Howard Zinn Critique
A People’s History of the United States is a book that explores the history of the United States. Howard Zinn writes from an omniscient point of view, this includes the view of the European explorers, the Native Americans, and scholars who study the discovery of America. Zinn’s book isn’t an alternative history as some say, it is history told with excruciating details that allow for reasoning from bias and change the impression of readers, and something to learn off of when it comes to history in the making. Howard Zinn’s history shows an alternative point of view, but not an alternative history, compared to many historians. If many historians considered Columbus great, Zinn shows how he is not so great; if many historians say the Native
…show more content…
American population decreased due to their lack of advancements, Zinn would say it decreased due to European misuse of advancements.
Although Zinn’s view is different, it can’t be considered alternative history because the history is the same but Zinn decides to include many details and reasons that other historians have missed. In the first chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Zinn critiques Columbus’ expedition, arrival in America, encounter with the Native Americans, and treatment of the Natives. Zinn includes details of Columbus’ report to Spain such as “The Indians… ‘are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone’… he would bring them from his next voyage ‘as much gold as they need … and as many slaves as they ask.’… ‘Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow his way over apparent impossibilities.’ ”(Zinn, 5). Zinn acknowledges that Columbus said exactly this in his report, proving that A People’s History of the United States isn’t any sort of alternative history. Zinn also includes important details and excerpt like “If you were a colonist, you
knew that your technology was superior to the Indians'. You knew that you were civilized, and they were savages... . But your superior technology had proved insufficient to extract anything. The Indians, keeping to themselves, laughed at your superior methods and lived from the land more abundantly and with less labor than you did... . And when your own people started deserting in order to live with them, it was too much. ... So you killed the Indians, tortured them, burned their villages, burned their cornfields. It proved your superiority, in spite of your failures.” (Zinn, 25) to show that many historians may have missed the idea that Native Americans accepted Europeans as regular people but not rulers whom they wanted to go to war with. The book explores the aspect of history that sometimes remains disregarded. Mainly, the mass killing of Native Americans. History can be used to create a better future, humankind learns from the past. Zinn states that “What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortes did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots.”(Zinn, 12) and argues that "The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide." (Zinn, 9). The definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, so is Zinn really saying that Columbus’ intentions were to kill the Natives at all costs? As said, Zinn showed a very different and anti-heroic point of view of US history and especially Columbus. Zinn also states that he would not like readers to accuse Columbus of wrong doings that he may or may not have intentionally done. Instead, Zinn argues “The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-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. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they- the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices of the Supreme Court-represent the nation as a whole.”(Zinn, 10), suggesting that historians follow his path and observe history in an almost alternative point of view. In conclusion, I believe that Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States isn’t an alternative history, it is simply history told from all sorts of angles. History should be written in this type of writing because it allows for the student to study the events thoroughly with more insight of what happened and to create more reasoning to why the events happened how they did and when they did.
American population decreased due to their lack of advancements, Zinn would say it decreased due to European misuse of advancements.
Although Zinn’s view is different, it can’t be considered alternative history because the history is the same but Zinn decides to include many details and reasons that other historians have missed. In the first chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Zinn critiques Columbus’ expedition, arrival in America, encounter with the Native Americans, and treatment of the Natives. Zinn includes details of Columbus’ report to Spain such as “The Indians… ‘are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone’… he would bring them from his next voyage ‘as much gold as they need … and as many slaves as they ask.’… ‘Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow his way over apparent impossibilities.’ ”(Zinn, 5). Zinn acknowledges that Columbus said exactly this in his report, proving that A People’s History of the United States isn’t any sort of alternative history. Zinn also includes important details and excerpt like “If you were a colonist, you
knew that your technology was superior to the Indians'. You knew that you were civilized, and they were savages... . But your superior technology had proved insufficient to extract anything. The Indians, keeping to themselves, laughed at your superior methods and lived from the land more abundantly and with less labor than you did... . And when your own people started deserting in order to live with them, it was too much. ... So you killed the Indians, tortured them, burned their villages, burned their cornfields. It proved your superiority, in spite of your failures.” (Zinn, 25) to show that many historians may have missed the idea that Native Americans accepted Europeans as regular people but not rulers whom they wanted to go to war with. The book explores the aspect of history that sometimes remains disregarded. Mainly, the mass killing of Native Americans. History can be used to create a better future, humankind learns from the past. Zinn states that “What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortes did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots.”(Zinn, 12) and argues that "The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide." (Zinn, 9). The definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, so is Zinn really saying that Columbus’ intentions were to kill the Natives at all costs? As said, Zinn showed a very different and anti-heroic point of view of US history and especially Columbus. Zinn also states that he would not like readers to accuse Columbus of wrong doings that he may or may not have intentionally done. Instead, Zinn argues “The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-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. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they- the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices of the Supreme Court-represent the nation as a whole.”(Zinn, 10), suggesting that historians follow his path and observe history in an almost alternative point of view. In conclusion, I believe that Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States isn’t an alternative history, it is simply history told from all sorts of angles. History should be written in this type of writing because it allows for the student to study the events thoroughly with more insight of what happened and to create more reasoning to why the events happened how they did and when they did.