Howard Zinn's Analysis
Howard Zinn expertly states that “anyone reading history should understand from the start that there is no such thing as impartial history.” Zinn conveys that any written historical account indicates a certain lean or definite bias depending on who writes it. I agree with this statement because everyone must know that each and every chronicle of events has been interpreted and altered by the author according to their inclinations. A good instance of this claim is the portrayal of the infamous navigator Christopher Columbus. He is mainly associated with sailing his ships west into the Atlantic in order to reach Asia for its many riches and rewards, but instead he actually stumbles upon a whole new continent - North America. His alleged accomplishment
…show more content…
Often times, the treatment of the slaves is quickly omitted so the achievements of America is apparent rather than its missteps. Europeans and Americans often regarded the “African American society as primitive and uncivilized in part to justify the enslavement of Africa’s people” (Brinkley 20). The harsh scrutiny of white people is ignored in children’s textbooks to blur the reality upon which America was constructed. In order to display the country in a better light, the antagonism and mistreatment of slaves on plantations as well as during the Middle Passage (part of the triangular trade in which millions of Africans were transported to the New World) is largely absent in basic schoolbooks. Furthermore, in Remini’s description, he hurriedly mentions that since there was so much labor to be done in the colonies, “slavery was institutionalized as more and more Africans were brought to America” (Remini 22). He fails to mention any exploitation and abuse inflicted upon the slaves and goes on to write about his main point of the chapter: the government system of early America, which reveals his partiality. Zinn details an entirely different outlook from the previous authors, which is defending the unfortunate slaves. He supports the African culture and demands that it is not inferior. He protects his beliefs about the many wrongdoings of white supremacist America by stating that “plantation [and] mining slavery...was lifelong, morally crippling, destructive of family ties, without hope of any future” (Zinn 28). Zinn greatly supports fundamental values which explains his tendency to heavily lean toward the side of the people, often criticizing the past ways of the
Often times, the treatment of the slaves is quickly omitted so the achievements of America is apparent rather than its missteps. Europeans and Americans often regarded the “African American society as primitive and uncivilized in part to justify the enslavement of Africa’s people” (Brinkley 20). The harsh scrutiny of white people is ignored in children’s textbooks to blur the reality upon which America was constructed. In order to display the country in a better light, the antagonism and mistreatment of slaves on plantations as well as during the Middle Passage (part of the triangular trade in which millions of Africans were transported to the New World) is largely absent in basic schoolbooks. Furthermore, in Remini’s description, he hurriedly mentions that since there was so much labor to be done in the colonies, “slavery was institutionalized as more and more Africans were brought to America” (Remini 22). He fails to mention any exploitation and abuse inflicted upon the slaves and goes on to write about his main point of the chapter: the government system of early America, which reveals his partiality. Zinn details an entirely different outlook from the previous authors, which is defending the unfortunate slaves. He supports the African culture and demands that it is not inferior. He protects his beliefs about the many wrongdoings of white supremacist America by stating that “plantation [and] mining slavery...was lifelong, morally crippling, destructive of family ties, without hope of any future” (Zinn 28). Zinn greatly supports fundamental values which explains his tendency to heavily lean toward the side of the people, often criticizing the past ways of the