of a regular commercial station. I like to be

interviewed on regular commercial stations, where the guy really

doesn’t know who he’s invited, you see. And he says, “Professor

Zinn, don’t you think America has, in general, been a force for

good in the world?” “No, no, no.” Why not ask me, “Do you think

the British Empire was a force for good in Africa, or the

Belgians were a force for good in the Congo, or the French were

a force for good in Indochina? You think the United States was a

force for good when they sent the Marines into Central America

again and again and” -- no.

But there’s this notion of, you know, we are different. We are

the great -- I mean, sure, there are very great things about

America, but that’s not what we did to other countries, not what

we did to black people, not what we did to Native Americans, not

what we did to working people in this country who suffered

twelve-hour days until they organized and rebelled and rose up.

No, we have to be honest with ourselves.

This is a very hard thing to do: be honest about ourselves. I

mean, but, you know, you’re brought up and you say, “I pledge

allegiance,” you know, etc., etc., “liberty and justice for

all,” “God bless America.” Why us? Why does God blessing us? I

mean, why is He singling us out for blessing? You know. Why not,

“God bless everybody”? If indeed, you know -- but, you know,

we’re brought up -- if we were brought up to understand our

history, we would know, no, we’re like other nations, only more

so, because we are bigger and have more guns and more bombs, and

therefore are capable of more violence. We can do what other

empires were not able to do to such an extent. You know, we are

rich. Well, not all of us. Some of us are, you see? But, no, we

have to be honest.

Don’t people join Alcoholics Anonymous so that they can stand up

and be honest about themselves? Maybe we ought to have an

organization called Imperialists Anonymous, you know, and have

the leaders of the country get up there on national television

and say, “Well, it’s time, you know -- time to tell the truth.”

It would be -- I don’t expect it to happen, but it would be

refreshing.

And then, if we knew this history, we would understand how often

fear has been used as a way of getting people to act against

their own interests to work up hysteria and to get people to do

terrible things to other people, because they’ve been made

afraid. Wasn’t it fear and hysteria that motivated lynch mobs in

the South? Wasn’t there created fear of black people, hysteria

about black people, that led white people to do some of the most

atrocious things that have been done in our history? And isn’t

it today -- isn’t it fear, fear of Muslims, not just terrorists,

in general? Of course, fear of terrorists, especially fear of

Muslims, you see? A very ugly kind of sentiment to inculcate on

the American people, and creating a kind of hysteria, which then

enables them to control the population and enable them to send

us into war after war and to threaten, you know, still another war.

And if we knew some history, we would know about the hysteria

that accompanied the Cold War, the hysteria about communism.

It’s not that communism didn’t exist, just as terrorism does

exist, yes. It’s not that communism -- communism existed, and

there was a Soviet Union, and it was repressive to its own

people, and it did control Eastern Europe, but there was an

enormous exaggeration of the Soviet threat to the point where --

oh, it’s not just that they’re in Eastern Europe. It’s, they’re

going to invade Western Europe.

By the way, no evidence of that. CIA analysts who were

specialists in the Soviet Union in recent years came forth and

said there was never any evidence that the Soviet Union were

going to invade Western Europe. But against that, NATO was

created. Against that, the United States built up an enormous

nuclear arsenal.

The Soviets were always behind the United States. They built up

the Soviets as a threat, but after all, who had the atom bomb

first? And who had more atom bombs than anybody? And who was the

only country that actually dropped atomic bombs on ordinary

people in two cities in Japan? And so, we who use the atomic

bomb, we who accumulate the atomic bomb, we create a hysteria

about countries that are desperately trying to catch up. Of

course, Iran will never catch up, and North Korea will never

catch up. The Soviet Union tried to catch up. But in creating

this monster threat, we took trillions of dollars of the wealth

of this country and expended it on military budgets.

And the hysteria about communism reached the point where -- and

I’m not just talking about school kids hiding under their desks,

you know, because the Soviets were going to drop an atomic bomb.

There was no evidence the Soviets were going to drop an atomic

bomb. By the way, there is evidence that the joint chiefs of

staff, the people high up in the American government, at

various, various times proposed preventive war, dropping nuclear

weapons on the Soviet Union. But we created a threat so ominous,

so omnipresent, that kids were, yeah, hiding under their desks,

and also so that anything that happened anywhere in the world

that was not to the liking of the United States became part of

the world communist threat.

And so, to deal with that, we could go into any country in Latin

America that we wanted. And because it was a communist threat,

we would send an army over to Vietnam, and several million

people would die, because Vietnam became the symbol of the

communist threat in the world. When you think about how absurd

it was to worry that Vietnam, already divided into a communist

north and anti-communist south, to worry that, oh, now half of

this tiny country is going to become communist, and just to the

north a billion people had turned to communism. And there’s

something a little bizarre.

But, you know, bizarre thinking is possible when you create fear

and hysteria. And we’re facing, of course, that situation today

with this whole business of terrorism. And if you added up all

the times in speeches of George Bush and his Cabinet and all the

times they used the word “terrorism” and “terror,” it’s a mantra

they have created to frighten the American people.

I think it’s wearing off. You know, when you -- I think there’s

beginning to be some recognition, and that accounts for the fact

that public opinion has turned against the war. People no longer

believe that we’re fighting in Iraq in order to get rid of

terrorism, you know, because the evidence has become so

overwhelming that even the mainstream media has reported it --

you know, the National Intelligence Estimate. And this is the

government’s own intelligence agencies saying that the war in

Iraq has caused a growth of terrorist groups, has increased

militancy and radicalism among Islamic groups in the Middle East.

But terrorism has supplanted communism as an attempt to get

people to do things against their own interests, to do things

that will send their own young people to war, to do things that

will cause the depletion of the country’s wealth for the

purposes of war and for the enrichment of the super-rich. It

doesn’t take much thought about terrorism to realize that when

somebody talks about a war on terrorism, they’re dealing with a

contradiction in terms. How can you make war on terrorism, if

war itself is terrorism? Because -- so you respond to terrorism

with terrorism, and you multiply the terrorism in the world.

And, of course, the terrorism that governments are capable of by

going to war is on a far, far greater scale than the terrorism

of al-Qaeda or this group or that group or another group.

Governments are terrorists on an enormously large scale. The

United States has been engaging in terrorism against

Afghanistan, against Iraq, and now they’re threatening to extend

their terrorism to other places in the Middle East.

And some history of the use of fear and hysteria and some

history of the Cold War and of the anti-communist hysteria would

be very useful in alerting people to what we are going through

today. I mean, with Iran, for instance, it’s shameful, and the

media have played such a part in this, of the Iran nuclear

weapon. They want a nuclear weapon. They don’t say they have a

nuclear weapon. They want a nuclear weapon. So do I. Yeah, it’s

easy to want a nuclear weapon. And small countries that face

enormous military powers and who cannot possibly match the

military power of these enormous countries, they are following

what was the strategy of the United States: the United States

said, “We must have a deterrent.” How many times have you heard,

when you ask, “Why do we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?” “We must

have a deterrent.” Well, they want a deterrent: one nuclear

weapon. You know.

Not that situation with Iraq. I mean, you know, Condoleezza

Rice: “a mushroom cloud.” We were the only ones who created

mushroom clouds, over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iraq was in no

position to create a mushroom cloud. All the experts on the

Middle East and atomic weapons said, you know, Iraq was five-ten

years away from developing a nuclear weapon, but we were

creating, you know, hysteria about nuclear weapons.

Now we’re doing the same thing with Iran. And the International

Atomic Energy group of the UN flatly contradicts a congressional

report which talks about the danger of Iran’s nuclear weapons,

and the international group, which has conducted many, many

inspections in Iran, says, well, you know, you need to -- and

they give the American people a kind of half-education. That is,

they say, they use the phrase, “They’re enriching uranium.”

Well, that scares me. You know, they’re enriching uranium. I

don’t really know what it means, you see, but it’s scary. And

then you read the report of the International Atomic Energy

group, and you see, well, yes, they are. They’ve enriched

uranium to the point of 3.5%. In order to have one nuclear

weapon, they have to enrich it to 90%. They’re very, very far

from even developing one nuclear weapon, but the phrase

“enriched uranium” is, you know, repeated again and again, you

know.

And so, yes, we need some historical understanding, yeah, just

remembering back to Iraq, just remembering back to the hysteria

around Vietnam. My god, a communist might take over South

Vietnam! And then what? Just a short hop to San Francisco. No,

some of you may remember that when Reagan was supporting the

Contras in Nicaragua, he was saying, “You know, you see where

Nicaragua is? It wouldn’t take much for them to get to Texas.” I

wondered about that, you see? And then I wondered, why would the

Nicaraguans want to get to Texas? And this is no slur on Texas,

but -- and once they got to Texas, what would they do? Take a

United Airlines flight to Washington. What would they -- but

really, it’s very important to know some of that history to see

how hysteria absolutely cripples consciousness about what is

going on.

I would suggest something else. I’m getting worried about how

much time I have taken. Well, actually, I’m not getting worried

about how much time I’ve taken. I don’t care. I’m looking at my

watch to pretend that I care. And since I don’t know when I

started, I can’t figure out how long I’ve been talking.

But at some point the war in Iraq will come to an end. At some

point, the United States will do in Iraq what it did in Vietnam,

after saying, “We will never leave. We will never leave. We will

win. We will stay the course. We will not cut and run.” At some

point, the United States is going to have to cut and run from

Iraq, you see. And they’re going to do it because the sentiment

is going to grow and grow and grow in this country and because

more and more GIs are going to come back from Iraq and say,

“We’re not going back again,” and because they’re going to have

more and more trouble supplying the armed forces in Iraq, and

because the parents of young people are going to say more and

more, “We are not going to allow our young people to go to war

for Bechtel, you know, and Halliburton. We’re not going to do

that.” So at some point, yes, at some point we are going to do

what they say we mustn’t do: cut and run.

We don’t have to cut and run. Cut and walk. Cut and swim. Cut,

but get out, as fast as you can, because we’re not doing any

good there. We’re not helping the situation. We’re not bringing

peace. We’re not bringing a democracy. We’re not bringing

stability. We’re bringing violence and chaos. We’re provoking

all of that, and people are dying every day. When a Democratic

leader says, “Well, I think we ought to withdraw by May 14th,

2000-and-whatever.” You know, yeah, every day from now until

then more people will die, and more people will lose arms or

legs or become blinded. And so, that is intolerable. And so, we

have to do everything we can.

And in the case of Vietnam, at a certain point the government

realized it could not carry on the war. The GIs were coming back

from Vietnam and turning against the war. They couldn’t bring

people to join the ROTC. Too many people were running to Canada.

Too many people were not signing up for the draft. Finally, it

had to do away with the draft. They were losing the support of

the population. They were losing support of the military. And at

a certain point, no.

And something like that is going to happen. And the sooner we

help it happen, of course, the better. The more we go into the

high schools -- you know, there’s a very practical thing, very

practical thing that everybody can do, and that is, go to their

local high schools and make sure that all the parents and all

the kids in high schools understand that they don’t have to give

their information to the military recruiters, you see, as, you

know. And more and more have teams of people who will counter

the propaganda of the military recruiters.

You know, they are having trouble. They’re getting desperate

about recruiting for the military, going to all sorts of lengths

and, or course, they’re concentrating -- they send their

military recruiters into the poorest schools, because they know

that the working class kids are the most vulnerable, the most

needy, the ones who, you know -- they need an education, they

need a skill, and so. And so, they’re trying to prey on the

working class. Eugene Debs said -- if you don’t mind my quoting

Eugene Debs -- but Eugene Debs said in a speech during World War

I, which landed him in jail, “The master class has always

started the wars. The working class has always fought the wars.”

And, of course, that has been true all the way. So we will at

some point get out of Iraq.

But I want to suggest one thing: we have to think beyond Iraq

and even beyond Iran. We don’t want to have to struggle against

this war and then against that war and then against the next

war. We don’t want to have an endless succession of antiwar

movements. It gets tiring. And we need to think and talk and

educate about the abolition of war itself, you see.

I was talking to my barber the other day, because we always

discuss world politics. And he’s totally politically

unpredictable, as most barbers are, you see. He said, “Howard,”

he said, “you know, you and I disagree on many things, but on

one thing we agree: war solves nothing.” And I thought, “Yeah.”

It’s not hard for people to grasp that.

And there again, history is useful. We’ve had a history of war

after war after war after war. What have they solved? What have

they done? Even World War II, the “good war,” the war in which I

volunteered, the war in which I dropped bombs, the war after

which, you know, I received a letter from General Marshall,

general of generals, a letter addressed personally to me, and to

16 million others, in which he said, “We’ve won the war. It will

be a new world.” Well, of course, it wasn’t a new world. It

hasn’t been a new world. War after war after war.

There are certain -- I came out of that war, the war in which I

had volunteered, the war in which I was an enthusiastic

bombardier, I came out of that war with certain ideas, which

just developed gradually at the end of the war, ideas about war.

One, that war corrupts everybody who engages in it. War poisons

everybody who engages in it. You start off as the good guys, as

we did in World War II. They’re the bad guys. They’re the

fascists. What could be worse? So, they’re the bad guys, we’re

the good guys. And as the war goes on, the good guys begin

behaving like the bad guys. You can trace this back to the

Peloponnesian War. You can trace it back to the good guy, the

Athenians, and the bad guys, the Spartans. And after a while,

the Athenians become ruthless and cruel, like the Spartans.

And we did that in World War II. We, after Hitler committed his

atrocities, we committed our atrocities. You know, our killing

of 600,000 civilians in Japan, our killing of probably an equal

number of civilians in Germany. These, they weren’t Hitler, they

weren’t Tojo. They weren’t -- no, they were just ordinary

people, like we are ordinary people living in a country that is

a marauding country, and they were living in countries that were

marauding countries, and they were caught up in whatever it was

and afraid to speak up. And I don’t know, I came to the

conclusion, yes, war poisons everybody.

And war -- this is an important thing to keep in mind -- that

when you go to war against a tyrant -- and this was one of the

claims: “Oh, we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” which

was, of course, nonsense. They didn’t -- did our government care

that Saddam Hussein tyrannized his own people? We helped him

tyrannize his people. We helped him gas the Kurds. We helped him

accumulate weapons of mass destruction, really.

And the people you kill in a war are the victims of the tyrant.

The people we killed in Germany were the victims of Hitler. The

people we killed in Japan were the victims of the Japan Imperial

Army, you know. And the people who die in wars are more and more

and more people who are not in the military. You may know this

about the different ratio of civilian-to-military deaths in war,

how in World War I, ten military dead for one civilian dead; in

World War II, it was 50-50, half military, half civilian; in

Vietnam, it was 70% civilian and 30% military; and in the wars

since then, it’s 80% and 85% civilian.

I became friends a few years ago with an Italian war surgeon

named Gino Strada. He spent ten years, fifteen years doing

surgery on war victims all over the world. And he wrote a book

about it, /Green Parrots: Diary of a War Surgeon/. He said in

all the patients that he operated on in Iraq and Afghanistan and

everywhere, 85% of them were civilians, one-third of them,

children. If you understand, and if people understand, and if

you spread the word of this understanding, that whatever is told

to you about war and how we must go to war, and whatever the

threat is or whatever the goal is -- a democracy or liberty --

it will always be a war against children. They’re the ones who

will die in large numbers.

So, war -- well, Einstein said this after World War I. He said,

“War cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished.” War has to

be abolished, you know. And it’s -- I know it’s a long shot. I

understand that, but you have to -- when something’s a long

shot, but it has to be done, you have to start doing it. Just as

the ending of slavery in this country in the 1830s was a really

long shot, but people stuck at it, and it took 30 years, but

slavery was done away with. And we can see this again and again.

So, we have a job to do. We have lots of things to do.

One of the things we can learn from history is that history is

not only a history of things inflicted on us by the powers that

be. History is also a history of resistance. It’s a history of

people who endure tyranny for decades, but who ultimately rise

up and overthrow the dictator. We’ve seen this in country after

country, surprise after surprise. Rulers who seem to have total

control, they suddenly wake up one day, and there are a million

people in the streets, and they pack up and leave. This has

happened in the Philippines, in Yemen, all over, in Nepal.

Million people in the streets, and then the ruler has to get out

of the way. So, this is what we’re aiming for in this country.

Everything we do is important. Every little thing we do, every

picket line we walk on, every letter we write, every act of

civil disobedience we engage in, any recruiter that we talk to,

any parent that we talk to, any GI that we talk to, any young

person that we talk to, anything we do in class, outside of

class, everything we do in the direction of a different world is

important, even though at the moment they seem futile, because

that’s how change comes about. Change comes about when millions

of people do little things, which at certain points in history

come together, and then something good and something important

happens.

Thank you.