Columbus, the Indians, and the Human Progress
To lead the human progress, many sacrifices were made to determine our society: from uncivilized to civilized society today. Zinn displays his opinion whether the means of killings or sacrifices meaning anything. For example, he questions the reader about Morison, a historian who refuses to omit or lie about Columbus, emphasizing the ‘genocide’ Columbus did to the Arawaks. Afterwards, Zinn reasons the readers the conflict between man and the historic events because the balance of losses of humans were not stressed at all. The answer provided by these men who made the sacrifices said that it was an acceptable choice because it “had to be done”. Zinn begins to contradict that point by referring it to the people, who had their lives in the lower class level in society, if their sacrifices were the casualties of progress for a civilized society and were the sacrifices a choice to the sacrificed individuals their own act. From the Spanish deeds, the men killed the Native Americans and took their gold and silver, but it infers the readers that the Spanish did no good during the genocide, but worse because a statement in the essay Zinn affirms, “They ended up losing anyway up losing anyway, and all that was left was a deadly inflation, a starving population, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and a ruined peasant class” (pg. 18).
To emphasize, it did no good in the human progress because Columbus, Cortés, Pizarro, and the other white settlers who made the Indians’ population decrease.
The Essay on The Indians and Human Progress
The Indians, and Human Progress” written by Howard Zinn and “The City on the Hill” written by Larry Schweikert and Allen Michael I have analyzed three specific topics/concepts that have been presented by both authors. The first topic that I observed was Christopher Columbus. Howard Zinn’s article was mainly focused on Columbus while Larry S. and Allen M. ’s article covered many explorers including ...
Zinn’s idea was brought out where the readers would have a chance to think about what would be right and what would be wrong. His explanation is quite agreeable because his points affirm the reasons why the human progress did not come from the Indian massacres. For example, Zinn explains that when the Indians were killed, there was nothing good that came out of it, for it was all murder. When Columbus and his men killed the Arawaks for either punishment or just because they wanted to for their own reasons, Columbus thought it was good only for him and the people of Spain, but he gave no thought of the Indians and their fine techniques. This also included the thought of the other European explorers who also thought what they did was for the good. The sacrifices being done at times were only thought to be good because it would benefit the society around the people. Thus, his idea mentioned earlier is agreeable because it explained the ending of the massacre meaning nothing good for the development of the human sacrifice.
An historian has certain responsibilities when presenting history because of many reasons. First, historians must carefully include facts that are necessary for readers to understand and carry on in their life. However to do that, some historians “omit” facts so that the event would be read out smoothly; thus easy to comprehend. Otherwise, facts that are outrageous will “lead to unacceptable conclusions” (pg. 8) and it would make the readers go against the writer. In addition, children in elementary school are taught that Columbus was the greatest navigator who found America, met the Arawaks, and received gold from them. There was nothing in their small textbooks his atrocities: the demanding of gold, taken those Arawaks as slaves, overworking them, murder and massacres, and the shocking reduction of their population to none. Therefore, many historic events must be understood as a calm event, relating facts that are the bigger picture of that important period.
Zinn relates that an historian’s distortion is more than technical but that is ideological. To emphasize, behind the art of history there is more guidance behind those misrepresentation historians. So historians are taught and trained to push the main facts forward and the occurrence “that may lead to unacceptable conclusions” happened during the incident hidden. Many people view Columbus as a hero who discovered America and proved that the world was round. As Zinn said, “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” (pg.9).
The Term Paper on Critical analysis of Good Country People by Flannery O’ Connor
Good Country People is one of the most sought after works of Flannery O’ Connor. It is said to be the biography of O’Connor but she never claimed it to be such. The novel Good Country People seems to reflect the current situation and emotional status of O’ Connor while she was writing the novel, and if it is not in fact her biography, her emotion at that time has influenced the novel greatly. ...
What teachers have taught as well as what textbooks in school guide the people, the results of learning are nearly the same, for the main facts are repeated throughout the studies so that one can have the idea of that occurrence.
