Fun_People Archive
19 Dec
Tennis on the Titanic

Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 100 11:44:30 -0800
To: Fun_People
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Tennis on the Titanic

X-Lib-of-Cong-ISSN: 1098-7649  -=[ Fun_People ]=-
X-http://www.langston.com/psl-bin/Fun_People.cgi
Forwarded-by: Rscholtz@aol.com
Forwarded-by: scholtz@hify.com(Matt Scholtz)
Forwarded-by: Jessica Meyer

====================
TENNIS ON THE TITANIC
By Howard Zinn

As the prize of the presidency lurched wildly back and forth in the last
days of the year, with the entire nation hypnotized by the spectacle, I
had a vision.  I saw the Titanic churning through the waters of the North
Atlantic toward an iceberg looming in the distance, while passengers and
crew were totally concentrated on a tennis game taking place on deck.

It is not just a phenomenon of this particular election.  In our election-
obsessed culture, everything else going on in the world - war, hunger,
official brutality, sickness, the violence of everyday life for huge numbers
of people - is swept out of the way, while the media insist we watch every
twist and turn of what candidates say and do.  Thus, the superficial crowds
out the meaningful, and this is very useful for those who do not want
citizens to look beneath the surface of the system.  In the shadows, and
hidden by the dueling of the candidates (if you can call it a duel when
the opponents thrust and lunge with plastic swords) are real issues of race
and class, war and peace, which the public is not supposed to think about,
as the media experts pontificate endlessly about who is winning, and throw
numbers in our faces like handfuls of sand.

For instance, as the Gore-Bush contest rose to a frenzy, the media kept
referring to the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876.  The education that the
public received about this was typical of what passes for history in our
schools, our newspapers, our television sets.  That is, they learned how
the Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution, gave the state
legislators the power to choose Electors, who would then choose the
President.

We were told how rival sets of electors were chosen in three states, and
how Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, had 250,000 more popular votes than the
Republican, Rutherford Hayes, and needed only one more electoral vote to
win the Presidency.  But when a special commission, with a bare Republican
majority, was set up by Congress to decide the dispute, it gave all three
states to Hayes and thus made him President.

This was very interesting and informative about the mechanics of
presidential elections and the peculiar circumstances of that one.  But it
told us nothing about how that "Compromise of 1877", worked out between
Republicans and Democrats in private meetings, doomed blacks in the South
to semi-slavery.  It told us nothing about how the armies that once fought
the Confederacy would be withdrawn from the South and sent West to drive
Indians from their ancestral lands.  It told us nothing about how Democrats
and Republicans, while fencing with one another in election campaigns,
would now join in subjecting working people all over the country to ruthless
corporate power, how the United States army would be used to smash the
great railroad strikes of 1877.

These were the facts of race and class and Western expansion concealed
behind the disputed election of 1877.  The pretense in disputed elections
is that the great conflict is between the two major parties.  The reality
is that there is an unannounced war between those parties and large numbers
of Americans who are represented by neither party.

The ferocity of the contest for the presidency in the current election
conceals the agreement between both parties on fundamentals.  Their heated
disagreement is about who will preside over maintaining the status quo.
Whoever wins, there may be skirmishes between the major parties, but no
monumental battles, despite the inflated rhetoric of the campaign.  The
evidence for this statement lies in eight years of the Clinton-Gore
administration, whose major legislative accomplishments were part of the
Republican agenda.

Both Gore and Bush have been in agreement on the continued corporate control
of the economy.  Neither has had a plan for free national health care, for
extensive low-cost housing, for dramatic changes in environmental controls,
for a minimum income for all Americans, for a truly progressive income tax
to diminish the huge gap between rich and poor.  Both have supported the
death penalty and the growth of prisons.  Both believe in a large military
establishment, in land mines and nuclear weapons and the cruel use of
sanctions against the people of Cuba and Iraq.  Both supported the wars
against Panama, Iraq, and Yugoslavia.

Perhaps when the furore dies down over who really won the election, when
the tennis match is over and we get over the disappointment that our guy
(is he really our guy?) didn't win, we will finally break the hypnotic
spell of the game and look around.  We may then think about whether the
ship is going down and if there are enough lifeboats, and what should we
do about all that.

This is not the Titanic. With us, there is still time to change.

© 2000 Peter Langston