As the dead bodies in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic, were fork-lifted into refrigerated trucks and the stock market tanked, the political demarcations became acuter, with disagreements even about what to call the virus—Wuhan Virus, COVID-19, Chinese Virus, etc.
Leftists, seeing an opportunity to restructure the government, agitate for a long national shutdown and using emergency stimulus funds for illegal aliens and for reparations for “Black + Brown communities” for “redlining, environmental racism, [and the] wealth gap.” For some, like Naomi Klein, the Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University and an admirer of Howard Zinn and the late Venezuelan communist dictator Hugo Chavez, the unfolding tragedy offers an opportunity to “beat” “coronavirus capitalism.”
Many Republican governors, especially of less hard-hit states, resisted complete shutdowns. Conservatives worried about long-term threats to civil liberties and the economy. They criticized the hostility with which help from the Christian charity, Samaritan’s Purse, was met, and how offers from the Remington gun factory and an Upstate New York nursing home went unheeded—even as Gov. Andrew Cuomo threatened to send the National Guard to seize health care equipment from Upstate New York facilities.
Some have compared this moment to
the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941. Americans back then, even
staunch anti-interventionists, rallied round the commander-in-chief,
volunteering for military service. Today, Americans cannot agree on who
the enemy is.
The Chinese Communist Party’s “Open Letter calling for closer international cooperation in the fight against COVID-19,” signed
by 230 parties in 100 countries, including the Communist Party USA,
proclaims that all governments should “foster the global governance
outlook of achieving shared growth through discussion and collaboration”
and that the United Nations and the World Health Organization should
lead “in global public health governance.” In a clear move to deflect
blame, it declared that all must stand “firmly against all
discriminatory comments and practices against any country, region, or
ethnic group. . . .”
A disturbingly large percentage of Americans do not understand the nature of the Chinese regime. A 2019 Victims of Communism poll showed that only 57 percent of Generation Z and 62 percent of millennials “believe China is a communist country and not a democratic country” (compared to 88 percent of baby boomers and older).
But even the knowledgeable may not see this as negative.
The same VOC poll showed that more
than one in three millennials viewed communism favorably, and a rapidly
growing percentage of those under 40 are willing to vote not only
socialist but communist. This could be related to education. Generation Z
and millennials were much more likely to report getting a favorable
presentation of communism, in grades K-12 (23 and 25 percent,
respectively), and in college (36 and 37 percent).
The occupation of Peking by “Chinese Communist forces” in January 1949 was a welcomed ending to the civil war. China was now “in the hands of a revolutionary movement, the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.” Mao Zedong could hardly have improved upon this version!
Furthermore, this “mass movement,” a
“people’s government,” compares favorably with the United States, which
is presented as being founded as a clever scheme by a group of wealthy
white men. As Zinn describes it, “Around 1776, certain important people
in the English colonies made a discovery....They found that by creating a
nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could
take over land, profits, and political power.” U.S. imperialism then
quashed “peoples’” communist movements around the world. CPUSA chairman
William Z. Foster described it the same way in his 1951 book, "Outline
Political History of the Americas!"
More and more professors assign "A
People’s History," repeating Zinn’s claim to have written history from a
different “perspective”—of the people—from the “bottom-up.” This is the
refrain of a professor who criticized Hannah Wright, a student who
wrote me this winter.
The professor told her that calling Zinn “biased”
was “offensive” because it meant “that either the author ignored
evidence that would have changed his conclusions, or he didn't bother
with evidence at all.” Those who would “criticize” Zinn’s book are the
“people who have a problem with any history book that does not seek to
stimulate a nationalist pride in America” or are “some Joe Schmoe on the
internet.” They “never provide evidence for their criticism.”
I have heard many similar stories
from students. The assertion that Zinn is chronicling the history of
overlooked groups and thus offering a new historical perspective is
Zinn’s own big lie that he put forth to cover up his lies of fact,
omission, and distortion. Zinn’s “evidence” consists of plagiarized
disreputable sources, vague references, and deceptive quotations.
Mary Grabar is a resident fellow at The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization and author of "Debunking Howard Zinn."
No comments:
Post a Comment