Zinn-Columbus

The author’s thesis is that the portrayal of history is offset by the distinct side of the person recalling the events. He believes that it is not fair to assume which side is right or wrong, nor to decide which side is weaker.

Howard Zinn finds it hard to believe the history we know today due to it being recollected from the overpowering governments and leaders that overruled those thought to be weaker. Such as in the case of Columbus, who was made to look like a hero by many, while his disgusting acts of killing off many well-meaning Indians are often ignored. The deceit and ignorance of heroes like Columbus are also often pushed aside, as no one wants to believe that their accomplishments were not really so great. Telling the stories from the side of those who have been oppressed will enable us to get a clearer look on how successful the movement actually was and what steps were taken to achieve it.

While Zinn has a valid point in that history should not only be told by those who were on top, but by the weaker side in the situation, would this not still be a one-sided lesson of history? Zinn is ignoring the fact that if the story were to be told from the recollections of the weaker side (as in this circumstance, the Indians or Arawaks), the roles would be flipped and the story would be just as one-sided as it was in being told by the triumphant party. If the Indians told the story of Columbus’s venture throughout the Americas, we would be told only of the massacre and negative actions of Columbus. While he did not bring many positive aspects to the country, he is still part of the reason the Americas are as they are today. He was a very accomplished navigator and explorer and should therefore receive credit for these feats. In conclusion, whether the story is told from the weaker or stronger side of the ordeal in history, it is going to be biased in some way, not only if it is told by the oppressors.

I felt as though the horror stories involving the treatment of the Indians that are sometimes pushed aside are completely believable considering the circumstances at the time. I think it should be more common for students to learn both sides of the story when discussing the accomplishments of Columbus (or any other historical hero). It is too often that the details of suffering and events that had to occur to accomplish a common goal are ignored. In the same way, the successes of many oppressors are also exaggerated and they are made to look like deserving heroes. More should be focused on unveiling the truth of history, not only the great accomplishments made.