Summary Of Zinn: A People's History Of The United States

Study Questions
Zinn Chapter 1

1.

According to Zinn, his main purpose for composing A People's’ History of the United States was to tell the history from the viewpoint of the weak, the ones conquered, instead of the classic viewpoint from which history is told of the victors, those who conquered, the ruling class, etc. The reason for Zinn’s dispute of Kissinger’s statement comes directly from Zinn’s own ideological view on how history should be told. Kissinger states

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

that “History is the memory of the states”, while Zinn holds to that history told from this viewpoint overlooks the truth in what was actually occurring, and tends to look only at the high points as seen from the ruling class, almost through rose coloured glasses. History is told from the ideological preference of the historian, and in many cases this leads to the oversight and or devaluement of certain events, seen unfavorable in the historians eye’s. Although true that this trimming of
details proves to be ultimately necessary, it will often lead to a false painting of the true history, as most often occurs when the history is told with a purpose of portraying the conqueror as a heroic figurehead.
Such an example can be seen in Zinn’s quoting of Morrison, who told the story of columbus whole, but buried the less favorable facts of genocide with a myriad of information ultimately devaluing the genocide of a population to a mere occurrence that should weigh little on one’s final judgement of Columbus. In most history books Columbus is portrayed as a heroic figure who brought forth the discovery of the new world leading to many great things most prominently the discovery of our very own great nation, calling for celebration and the tale of his great adventure. Zinn’s criticism with Morrison’s portrayal of Columbus in his book Christopher Columbus, Mariner is that though Morrison
goes into great detail over the full tale of Columbus, and omits no truths, Morrison buries the truths of Columbus's cruelties with a flurry of information, rushing past the less than noble parts of his life, and moving on to parts that portray him the way Morrison wants him portrayed; A hero of the seas. The major causes of conflicts between the Powhatans and the English settlers were born of the English enclave known as the Jamestown settlement, which was established within the territory of the Indian confederacy. The Indians were at peace with the housing situation of the English until events transpired leading to a number of English running away from their settlement to join the Indians for the purpose of being fed, due to the growing problem of starvation found within the settlement at the time. This in turn lead to aggressive retaliation of the English marking the beginning of a Powhatan English conflict. Years later the Indian native inhabitants, alarmed by the growth of the English enclave within their lands, decided to retaliate killing hundreds of English and sealing the beginning of the war fought between Powhatans and English. This statement made by the Powhatan chieftain helps to understand the mentality of the Powhatan people. It shows that the Indian populus prefered peaceful methods of resolving issues, rather than the much more aggressive methods adopted by the Europeans. John Winthrop justified his claim of Indian territory through both legal and religious means. Legally he saw his claim to lands justified by declaring the area a legal vacuum, meaning though the natives of the land had lived on the land and had a natural right to it, because they had not subdued the land legally they could not claim it theirs. Religiously Winthrop justified his claim by appealing both to Psalms 2:8 for their claiming of the land & Romans 13:2 for their use of force to take it. The tactic adopted by the English to defeat the Native Indians, who had the advantage of home turf, as well as far more experienced men, was to feign peace with the Natives and allows them to settle down and lay down roots. Once the Natives were comfortable and had already planted their crops, right before the time of harvest, the English would strike eliminating as many as possible and burning down their crops to make them useless.

8.

According to Roger Williams, the argument the English would provide, like most others in an equivalent situation, is that the war they were fighting was being waged from a defensive stance. Though patently the aggressive party, the English claimed to be acting out of preventive intent. 9. The prevalent factors in the European Indian conquest were the Europeans foreign ruthless waring strategies, superior technology and weaponry overall, as well as non native diseases brought from Europe. The most devastating factor of these was evidently the non native diseases brought from a foreign land due to there not being any anti bodies within the populous that could combat the diseases. In short the European conquest of the Indians boils down to Guns, Germs, & Steel. 10. Zinn proves that the Natives were not inferior to the Europeans by showing several examples of the structure of their society. Such examples include things such as the accounts of Bartolome de las Casas of the Native inhabitants and their social norms, customs, beliefs, and values. This shows that the Natives were within their own society advanced. Though in a different technological era from the Europeans, its patent by the presence of a social hierarchy, as well as agricultural dominance, that the Natives were not at all inferior to the Europeans, merely different due to being from different far away lands, which developed at different paces. Based on the information provided in 1491 Zinn’s claims are in fact correct. When analyzed to its most basic structure, when comparing cultures for level of advancement one has to look for evidence of advancement within the culture itself. Put simply the Europeans as “advanced” as they were could not in fact efficiently survive in the Native’s lands without some aid an knowledge of the Native populace.