3)
CHAPTER ONE
1. Before reading chapter 1 I didn't know much about Columbus and his accomplishments other that what little information i had gathered through the years when classes briefly described his achievements around thanksgiving time. By reading this chapter I can honestly say my opinions of Columbus and his men have changed in a negative way. I knew Columbus’ quest for gold, but not what he would 6 it talks about how the Indians had to get a certain amount of gold in a certain amount of time, and if couldn't complete this they “had their hands cut off and bled to death.” In previous years of school we were always taught that Columbus was a influential explorer. They must have left out the bits about him being a cruel man. The top of page 5 speaks about a sailor named Rodrigo who saw land first ( the man who spotted land first would get a yearly ten thousand maravedis pension for the rest of his life)...”but, Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before.” Before reading this I had thought Columbus was a great explorer. but after reading this chapter I now understand he was just hungry for gold and money which he would do anything to get.
2.If communities were a group of people who share the same interests, I don’t think Columbus and Las Casas would be in the same one. It could make sense that at one point they were in the same community ( when they were both in the Caribbean in search of gold, and when Las Casas owned the plantation). However, Once Las Casas realized how cruel the Spaniards were, he changed communities. Las Casas didn’t believe in being cruel to Indians like Columbus did. Las Casas had many of the same interests as Arawaks. After awhile Las Casas began admiring that they “put no value in gold and other precious things.” Las Casa's common interests with the Arawaks are much greater than the interests common to Columbus. He may have in the past been similar to Columbus, but realized the mistakes and changed his views to be more like the views of the Arawaks. Las Casas clearly didn’t believe in cruel, brutal acts against many Indians as the Arawaks obviously also wouldn’t. These similar beliefs put both Las Casas and the Arawaks in the same community.
CHAPTER TWO
1. In traditional American history texts the topic of slavery was covered after the English began colonizing in America. Zinn's version, however, starts the topic of slavery "50 years before Columbus". Zinn says that when "the Portuguese took ten African blacks to Lisbon: was the start of the regular trade in slaves". Zinn changes the placement of the topic of slavery so that it is understood that the people of Jamestown didn't think they were receiving a "steadfast source of labor", but actually they were fully aware that they were receiving free labor or slaves. The purpose in traditional texts is to show that the settlers were not completely aware that they were buying into slavery, but actually thought that this new concept meant fixed workers for their own use.
2. Zinn argues that racism is not natural because "there is evidence that where whites and blacks found themselves with common problems, common work, common enemy in their master, they behaved toward one another as equals." If racism were indeed natural than there wouldn't be cases of whites and black working together. If racism were natural it would be as uncommon for whites and black living in harmony as lions and rabbits. Zinn believes that the economy was in part of creating racism. Racism existed so that whites and blacks wouldn't sympathize one another, which would cause whites to not want blacks being slaves which would soon cause an end to slavery, which many thought would hurt the economy. The choices that needed to be made to end slavery were so simply it was difficult. The solution of course was to have whites and black treat each other as equal, but if it were that easy slavery would have ended a long while ago. The trouble is not everyone likes to agree on the same idea, so to end slavery it was a given it would take much longer to end than it took to begin. Today we have almost conquered slavery, but it was a forceful puzzle which took many years to complete, and still today there are many pieces missing, which the racist few still hold on to.
4)
The article "Discovering Columbus" is almost the opposite of what is said in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is saying others have stretched the truth, and that Columbus was a great explorer. In Hart's article the people who Columbus conquered and killed were left out, and only his discoveries noted. In Zinn's book, The destruction Columbus caused was detailed, and his discoveries slightly mentioned. Most of the article expresses Columbus' achievements that Zinn's book had un-glorified. History is fact to some distance. Anyone who passes it along can bent the facts. Choosing the ones to keep, and leaving out the facts that won't help towards showing an opinion, which is hidden in the facts.
5)
I agree that Howard Zinn twists events in American history to seem negative. He changes things subtly so that it isn't completly noticable. For example on page 12, "What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortés did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots." he leaves out what exactly happened in each situation . Obviously, the same happenings didn't occur in all situations, but Zinn makes it sound so. What happened to the se people he mentioned may not have been as bad as what Columbus did to the Indians, but Zinn of course wouldn't care to add that. I believe as do many historians and politicians, that Howard Zinn twisted aspects of American History in a negative way.
