Congressman Grijalva and Howard Zinn

Having read Zinn’s People’s History of United States and having watched Congressman Grijalva’s interview in I Have Something to Say with Gabriel Buelna, it is possible to say that Zinn and Grijalva have similar ideas as well as absolutely different points of view on particular situations.

The time periods in the book and in the interviews do not coincide, however, it does not prevent me from drawing the conclusions about personal considerations of each of the persons mentioned above.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The belief in American predominance and the necessity to control other nation’s lives was seen in the past (the desire to rent as many land as possible to controlling farmers) and can be easily deduced in the current situation (war in Iraq, the intention to enter Afghanistan, etc.). Nevertheless, having similar points of view in many topics for discussion, Zinn and Grijalva may also disagree in some particular issues.

Zinn and Grijalva are sure that American nation is predominant over other nations and its impact should be used for helping others. These ideas may be considered from Grijalva’s discussion of the war in Iraq, which he supports, and Zinn’s opinion about fight of rich and poor people who pursued different goals.

Talking about Iraq, Grijalva thinks that the war should continue. American army should remain in the region until people are secured there. The necessity to continue this war in Iraq is explained by the fact that having taken the responsibility for the people, the USA should bear this responsibility and continue this war until the security of the nation is achieved.

Talking about the domination of rich people, Zinn also point at the security. “Lost jobs”, “the sudden economic crises leading to high prices”, “the lack of food and water”, ”the epidemics of disease,” and “the deaths of children” were the main reasons for “sporadic reactions from the poor” (221).

Still, the intention of rich people to stabilize the situation did not work. The situations described by Zinn and Grijalva are similar and both these people support power as the means of establishing order and security in the society.

One more point where Zinn and Grijalva agreed is the necessity of the extension of the education. Zinn dwells in the 11th chapter of his book about industrialization and the increase of the machinery use. Moreover, more and more educated people were required, so the importance of education is one of the ideas Zinn considers (263).

The same opinion is expressed by Grijalva who highlights the necessity of the extension of the programs for early education. Education is considered as a guarantee of future success, the ability to work and feed the family. At the same time, Grijalva believes that government should be involved in the problems of its citizens connected with education.

The problems connected with unemployment and low level of life can be solved by means of increasing the population literacy. The industrialization cannot be implemented without educated personnel and those who managed to apply their knowledge in the developing world were successful, while those who had neither money nor knowledge had to suffer.

Grijalva and Grijalva have different points of view about treating other nations, different from American. Dwelling about population in the USA and human opportunities, Grijalva states that there are a lot of states where people from different regions were gathered and created a region with the history.

However, growing up in that region, attending schools and leading normal life may appear in the situation that they are limited in such opportunities as getting higher education or entering a military service. Grijalva is sure that it is impossible to choose one particular situation and deal with it separately.

What would happen with other people who appear at the same conditions? Grijalva is sure that to solve the problem of disbalance in the society the measures aimed at combating that unjust, while Zinn is sure that the disballance should be and it is important to create the legal acts which help control the possibility of rebellions (217).

Therefore, it may be concluded that Zinn and Grijalva have different opinions about injustice in the society. At the same time, it should be stated that both of them recognize the presence of those problems.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the problems discussed in the book by Zinn and in the interview of Grijalva with Gabriel Buelna are similar. It should be mentioned that discussing different periods of time, they highlighted similar problems and in some cases agreed with each other, expressing similar opinions.

Still, Zinn and Grijalva have different points of view related to social injustice. Zinn and Grijalva provide strong arguments in supporting their points of view, however, the Grijalva’s opinion about social injustice is closer to me and I suppose that the intentions to reach the balance and equality in the society should be the main priority of the government.

Works Cited

Zinn, Howard. People’s History of United States. Pennsylvania, 2005. Print.