Zen Reading: Chapter One

In this chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Zinn’s thesis is that historians typically, and historically, retell the tales of past events from the point of view of the conqueror. Only a handful of authors and biographers have told of the “great victories” of American history through the eyes of the repressed, the oppressed, or the murdered.
Zinn’s main source of evidence is the general knowledge that Americans today know of Christopher Columbus and the discovery of the Americas. He questions the readers’ trust in what he may have learned in grade school history classes. While the Arawaks that met Columbus on the beaches of the Bahamas greeted him and his crew with gifts and hospitality, his greed and lust for gold led him to slay the gentle natives and force them into slavery. Zinn also mentions that few have sided with the downtrodden when telling of Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or any American war that has led us to this point in our nation’s development.
In reading a piece of literature such as this one must often be careful not to fall into the same propaganda that has led him to believe the point of view of history that he has already been taught as the truth. Could Zinn not easily fabricate or overdramatize some details of history that may not be recorded or may not be clear? Not to downplay any of the atrocities that went on between Columbus and the Arawaks, but writers tend to shape certain characters, or in this case groups, to relate more with the reader. If a reader begins to feel a strong connection to a specific party naturally he will feel that group’s injustice and change his views. Also even just in this first chapter I noticed that Zinn’s style of writing seems to cause the reader to almost feel that the point of view of the oppressed is complete truth, when it’s commonly said that there are always two sides to every story “and then there’s the truth.”
All in all, I enjoyed reading this piece. Honestly, I had never really been forced to think about how Columbus “convinced” the Native Americans to “share” their lands. It makes me really sad and angry to think that the greed that coursed through the veins of society at that time (and obviously still today – Ken Lay?) kept Columbus from accepting the Natives’ offer to share their possessions. Also, as I mentioned before reading pieces like this make me question all other historical facts that I’ve been forced to memorize since second grade. What other atrocities have been accepted as necessary steps of national development and subsequently erased from history or forgotten? Who decides what is history-worthy? To me it seems to be the most powerful people who have the final say. Oh, and who always seems to be at the forefront of atrocities?