Within "A People's History of the United States" Howard Zinn wrote a chapter about Columbus, his successors, the genocide of Indians, and the history behind the United States called "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress". Zinn wrote this chapter to make the readers aware of how Americans justify atrocities, such as what Columbus did to the Indians, because what he did "helped", in a sense, make what America is today. Zinn's point is that today in American society, we celebrate corrupt happenings in the name of the United States. Zinn identifies that "when we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventures—there is no bloodshed—and Colombus Day is a celebration" (7). Well, why do we celebrate …show more content…
Not at all. This is what fails to be mentioned throughout text books and curriculums in the United States for students K-12. Columbus completely wiped out the Arawak Indians. He treated them so poorly to the point where the Arawaks tried to save themselves. "Among the Arawaks, mass suicide began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards" (4). The Arawaks were maimed and murdered by Colombus, and to save themselves and their children from going through this, the only way out was suicide. Americans celebrate the fact that Colombus discovered America, but ignore what he did to the Indians. It is pushed off to the side, because well, if Columbus did not "accidentally" come to America and kill all those Indians, then there would have not been any progress. Zinn argues throughout this chapter that if Americans justify the genocide of the Indians, then what other atrocities would be justified in the name of the United States and …show more content…
And that view is within the powerful and the wealthy. Zinn clearly states that: "I prefer to try to tell the story of thr discovery of America from the viewpoints of the Arawaks..." (10). Histories are told and taught from the point of view of the wealthy and powerful and this histories within themselves, are biased. Zinn mentions Henry Kissinger and his book A World Restored, "...in which he proceeded to tell the history of nineteenth-century Europe from the viewpoint of the leaders of Austria and England, ignoring the millions who suffered..." (9). In this book Kissinger talks about a "peace" that was "restored", when there was no peace at all for people of the lower classes. Suffering is ignored and only heroism is emphasized. Why? Because these histories are written and told by the wealthy, not by the people who are undergoing chaos in their world. This is the practice of history that Zinn addresses. That atrocities are buried in textbooks by other information about success and progress. "...the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress—is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which, the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders" (9). All of history is told from the people who are not the ones suffering and the voices of those who are suffering, gets buried. It is seen as not important, because if these people did not suffer
Whereas Zinn described how the Europeans were intrigued by the American Indigenous. He mentioned that they were puzzled by the fact that these people were giving and they were not as possessive as the Europeans. Zinn went further to mention that when the Europeans arrived the Indigenous people gave generously to them, but Johnson discussed their views on taking over and seeking riches. 2. What light do these documents shed Zinn and Johnson arguments?
In the book Zinn, The author gives a point of view of Christopher Columbus that is usually not given. Most of the time the story of Christopher Columbus is told from a historian point of view. They usually tell you of his mission, and of the three ships that he takes in order to find gold and other new riches. Zinn informs us that he is not the hero that, that we all think that he is. It shows us that he tortured, abused, and overwhelmingly embarrasses the Arwark Indians.
However, while historians have a bias, it is common practice to exhaust every plausible source to understand better history. Historians become ostracized and lose credibility if they willingly leave out information that would drastically change the narrative of history. Therefore, Mann’s claim that
Natalie Imamura Ms. Theobald HOTA August 7,2014 A People’s History of the United States 1.) Columbus, the Indians, and Human progress Zinn’s opinion was based on the Indians viewpoint such as the Arawak’s, blacks, and Cherokees. He believes that if we reflect on the past, we will be able to create a better future. When Columbus met the Arawak Indians he took some Indians as prisoners to help Columbus find gold.
The first chapter of both APeople’s History of the United States (Zinn, 1980) andA Patriot’s History of the United States(Schweikart and Allen, 2004) tells the story of the discovery of the New World. Beginning with the landing of Columbus in the Bahamas, these accounts are told from two separate perspectives. Zinn often refers to the telling of history as a tale between victims and executioners, saying that in the “inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in History” he prefers to stand on the side of the victim, whereas Schweikart and Allen tend to stand behind the executioner. Much of APatriot’s Historyis spent arguing the accuracy of the number of natives murdered by invading European entities, attempting to minimize the blame reflected on these executioners.
Many historians and textbooks argue that Christopher Columbus should be celebrated for his accomplishment, of finding new lands. A quote from the text,“When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure-there is no bloodshed-and Columbus Day is a celebration” (Zinn 5). With this in mind Zinn had made an argument as to how this was wrong. That there was
Zinn uses the lens of social justice to view American history and put forward the argument that American history is rife with racism (civil rights issues and omission of non-white historical figures), violence (genocide of Native Americans and race riots), capitalistic greed leading to immiseration (upper class and its then ownership of 2/5th of America’s wealth), and power run amok leading to a type of imperialism (worldwide military interventions). S&A put on rose-colored glasses to argue that American history is fair (the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights), and that Americans are a people of character (Adams’ refusal to create conflict) and virtue (Founding Father’s insertion of slavery-ending measures into government), thereby painting Americans as a moralistic and exceptional people. Based upon what little bit of these two books that I’ve read, I’m going to view both of their contents with skepticism; Zinn seems to be pushing a liberalist agenda, while S&A are adhering to a conservative interpretation of American history. Whenever something so blatantly biased is encountered, it is best to view it with a healthy degree of doubt. The ironic thing is, I believe that both Zinn and S&A are right: American history is violent and exclusive, Americans are a truly amazing people that have achieved greatness, and NEVER trust the federal
“1491” Questions 1. Two scholars, Erikson and William Balée believe that almost all aspects of Native American life have been perceived wrong. Although some refuse to believe this, it has been proven to be the truth. Throughout Charles C. Mann’s article from The Atlantic, “1491”, he discusses three main points: how many things that are viewed as facts about the natives are actually not true, the dispute between the high and low counters, and the importance of the role disease played in the history of the Americas. When the term “Native American” is heard, the average person tends to often relate that to a savage hunter who tries to minimize their impact on their surrounding environment.
From lies of History to reality “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King , Jr. I have come to find out that the stories our teachers and historians tell us is different from what truly happened, so that we could feel good about ourselves and believed it had to happen and feel good that it happened. In Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, and The People History of United States by Howard Zinn, this two authors have studied and compared the history that they know and what teachers teaches students. As Leowen says, “The stories that history textbooks tell are predictable, every
America’s citizens are often very patriotic and love to celebrate those that have helped make their great nation, Columbus, supposedly, being one of these people. However, it is quite astonishing that Columbus Day is even celebrated as a patriotic holiday, considering all of the terrible things he did to the indigenous people of the New World. Citizens all over America express many different beliefs about the world, but the vast majority have a universal belief that murder and cruelty are wrong, so why celebrate a man who practically specialized in unnecessary, unprovoked cruelty. Many know the arrival of Europeans on American soil was terrible for the Native Americans, but few know the role Columbus himself played in the cruelty indigenous people
Christopher Columbus or Native Americans We have been taught the same concept of the discovery of America for hundreds of years. Christopher Columbus discovered America and we celebrate Columbus Day every year to honor his bravery and strength, but every story has two sides. Native Americans who have been settled in the “New World” long before Columbus stumbled onto the land, aren’t given the recognition they deserve.
Columbus Day is celebrated in recognition of Columbus “discovering” America in 1492. Many consider him a hero for that one reason but don’t acknowledge what he did when he first reached America. I personally believe Columbus is not worthy of being called a hero for various reasons. One of the reasons is that Columbus killed millions of native Americans because of his lust for gold. The native Americans were kind and generous towards Columbus and his men, but he enslaved them and forced them to do his dirty work for him.
Columbus was no doubt one of the most significant setbacks in the history of Native culture. America’s time would be better spent celebrating the vibrancy of diversity Columbus tried to eliminate that remains past the crimes against humanity itself he has
Howard Zinn takes the perspective that Christopher Columbus is not the hero that many people perceive him to be. He views him as a cruel and greedy leader who went to the Americas causes death in his wake for his unquenchable search for gold. Columbus took advantage of the Native Americans because at first they were "so naive and so free with their possessions"() by forcing them to collect gold for him else face the punishment of death. While Columbus may or may have not been as heartless as he is made out to be, he is not truly the one to blame for the harsh treatment of the natives on the Caribbean Islands. Almost every other European (at that time) that could have been in his position would have undoubtedly done the same things as Columbus.
“Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”, chapter one of “A People’s History of the United States”, written by professor and historian Howard Zinn, concentrates on a different perspective of major events in American history. It begins with the native Bahamian tribe of Arawaks welcoming the Spanish to their shores with gifts and kindness, only then for the reader to be disturbed by a log from Columbus himself – “They willingly traded everything they owned… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” (Zinn pg.1) In the work, Zinn continues explaining the unnecessary evils Columbus and his men committed unto the unsuspecting natives.