Response to Zinn Chapter 1

The first chapter of Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States—entitled “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”—deals with two issues that he appears to be very passionate about: the treatment of early Indians and the ways in which historical information is presented to people. Within this chapter, Zinn discusses the true nature of Columbus’ voyages and his time spent in what he believed was Asia. He elaborates on horrific acts that were committed for profit and “progress” (Zinn 16), and then, he uses these facts as an example of the ways in which history can be misleading. All of this information considered, Zinn comes to the conclusion that stories like that of Columbus are often biased because the authors focus on or omit certain facts and that people should try to consider and focus on all perspectives when discussing a moment in history.

He points to the information that most Americans were fed during their education as evidence of this conclusion. Columbus is painted as a hero who even has his own holiday which is a “celebration” (Zinn 8). One specific book he talks about is Christopher Columbus, Mariner written by Samuel Eliot Morison, “the most distinguished writer on Columbus” (Zinn 8). Morison refers to Columbus’ acts against the Indians as “genocide”, but according to Zinn, he does not grant this information the space it needs to be thought-provoking to the reader (Zinn 9). Morison only mentions this in passing; therefore, Zinn contends that he is “say[ing] to the reader[…]yes, mass murder took place, but it’s not that important” (Zinn 9). Then, he relates other tales involving the massacre of Indians and the deplorable ways in which they were treated by various settlers. Finally, Zinn ends the article by challenging the reader to question “the excuse of progress in the annihilation of races, and the telling of history from the standpoint of the conquerors and the leaders of Western civilization” (Zinn 16).

Although I agree with Zinn’s point, I have one problem with the way in which he reaches it. I find it somewhat hypocritical for him to condemn Morison for not giving Columbus’ terrible acts the time they deserve, even though he does the same thing when discussing Powhatan and his tribe. Zinn mentions that the Indians finally retaliated for the deaths of their tribe members; he clearly states that they “massacred 347 men, women and children” (Zinn 12). However, he places this fact amid disgusting acts of brutality. In the paragraph immediately preceding his mention of the “massacre”, he recounts the generosity of the Indians in Jamestown and follows it with a story of the queen of the tribe being mercilessly stabbed to death and of her children being taken in a boat, thrown overboard, and then shot (Zinn 12). In the paragraph after his mention of the “massacre”, he says, “the English decided to exterminate them” (Zinn 12). This is exactly what he says is wrong with Morison’s account of Columbus; Zinn spends so much time talking about the ways in which Indians were destroyed that the reader almost ignores the retaliation of the Indians. Like I previously stated, I do agree with what he is saying, just not how he chooses to say it.