The Ideological Choice By Howard Zinn: The Study Of Past Events
The Ideological Choice
History. Simply explained, history can be resumed as “the study of past events”. Crammed into every education system, history is required in every single school (ranging from elementary, middle, or high schools; even including universities). Unfortunately, what they teach in history might not always be exactly what happened. Sometimes inaccurate accounts of past history are due to bias in historiography. Most often this can be due to a historian’s bias of favoring one side of the story because agrees with their personal, cultural, or just general interests. To give a specific example on the issue, Howard Zinn, an American historian, stated this about Columbus-era explorers and navigators: “To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discovers, and to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves -unwittingly- to justify what was done.” The essence of Zinn’s quote is definitely a fundamental truth; people accept what benefits them more and attempt to hide what doesn’t. Zinn was displeased in the way history was being told and took action into pointing out the whole truth. Historians should understand Zinn’s position on the topic and follow his example.
Zinn addresses the issue in an accurate matter by acknowledging that emphasizing on Columbus’ discoveries and positive contributions …show more content…
in order to over-shade his negative and somewhat cruel actions is not NECESSARY but to most people the ideal choice. Zinn himself does not agree on the way Columbus is portrayed in modern history books being taught to children today. Zinn states: “My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all) – that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion (…) is therefore more deadly.” Zinn’s argument is that the “national interest” of people is portrayed in the way history is told; but wisely warns that this sense of acceptance of events just because it benefits a major group of people is a very dangerous way of thinking.
In other words, Zinn states that the fault in today’s society is how easily they accept things.
Zinn states: “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.” It is as if people today automatically accept everything they hear just because they hear it come out of an authority figures mouth. It is as the “national interest” is whatever is done by those same authority
figures.
Zinn is not the only person with this viewpoint however. Interestingly enough, Nican Tiaca, states this in her article “Columbus and The Legacy of Genocide”: “Unknown to most people is the enormity of Columbus' genocidal actions, as well as its deadly legacy lasting into modern times. Genocide expert David Stannard has asserted that, beginning in 1492 with Columbus, Europeans collectively killed between 70 million to 100 million Indigenous People (within 80 years). In his book ‘American Holocaust’, Stannard calls this “the largest ongoing holocaust in the history of humanity.” The consequences of this Indigenous Holocaust were world-changing: 95% of Indigenous People were killed by European actions, 100% of Indigenous lands were stolen, and European-descent people became the most prosperous people on the planet.” It is astounding that most people don’t know that genocide was actually committed in the process of this land. Why are such cruel atrocities unknown to the common American? Because as Zinn stated earlier, it is an “ideological choice”.
The quiet acceptance of these events serves, as a reminder to society of how much work is still needed to create a better world. People still accept what only benefits them and attempt to hide everything else. Even in 2014, the majority of people do not know of the genocide that occurred in the late 1400’s and early 1500’s. Like Zinn, society today needs to learn to investigate both sides of the story and not go with the “common interest”.
History. Simply explained, history can be resumed as “the study of past events”. Crammed into every education system, history is required in every single school (ranging from elementary, middle, or high schools; even including universities). Unfortunately, what they teach in history might not always be exactly what happened. Sometimes inaccurate accounts of past history are due to bias in historiography. Most often this can be due to a historian’s bias of favoring one side of the story because agrees with their personal, cultural, or just general interests. To give a specific example on the issue, Howard Zinn, an American historian, stated this about Columbus-era explorers and navigators: “To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discovers, and to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves -unwittingly- to justify what was done.” The essence of Zinn’s quote is definitely a fundamental truth; people accept what benefits them more and attempt to hide what doesn’t. Zinn was displeased in the way history was being told and took action into pointing out the whole truth. Historians should understand Zinn’s position on the topic and follow his example.
Zinn addresses the issue in an accurate matter by acknowledging that emphasizing on Columbus’ discoveries and positive contributions …show more content…
in order to over-shade his negative and somewhat cruel actions is not NECESSARY but to most people the ideal choice. Zinn himself does not agree on the way Columbus is portrayed in modern history books being taught to children today. Zinn states: “My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all) – that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion (…) is therefore more deadly.” Zinn’s argument is that the “national interest” of people is portrayed in the way history is told; but wisely warns that this sense of acceptance of events just because it benefits a major group of people is a very dangerous way of thinking.
In other words, Zinn states that the fault in today’s society is how easily they accept things.
Zinn states: “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.” It is as if people today automatically accept everything they hear just because they hear it come out of an authority figures mouth. It is as the “national interest” is whatever is done by those same authority
figures.
Zinn is not the only person with this viewpoint however. Interestingly enough, Nican Tiaca, states this in her article “Columbus and The Legacy of Genocide”: “Unknown to most people is the enormity of Columbus' genocidal actions, as well as its deadly legacy lasting into modern times. Genocide expert David Stannard has asserted that, beginning in 1492 with Columbus, Europeans collectively killed between 70 million to 100 million Indigenous People (within 80 years). In his book ‘American Holocaust’, Stannard calls this “the largest ongoing holocaust in the history of humanity.” The consequences of this Indigenous Holocaust were world-changing: 95% of Indigenous People were killed by European actions, 100% of Indigenous lands were stolen, and European-descent people became the most prosperous people on the planet.” It is astounding that most people don’t know that genocide was actually committed in the process of this land. Why are such cruel atrocities unknown to the common American? Because as Zinn stated earlier, it is an “ideological choice”.
The quiet acceptance of these events serves, as a reminder to society of how much work is still needed to create a better world. People still accept what only benefits them and attempt to hide everything else. Even in 2014, the majority of people do not know of the genocide that occurred in the late 1400’s and early 1500’s. Like Zinn, society today needs to learn to investigate both sides of the story and not go with the “common interest”.