The signature works of both authors, Zinn’s A People's History of the United States and Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, are still in print, and each has its own significant impact on American society.
As I look up at the bookshelf in my study, I can see the copy of Catcher in the Rye I’ve owned since high school -the gold on red Bantam edition; my copy is from the 47th printing, January, 1978. It’s frowsy, dog-eared, 33 years old this month, and as I take it town and open it, I can catch a whiff of that old-paperback aroma that takes me back to high school English classes.
If you happen to be a man, Catcher in the Rye is one of those books that stays with you, not necessarily because you might have enjoyed it, but because Salinger’s writing so brilliantly captured the existential weirdness of adolescent boyhood, that cusp-time between childhood and adult life. How many of us, in our teen years, didn’t, like Holden Caulfield, oscillate from moment to moment between mature, truly adult, insightfulness and the frivolous caprices of childhood?
And if Catcher in the Rye spoke as forcefully and directly as it did to so many of our own personal teenaged crises and anxieties, it was in no small measure because J.D. Salinger maintained a lifelong, steady, stalwart, sphinxlike silence about his work.
By doing so, and by never allowing it to be adapted for stage or screen during his lifetime, Salinger allowed all of us to project our own expectations and ideas onto the novel; each of us saw Holden Caulfield’s narrative independently. Perhaps that’s why Catcher in the Rye was such tough going for so many of us who read it in our teen years; Holden’s story was our own; it hit too close to home.
If J.D. Salinger’s work hit home for many of us because Holden Caulfield’s story was so often so much our own, Howard Zinn’s work, particularly his People’s History of the United States, hit home by reminding us of the crucial role in our history that we the people have played in shaping it.
Where Salinger was silent, Zinn regarded it as his duty to speak, right up to the very end. He was one of those voices that, even if one might take issue with some of his views, was part of the collective conscience of the commonwealth, working to keep the system honest.
While I took, and still take, issue with some of Zinn’s conclusions and implications, I appreciated and continue to appreciate the important corrective his work represents to the so-called “Great Man” view of history; for every George Washington at Valley Forge, there were hundreds of theretofore unsung, ordinary soldiers without whom the Revolutionary War could not have been won.
Zinn’s great achievement was to recognize the importance of their influence on our history, to chronicle it, and in so doing, to change the way history is taught, learned, and understood in this country. In one of his last interviews, Zinn described himself as hoping to be remembered as "somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn't have before." (Http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/01/29-2)
If our current historiography is more inclusive of the contribution of “ordinary Americans,” women, people of color, workers, and others whose stories were not often told, it is because Howard Zinn pointed the way, and in the years since, the work of historians on both sides of the political divide has reflected his influence and his insistence that the stories of the people be included in any retelling of our American narrative.
That emphasis on the popular dimension of our history has also helped inform my own commitment to public service. While I may not be in complete agreement with every one of Zinn’s views and ideas, I do agree that our history is one of people, not just “great men,” or “great women.”
History is made when “ordinary” people come forward as active participants in the life of the commonwealth, and in my service in Cathedral City, I have always kept before me the fundamental principle that my service is for the people, not for any special or private interest. For when all is said and done, and when the special interests have had their say and their day, and when they have gone off to do their next deal, we the people will still be here, and the commonwealth will still belong to all of us.
On that principle, Howard Zinn and I were in fundamental agreement; “People First” is, always has been, and always will be the basis of my service.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City, where he serves as a member of the City Council. The views expressed herein are his own, and not necessarily the views of the Municipal Corporation or the Redevelopment Agency
A NOTE ON OUR PRESENTATION:
With this first post for 2010, we've gone to an easier-to-read presentation of black on white. We hope you'll find this an improvement.
