History Essay
Nobody likes critical history - the side of history that no one wants to celebrate - yet it is critical to look at all sides of a celebrated historic event before judging. You might find that the cause for celebration only masks the horrific violence beneath. October 12, 1492 was the historic date in which Christopher Columbus, a European explorer, jumped onto American soil for the first time, thinking he had landed in Asia. People with celebratory viewpoints, such as historians Schweikart and Allen, made and honored “Columbus Day,” a national holiday celebrating the beginning of the Columbian exchange and the formation of the nation we know today. However, the critical history of the event is recognized by an increasing number …show more content…
For example, in his paper, Zinn talks about how the Arawaks - the first Native Americans that Columbus met - were a community based, agriculturally centered people, adding that they had no horses, work animals, or iron, therefore living a peaceful, somewhat primitive civilization, with no defense against outsiders with malicious intent. However, by focusing on the Arawaks, Zinn completely ignores the other Native American tribes that Columbus encountered, such as the South American Aztecs who had a harsher culture than the Arawaks, which Columbus himself uses to justify his conquest. He paints a picture of savage Native Americans by focusing on how those Native Americans’ horrified and brutalized victims from other tribes, barbarically eating them - he says that they are mad people who would benefit from some civilized Spanish culture. Thus, by focusing on one tribe and one cultural aspect of them, Zinn and Columbus can portray completely different pictures of the Native …show more content…
Zinn focuses on how the Spaniards took the gentle Arawaks as prisoners and hanged or burned them, forcing them into such positions of defenselessness that they committed mass suicides so that in two years, half the Native Americans were dead through murder, mutilation, or suicide. By doing that, Zinn manages to portray the Spaniards as people who, through their unthinkingly sadistic acts, killed half of the Indians in two years, hinting that they wiped out the whole population after a while. However, by making that argument, Zinn ignores another cause of death that other historians can use to undermine his own. Alfred Crosby acknowledges that the Native American resistance was ineffective against the ways of the white men, but then completely undermines Zinn’s argument by introducing a new cause of death; germs - plague - that killed thousands and were the crucial factor in the Spanish conquest. By ignoring certain information, Zinn can make strong arguments against the celebratory history of the Europeans, though his opponents can do the same to counter
Nobody likes critical history - the side of history that no one wants to celebrate - yet it is critical to look at all sides of a celebrated historic event before judging. You might find that the cause for celebration only masks the horrific violence beneath. October 12, 1492 was the historic date in which Christopher Columbus, a European explorer, jumped onto American soil for the first time, thinking he had landed in Asia. People with celebratory viewpoints, such as historians Schweikart and Allen, made and honored “Columbus Day,” a national holiday celebrating the beginning of the Columbian exchange and the formation of the nation we know today. However, the critical history of the event is recognized by an increasing number …show more content…
For example, in his paper, Zinn talks about how the Arawaks - the first Native Americans that Columbus met - were a community based, agriculturally centered people, adding that they had no horses, work animals, or iron, therefore living a peaceful, somewhat primitive civilization, with no defense against outsiders with malicious intent. However, by focusing on the Arawaks, Zinn completely ignores the other Native American tribes that Columbus encountered, such as the South American Aztecs who had a harsher culture than the Arawaks, which Columbus himself uses to justify his conquest. He paints a picture of savage Native Americans by focusing on how those Native Americans’ horrified and brutalized victims from other tribes, barbarically eating them - he says that they are mad people who would benefit from some civilized Spanish culture. Thus, by focusing on one tribe and one cultural aspect of them, Zinn and Columbus can portray completely different pictures of the Native …show more content…
Zinn focuses on how the Spaniards took the gentle Arawaks as prisoners and hanged or burned them, forcing them into such positions of defenselessness that they committed mass suicides so that in two years, half the Native Americans were dead through murder, mutilation, or suicide. By doing that, Zinn manages to portray the Spaniards as people who, through their unthinkingly sadistic acts, killed half of the Indians in two years, hinting that they wiped out the whole population after a while. However, by making that argument, Zinn ignores another cause of death that other historians can use to undermine his own. Alfred Crosby acknowledges that the Native American resistance was ineffective against the ways of the white men, but then completely undermines Zinn’s argument by introducing a new cause of death; germs - plague - that killed thousands and were the crucial factor in the Spanish conquest. By ignoring certain information, Zinn can make strong arguments against the celebratory history of the Europeans, though his opponents can do the same to counter