Web Letters: In Defense of Studs Terkel

Many times in our thinking we believe that we can leave an aspect of our ideology behind. Such as when we are reading a piece of oral history. Studs Terkel at times reminded me of an older version of Pete Hamill, both scrappy street men of letters. I could read between the lines and figure out their politics.

What Rothstein seems to be saying is that he wishes Terkel's writing could have been free of his radical ideology. For the most part Terkel does stay away until you feel the undertow of the struggle of the proletariat. Now is as good a time as any to ponder the undertow of socialism. Many people think that with a new election and new ideals all will change within four to eight years. Socialism may sound harmless: spread the wealth around. As if all deserving people then will have enough to eat and a roof over their heads.

At Boston University I remember reading and understanding that socialism is a philosophy that is neither simple nor harmless, at least that was one of my interpretations. Communism fell in Russia due to a systematic failure of political and social revolutions that were guided by individuals who do not want to work so that others will profit.

We may be cleaning up the word and repackaging the messenger, but even though the populists voted they were not voting for an underlying socialist message.

Studs Terkel wrote from his perspective. A voice that recalls the union organizing of his generations. I read Working many years ago and still remember the image of a waitress somewhere in the middle of America.

To leave behind or change your ideals comes with life's changes. Stud's never left his behind--any reader could pick that up. I enjoyed his writing, even if I did not agree with the ideology. I like the primary sources that Studs tried to stick to even though they came as a secondary source he made the voices sound so close and so real.

I agree with Mr. Zinn, a former professor of mine , that Terkel was giving us a little piece of his truth. The interpretations are ours to make.

Stephanie Sanchez

Huntington Beach, CA

Howard Zinn is too kind in his assessment of Edward Rothstein's "appraisal" of Studs Terkel. Rothstein's thinly veiled hatchet job joins a series of cruel treatments of late progressives. The two that come to mind immediately are literary theorist and Palestinian advocate Edward Said and political philosopher John Rawls. Later Times treatments of both (by considerably better informed and more thoughtful writers) made up somewhat for what initially bordered on cruelty.

Rothstein betrays not just a lack of understanding of Terkel's work but a willful misrepresentation entirely in keeping with the New York Times's treatment of progressives and their causes. The victim need not be dead or even particularly progressive, witness the Times repeated treatment of President Jimmy Carter when he dared to criticize Israel.

Rothstein's take is no surprise coming as it does from a product of the University of Chicago's famously absolutist and conservative Committee on Social Thought (probably better called the "Committee on Right Thinking").

That the Times determines to treat progressives or the left so is clear from the glowing treatment of "moderates" or "conservatives." Recall that George Plimpton died at almost the same time as Said. But Plimpton received the white-glove treatment.

Rothstein closes his essay with an underhanded, snide attack: "Mr. Terkel presented himself as an avuncular angel with close contact with the salt of the earth, a populist with a humane vision of the world. There are times such gifts are evident, but there are also times when such dreamers should make us wary."

I cannot imagine when a humane vision of the world should make us wary. And in this time and after this election, another dreamer comes to mind. Count me with Studs Terkel, with Martin Luther King Jr. Count me with the dreamers.

Hugh Sansom

Brooklyn, NY