The inferior position of blacks, the exclusion of Indians from the new society, the establishment of supremacy for the rich and powerful in the new nation—all this was already settled in the colonies by the time of the Revolution. With the English out of the way, it could now be put on paper, solidified, regularized, made legitimate, by the Constitution of the United States, drafted at a convention of Revolutionary leaders in Philadelphia.
When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.
Were the Founding Fathers wise and just men trying to achieve a good balance? In fact, they did not want a balance, except one which kept things as they were, a balance among the dominant forces at that time. They certainly did not want an equal balance between slaves and masters, propertyless and property holders, Indians and white.
As many as half the people were not even considered by the Founding Fathers as among Bailyn's "contending powers" in society. They were not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, they were absent in the Constitution, they were invisible in the new political democracy. They were the women of early America.
Quotes from A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present (New York: HarperCollins, 1980) pgs. 89, 97, 101-2
Howard Zinn (1922 - 2010) was one of the last of a dying breed. An iconoclastic lefty, he fought Fascists in Europe, marched in the civil rights movement, protested the Vietnam War, and found time to teach, write plays and books. I have a soft spot for iconoclasts (and their books) so I've long wanted to read his magnum opus, A People's History of the United States. As the excerpts above indicate this isn't a nuanced analysis, nor was it meant to be. A People's History was Zinn's attempt to write a narrative that self-consciously told the stories of the victims of the American project that most history books gloss over. At the time of our founding those included Indians, blacks, women and landless white males. They say history is written by the victors, and it's usually written about the "haves" at the expense of the "have-nots". This book is a frontal assault on history as told from the standpoint of governments, conquerors and rich men. I like it.
No comments:
Post a Comment