Pessimistic Historian Analysis

The Pessimistic Historian The historian is not fully prepared through the bland reading of textbooks written by others. Rather, it takes careful analysis of factual information gathered through the sifting of history itself. Although the myths and legends may speak of a great men and great cities, it can be found that those men were tyrants and the cities corrupt. Throughout history this has occurred: Caesar was said to be a great man, while Brutus, evil. Another example is of the city Rio, it has been acclaimed to be beautiful, but evil and ugliness lies within its city walls. Such information can be invalid or perhaps true from one angle, but when seen from another perspective it is considered false. There is nothing different about America …show more content…
Patriotism was soaring high and mutiny was unheard of. Most Americans believed that our soldiers were fairly treated during the war and were happy to die for their country. But this was not true. A group of two hundred men “defied their officers and started out for the state capital at Trenton.” But this time, “Washington was ready,” he’d prepared six hundred, “well fed and clothed,” men. The ringleaders were trialed, two shot dead by their own friends, and another pardoned. For Washington, “it was an example.” (72) This antipatriotic way of viewing the United States is necessary as historians have to understand all angles of a problem, and should have no bias in judgement. Another part of the Founding Fathers history is that they truly did not care for women, slaves, nor Native Americans. The Declaration itself completely ignored them talking only about ‘men’. America was still the wealthy white man’s country. All 55 fifty-five men that drew up the Constitution had been lawyers or of other high class professions. Most had slaves and would directly profit from having a stronger central government. In fact, “four groups,” weren’t represented: “slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property.” The remaining being rich white men. (80) Zinn here is also absolutely correct when you take a look at history and how the United States has an enormous wealth …show more content…
But this was absolutely not the case in the early times. As mentioned women were a part of the four groups of unrepresented people. They were treated as “inferior,” and, “their physical characteristics became a convenience for men,” even if they were a, “servant, sex mate, companion, and bearer-teacher-warden of his children.” (94) There was in fact no sense of respect for women at the time. In fact, the Indian tribes treated women much better, some tribes even having a matriarchal system rather than a patriarchal way that Americans used. For the Indians girls learned to, “shoot small bows, and carried small knives,” as they were expected to, “defend [themselves] against attack.” (94) The settlers had basically bought their wives, as they had come to America as indentured servants that became wives for their freedom. In this case women were treated as slaves, black women facing double the problems as they matched both abused profiles. Usually America is known as a very progressive country and known to cherish equality but this was absolutely not true. A majority of Europe had abolished slavery and had given women rights before the United States. Once again Howard Zinn is correct with his characterization of the US as an almost hypocritical country, as they also didn’t completely follow their established principles of freedom and