A patriot is an individual with a special love and affection to their own country, while at the surface this may be admirable, it also insinuates a bias towards anything that could put their country’s righteousness in jeopardy. Similarly, patriots tend to reject ideas that could cause hinderance to the portrayal of their country’s history. Thus, the title of Larry Schweikart’s book “A Patriot’s History of the United States” is rather fitting.
Schweikart’s admiration to the American history is rather evident early on, he proclaims America’s past as “a bright and shining light”, a land of liberty and hope, or more famously a “city on the hill”. A city that stands on a hill is distinguishable, a focal point that draws all attention to itself; all other nations will have their eyes on the America, inspired to follow in its step. While this phrase could raise pride in oneself, it alludes to a sense of superiority, which Schweikart fails to acknowledge.
Schweikart’s biases are a predominant theme throughout the first chapter of “A patriot’s history of the United States”, and are more overt later on, but the irony of his writing lies in its hypocrisy; “At least Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States honestly represents its Marxist biases in the title!” (pg.1 Introduction xxi). Zinn’s personal biases are indisputable, but Schweikart similarly portrays biases in his writing, which undermines his argument.
Both extracts indulge on the topic of past America, with overlapping themes of native Americans (Indians), Spanish and European colonies and Columbus - the beknown explorer. Though the time, place and people are the similar, their ideas and depictions are extremely contrasting.
“Arawak men and women, naked, tawny and full of wonder” (pg.1 Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, Chapter 1 Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress), Zinn’s first sentence where he illustrates the native Indians – the Arawak- as child-like, free spirited and “full of wonder”. While it may be rooted in some realism, his descriptions are done in a way that invokes sympathy, he is painting this image of fragile, hospitable, and wonderful people who could be nothing more than victims to others.
The innocent harmless Indians depicted in Zinn’s piece, with its faults, are far mor favorable than Schweikart’s ingenious portrayal. The Aztecs are a powerful Indian tripe, one that dominated with force, power, and creativity, yet Schweikart only brushes over their impressive architecture and warriorship, to focus on their “brutal regime” where he went in detail of their sacrificial methods that seem inhumane. (pg. 5 The City on the Hill). The “rituals” he described a and the massacre that occurred in the Aztec’s hands give a vaguely demonic notion, which could be used to perpetuate the later argument of purifying these Indians through introducing them to God – converting them.
He later states numerical data of the estimated incomprehensible sacrifices that would occur in these pyramids. “A butchery of 80,400 prisoners” by the Aztec king Ahuitzotl in 1487. (Acknowledging these numbers is difficult when he himself recognizes that many numeric data is exaggerated in history to serve the informer’s prejudice). (pg. 5)
While it is tempting to deny his description of aggressive villainous Indians and support Zinn’s more cordial depiction, battles between tribes were not uncommon and brutality was a casualty of the time. Schweikart recognizes that in many ways the Indian tribes were akin to European states in their pursue of enemy – concerned with nearby tribes instead of the invaders. Therefore, brutal displays of aggression between neighboring tripes are not foreign at the time. Thus, the likelihood of his description must be recognized.
Zinn depicted the Aztecs far differently; they were a society of innovators, they “built enormous constructions from stone tools and human labor, developed a writing system and a priesthood” (pg. 10). It is here where their contrast becomes apparent; were the Aztecs a brutal and in many ways inferior group, or were they intellectuals who operated their own society? With the limited resources on the matter, it is difficult to justify which is the more accurate perception, though due to both of their biases, I am leaning towards a more complex combination of the two; a society of strong worriers and brilliant builders, who triumphantly fought in vicious wars to expand their territory.
On the other side of the coin lie the Spanish colonies, after the Reconquista in a voyage to obtain new land and bring back wealth to the Spanish, under the leadership of Christopher Columbus – the well-renowned controversial figure in the world of history. People’s ideas of Columbus are riddled with misdirection, misinformation, and bigoted questionings of his actions. People’s opinion of him varies greatly and this is no different in the case of Zinn and Schweikart.
Schweikart, a historian patriot who stands by his country and against democracy, is unsurprisingly an admirer of Columbus. He described him as “the best of the new generation of navigators: resilient, courageous, and confident”. (pg. 4) I do not disagree with the astonishing capabilities and resilience a man must have to endure many difficult long voyages to the unknown more than once, but there is a fogged-up exaggeration in his portrayal of Columbus as this heroic intellectual figure, which Zinn challenges “But he was lucky”. (pg. 2)
Schweikart’s brilliant image of Columbus, is immediately shutdown by Zinn. Zinn quotes and explains the lies and tricks Columbus pulled to not lose his promised prize from the king of Spain; writing letters back in account of yet to be found gold and mentions of vast green prosperous land when there was none. Similarly, Columbus lied stating that he saw land the night before another sailor, Rodrigo, first saw it on October 12, thus Columbus took a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for life, which should’ve been given to the sailor. The significance of this story is not truthfully much, but it showcases the greediness behind Columbus’s actions and brings to question the real reason behind these voyages. (pg. 3)
Another aspect that Columbus often gets credit for is his knowledge of the earth spherical shape, Schweikart recognized that Columbus was not among the first to know but he defended him exclaiming that a physical demonstration of the earth’s roundness is different that than intellectual knowledge of it. On this matter Zinn simply states, “like other informed people of his time” (pg. 2), admitting that Columbus was among the many who were informed, yet not placing him on a pedestal akin to what Schweikart seems to do.
Schweikart’s Columbus sought for God along with glory, he hoped to “convert them to our Holy Faith by love rather than by force”. Columbus religious endeavors were also approached by Zinn, though he bluntly mentioned “He was full of religious talk”. In this context, Zinn is much more correct regarding his frustration, for none of the ways Columbus would enslave, harass, punish or kill was religious, yet when he was contacting their Majesties, his religious side suddenly becomes a favored trait.
What perhaps best represents the differences in how each historian felt towards Columbus is there discussion of Columbus’s first thoughts as he met the Indians.
According to Larry Schweikart Columbus found these Indians “very well formed, with handsome bodies and good faces…”. Columbus apparently hoped to convert them with no force but rather with love. This is contradicting with the full version that Zinn provides on the first page of “A people’s history of the United States”, in it, following the compliments of good bodies and handsome features, Columbus wrote “… They would make fine servants…”.
Contrary to what Schweikart may want to depict, Columbus thought of the Indians as inferior and servants, which might not be bizarre when arriving from Europe at the time, but when met with open greetings of the natives and welcoming gifts, it becomes immoral and wrong – though that might be my presentism at play.
Moreover, Columbus was already accounting for how many men would be needed to “subjugate them all” (pg. 1), which does not match the concept highlighted by Schweikart. Conversion to Christianity by love, an empty promise of peace cannot be used to defend an individual when there is written and recorded evidence of him not following this promise. The event of collecting gold in Haiti for instance, any Indian with no copper coin around their neck had their hands cutoff. Others that resisted were hanged or burned them to death.
This led to an unfortunate sequence of events in which the Arawak who were not killed, burned, or sold, committed suicide. Mass suicide began among them, “infants were killed to save them from the [dangerous] Spaniards”. The Indians were later taken as slaves when there was no gold left. As a result, the number of native Americans decreased at an alarming rate.
Upon learning about these tragic events many believe Columbus to have been the killer of most of the Indians, both directly and indirectly. Schweikart challenges this idea in pg. 7 of “The City on The Hill 1492 - 1707”, for he discusses the inconsistency in these reports and arguments. Firstly, the manipulated data that lacks evidence, overtime many numbers were edited making it difficult to obtain the real estimates and recognize inflated estimates. Secondly, there were epidemics circling before the Europeans arrived at America. People lost in warfare before the European invasion, climatic shifts, resource management and warfare – especially those within neighboring tribes - also play a role in the decreasing of these numbers. (pg. 8-9)
The decreasing percentages of native Americans was a result of warfare, slavery, dispossession, and disease. It is not one factor or two but multiple intertwined over a long period of time which we have no exact records of. Here we see the sheer complexity of the matter and attempting to simplify it could lead to lacking on-dimensional ideas which muddle our understanding of the time.
To place it briefly, one individual who was by many ways a product of hist time cannot be placed at shotgun for the rapid decrease of an entire nation, especially when there are many factors alluding to a bigger picture that is being ignored. Moreover, questioning the morality of a person who has already passed seems like a waste of time, as Howard Zinn writes “It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly of morality” (pg. 9)
Dr. Mark had once discussed the unfair presentism we place on these historical figures. We criticize their actions based on our modern-day attitude and while cliché to admit, the past is a different time. What was deemed as moral, ethical and the norm is far different than what is acceptable today. Murder or slave ownership for example is unarguably unethical, but hundreds of years back, it was socially acceptable. I disagree with the notion that this makes their actions acceptable, but I believe it does make it understandable.
Moving further away, the colonies Columbus was a part of, the Spanish and more generally the European colonies. Mr. Schweikart had a sort of fascination for them, calling the sailors “Daring”, describing the Spanish as “Desperate” even with their severe advantage with the gun power and general army strategy and techniques, simply due to the vast mass of the Aztec tribe. (pg. 6)
When Vera Cruz returned in 1521 “with a new Spanish army supported by more than 25,000 Indian allies”, to complete the failed attempt done in 1518 by Hernando Cortes. The Aztecs were at a much worse condition due to being “ravaged by smallpox”, they lost a large percentage of their citizens and were unarmed and unprepared. Even so, Schweikart did not acknowledge the Indians at a severe disadvantage, he rather called the victory a “stunning” one. (pg. 6).
Schweikart explains that the Spanish were able to win over the Indians due to their mobility, economic power, and nonmilitary technological advancements, interestingly he recognizes that had the native Indians been introduced to gunpower earlier they would remain disadvantaged, as the number of native Americans would have decreased further in wars between neighboring tribes, prior to the Spanish invasions. I admit the likeliness of this conclusion, but the bigotry tone of it is rather evident and belittling to the intellectual power of these Indians. When a common enemy enters their territory, they would be much more prepared had they been provided with advanced weapons.
He also implicates that the oppressive nature of the Aztecs played a role in the ease at which the Spanish conquest took over. He recognizes the hierarchical system at which the Aztec delegate rule and operate, yet he only does so to further admire the Spanish conquest for the low cost of overpowering an entire nation. It becomes apparent that he recognizes the other parties point only partially, interpreting their point in a way that amplifies his, thus removing any possibly admirable openness.
Interestingly Zinn discusses Hernando Cortez and Vera Cruz more nefariously; “Cortez began his march of death from town to town, using deception, turning Aztec against Aztec…”, he acknowledges the statistical deliberateness behind their actions. Zinn pays amend to the massacre that occurred in Cholula, where thousands of unarmed Aztec’s where slaughtered in a vile manner. This was told on the Spaniard’s own account, yet cannot be found referenced in Schweikart’s piece, putting his credibility under questioning.
This discrepancy in Schweikart’s writing is a common theme, I found. His mention of Spanish conquistadors was summarized and quick, only elaborating on one’s who died heroically or had a disastrous battle (e.g., Panfilo de Narvaez, Ponce de Leon, Hernando Cortez). At surface his mention of these failing expeditions could be shedding a light on the often-overlooked parts of Spanish settlement, alternatively it may be used as a tool to highlight the adversities and struggle the Spaniard’s had to overcome, aiding the valiant heroic picture.
Zinn is not free of this either; he elaborated on the conquistador’s violent actions, repetitively describing the wars and torture the Indians had to endure. His in-depth description of the events was purposeful, it reflects this everlasting sequence of traumatic events, that seem to happen in consequence to one another with little to no periods for recovering. It was tiresome to read, and I believe that was done to eloquently flaunt the exhaustion the Indians had to feel. This is an aspect of his work that I truly admire, even with his biases and blindness to the other side, he can illustrate the suffering and emotion without outwardly stating it.
Both historians provide adequately standing arguments to support their belief, but they fail to acknowledge the other party’s ideas. Schweikart barely touches on the Indians’ suffering, only describing them in detail in pg. 5 of his “The City on The Hill” when he portrays them as a brutal vial society, which as mentioned earlier serves his depiction of the heroic colonizer introducing good and God to these people.
Zinn is by no means better; throughout his article he looks at the “people” and illustrates the colonizers as villains and intruders – which does have a certain amount of truth to it. His message of looking at the people is empathetic and admirable, leading many Americans to label his book the “truth”, yet he does not attempt to acknowledge the bases at which the colonizers act, or the truthfully brutality of the Indian tribes. He sweeps such things under the rug and proclaims his depiction as the full truth. He falls victim to his own hypocritical remark on other historians – hiding unwanted information amid a concentrated paragraph to shift focus away.
In truth I do not fully agree with either Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart, while the concepts and ideas they wrote on where each interesting and eye opening – especially to my previously unrecognized bias on the topic of American History, I do not think “The City on the Hill” and “Columbus, The Indians, And Human Progress” are as impressive as many people perceive them to be, they are both filled with bigotry and unbalanced in their recognition of certain parties in this controversial part of history. There is no objectivity in their writing, it is no requirement, but it plays a great deal in the credibility of your work.
Schweikart’s admiration to the American history is rather evident early on, he proclaims America’s past as “a bright and shining light”, a land of liberty and hope, or more famously a “city on the hill”. A city that stands on a hill is distinguishable, a focal point that draws all attention to itself; all other nations will have their eyes on the America, inspired to follow in its step. While this phrase could raise pride in oneself, it alludes to a sense of superiority, which Schweikart fails to acknowledge.
Schweikart’s biases are a predominant theme throughout the first chapter of “A patriot’s history of the United States”, and are more overt later on, but the irony of his writing lies in its hypocrisy; “At least Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States honestly represents its Marxist biases in the title!” (pg.1 Introduction xxi). Zinn’s personal biases are indisputable, but Schweikart similarly portrays biases in his writing, which undermines his argument.
Both extracts indulge on the topic of past America, with overlapping themes of native Americans (Indians), Spanish and European colonies and Columbus - the beknown explorer. Though the time, place and people are the similar, their ideas and depictions are extremely contrasting.
“Arawak men and women, naked, tawny and full of wonder” (pg.1 Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, Chapter 1 Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress), Zinn’s first sentence where he illustrates the native Indians – the Arawak- as child-like, free spirited and “full of wonder”. While it may be rooted in some realism, his descriptions are done in a way that invokes sympathy, he is painting this image of fragile, hospitable, and wonderful people who could be nothing more than victims to others.
The innocent harmless Indians depicted in Zinn’s piece, with its faults, are far mor favorable than Schweikart’s ingenious portrayal. The Aztecs are a powerful Indian tripe, one that dominated with force, power, and creativity, yet Schweikart only brushes over their impressive architecture and warriorship, to focus on their “brutal regime” where he went in detail of their sacrificial methods that seem inhumane. (pg. 5 The City on the Hill). The “rituals” he described a and the massacre that occurred in the Aztec’s hands give a vaguely demonic notion, which could be used to perpetuate the later argument of purifying these Indians through introducing them to God – converting them.
He later states numerical data of the estimated incomprehensible sacrifices that would occur in these pyramids. “A butchery of 80,400 prisoners” by the Aztec king Ahuitzotl in 1487. (Acknowledging these numbers is difficult when he himself recognizes that many numeric data is exaggerated in history to serve the informer’s prejudice). (pg. 5)
While it is tempting to deny his description of aggressive villainous Indians and support Zinn’s more cordial depiction, battles between tribes were not uncommon and brutality was a casualty of the time. Schweikart recognizes that in many ways the Indian tribes were akin to European states in their pursue of enemy – concerned with nearby tribes instead of the invaders. Therefore, brutal displays of aggression between neighboring tripes are not foreign at the time. Thus, the likelihood of his description must be recognized.
Zinn depicted the Aztecs far differently; they were a society of innovators, they “built enormous constructions from stone tools and human labor, developed a writing system and a priesthood” (pg. 10). It is here where their contrast becomes apparent; were the Aztecs a brutal and in many ways inferior group, or were they intellectuals who operated their own society? With the limited resources on the matter, it is difficult to justify which is the more accurate perception, though due to both of their biases, I am leaning towards a more complex combination of the two; a society of strong worriers and brilliant builders, who triumphantly fought in vicious wars to expand their territory.
On the other side of the coin lie the Spanish colonies, after the Reconquista in a voyage to obtain new land and bring back wealth to the Spanish, under the leadership of Christopher Columbus – the well-renowned controversial figure in the world of history. People’s ideas of Columbus are riddled with misdirection, misinformation, and bigoted questionings of his actions. People’s opinion of him varies greatly and this is no different in the case of Zinn and Schweikart.
Schweikart, a historian patriot who stands by his country and against democracy, is unsurprisingly an admirer of Columbus. He described him as “the best of the new generation of navigators: resilient, courageous, and confident”. (pg. 4) I do not disagree with the astonishing capabilities and resilience a man must have to endure many difficult long voyages to the unknown more than once, but there is a fogged-up exaggeration in his portrayal of Columbus as this heroic intellectual figure, which Zinn challenges “But he was lucky”. (pg. 2)
Schweikart’s brilliant image of Columbus, is immediately shutdown by Zinn. Zinn quotes and explains the lies and tricks Columbus pulled to not lose his promised prize from the king of Spain; writing letters back in account of yet to be found gold and mentions of vast green prosperous land when there was none. Similarly, Columbus lied stating that he saw land the night before another sailor, Rodrigo, first saw it on October 12, thus Columbus took a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for life, which should’ve been given to the sailor. The significance of this story is not truthfully much, but it showcases the greediness behind Columbus’s actions and brings to question the real reason behind these voyages. (pg. 3)
Another aspect that Columbus often gets credit for is his knowledge of the earth spherical shape, Schweikart recognized that Columbus was not among the first to know but he defended him exclaiming that a physical demonstration of the earth’s roundness is different that than intellectual knowledge of it. On this matter Zinn simply states, “like other informed people of his time” (pg. 2), admitting that Columbus was among the many who were informed, yet not placing him on a pedestal akin to what Schweikart seems to do.
Schweikart’s Columbus sought for God along with glory, he hoped to “convert them to our Holy Faith by love rather than by force”. Columbus religious endeavors were also approached by Zinn, though he bluntly mentioned “He was full of religious talk”. In this context, Zinn is much more correct regarding his frustration, for none of the ways Columbus would enslave, harass, punish or kill was religious, yet when he was contacting their Majesties, his religious side suddenly becomes a favored trait.
What perhaps best represents the differences in how each historian felt towards Columbus is there discussion of Columbus’s first thoughts as he met the Indians.
According to Larry Schweikart Columbus found these Indians “very well formed, with handsome bodies and good faces…”. Columbus apparently hoped to convert them with no force but rather with love. This is contradicting with the full version that Zinn provides on the first page of “A people’s history of the United States”, in it, following the compliments of good bodies and handsome features, Columbus wrote “… They would make fine servants…”.
Contrary to what Schweikart may want to depict, Columbus thought of the Indians as inferior and servants, which might not be bizarre when arriving from Europe at the time, but when met with open greetings of the natives and welcoming gifts, it becomes immoral and wrong – though that might be my presentism at play.
Moreover, Columbus was already accounting for how many men would be needed to “subjugate them all” (pg. 1), which does not match the concept highlighted by Schweikart. Conversion to Christianity by love, an empty promise of peace cannot be used to defend an individual when there is written and recorded evidence of him not following this promise. The event of collecting gold in Haiti for instance, any Indian with no copper coin around their neck had their hands cutoff. Others that resisted were hanged or burned them to death.
This led to an unfortunate sequence of events in which the Arawak who were not killed, burned, or sold, committed suicide. Mass suicide began among them, “infants were killed to save them from the [dangerous] Spaniards”. The Indians were later taken as slaves when there was no gold left. As a result, the number of native Americans decreased at an alarming rate.
Upon learning about these tragic events many believe Columbus to have been the killer of most of the Indians, both directly and indirectly. Schweikart challenges this idea in pg. 7 of “The City on The Hill 1492 - 1707”, for he discusses the inconsistency in these reports and arguments. Firstly, the manipulated data that lacks evidence, overtime many numbers were edited making it difficult to obtain the real estimates and recognize inflated estimates. Secondly, there were epidemics circling before the Europeans arrived at America. People lost in warfare before the European invasion, climatic shifts, resource management and warfare – especially those within neighboring tribes - also play a role in the decreasing of these numbers. (pg. 8-9)
The decreasing percentages of native Americans was a result of warfare, slavery, dispossession, and disease. It is not one factor or two but multiple intertwined over a long period of time which we have no exact records of. Here we see the sheer complexity of the matter and attempting to simplify it could lead to lacking on-dimensional ideas which muddle our understanding of the time.
To place it briefly, one individual who was by many ways a product of hist time cannot be placed at shotgun for the rapid decrease of an entire nation, especially when there are many factors alluding to a bigger picture that is being ignored. Moreover, questioning the morality of a person who has already passed seems like a waste of time, as Howard Zinn writes “It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly of morality” (pg. 9)
Dr. Mark had once discussed the unfair presentism we place on these historical figures. We criticize their actions based on our modern-day attitude and while cliché to admit, the past is a different time. What was deemed as moral, ethical and the norm is far different than what is acceptable today. Murder or slave ownership for example is unarguably unethical, but hundreds of years back, it was socially acceptable. I disagree with the notion that this makes their actions acceptable, but I believe it does make it understandable.
Moving further away, the colonies Columbus was a part of, the Spanish and more generally the European colonies. Mr. Schweikart had a sort of fascination for them, calling the sailors “Daring”, describing the Spanish as “Desperate” even with their severe advantage with the gun power and general army strategy and techniques, simply due to the vast mass of the Aztec tribe. (pg. 6)
When Vera Cruz returned in 1521 “with a new Spanish army supported by more than 25,000 Indian allies”, to complete the failed attempt done in 1518 by Hernando Cortes. The Aztecs were at a much worse condition due to being “ravaged by smallpox”, they lost a large percentage of their citizens and were unarmed and unprepared. Even so, Schweikart did not acknowledge the Indians at a severe disadvantage, he rather called the victory a “stunning” one. (pg. 6).
Schweikart explains that the Spanish were able to win over the Indians due to their mobility, economic power, and nonmilitary technological advancements, interestingly he recognizes that had the native Indians been introduced to gunpower earlier they would remain disadvantaged, as the number of native Americans would have decreased further in wars between neighboring tribes, prior to the Spanish invasions. I admit the likeliness of this conclusion, but the bigotry tone of it is rather evident and belittling to the intellectual power of these Indians. When a common enemy enters their territory, they would be much more prepared had they been provided with advanced weapons.
He also implicates that the oppressive nature of the Aztecs played a role in the ease at which the Spanish conquest took over. He recognizes the hierarchical system at which the Aztec delegate rule and operate, yet he only does so to further admire the Spanish conquest for the low cost of overpowering an entire nation. It becomes apparent that he recognizes the other parties point only partially, interpreting their point in a way that amplifies his, thus removing any possibly admirable openness.
Interestingly Zinn discusses Hernando Cortez and Vera Cruz more nefariously; “Cortez began his march of death from town to town, using deception, turning Aztec against Aztec…”, he acknowledges the statistical deliberateness behind their actions. Zinn pays amend to the massacre that occurred in Cholula, where thousands of unarmed Aztec’s where slaughtered in a vile manner. This was told on the Spaniard’s own account, yet cannot be found referenced in Schweikart’s piece, putting his credibility under questioning.
This discrepancy in Schweikart’s writing is a common theme, I found. His mention of Spanish conquistadors was summarized and quick, only elaborating on one’s who died heroically or had a disastrous battle (e.g., Panfilo de Narvaez, Ponce de Leon, Hernando Cortez). At surface his mention of these failing expeditions could be shedding a light on the often-overlooked parts of Spanish settlement, alternatively it may be used as a tool to highlight the adversities and struggle the Spaniard’s had to overcome, aiding the valiant heroic picture.
Zinn is not free of this either; he elaborated on the conquistador’s violent actions, repetitively describing the wars and torture the Indians had to endure. His in-depth description of the events was purposeful, it reflects this everlasting sequence of traumatic events, that seem to happen in consequence to one another with little to no periods for recovering. It was tiresome to read, and I believe that was done to eloquently flaunt the exhaustion the Indians had to feel. This is an aspect of his work that I truly admire, even with his biases and blindness to the other side, he can illustrate the suffering and emotion without outwardly stating it.
Both historians provide adequately standing arguments to support their belief, but they fail to acknowledge the other party’s ideas. Schweikart barely touches on the Indians’ suffering, only describing them in detail in pg. 5 of his “The City on The Hill” when he portrays them as a brutal vial society, which as mentioned earlier serves his depiction of the heroic colonizer introducing good and God to these people.
Zinn is by no means better; throughout his article he looks at the “people” and illustrates the colonizers as villains and intruders – which does have a certain amount of truth to it. His message of looking at the people is empathetic and admirable, leading many Americans to label his book the “truth”, yet he does not attempt to acknowledge the bases at which the colonizers act, or the truthfully brutality of the Indian tribes. He sweeps such things under the rug and proclaims his depiction as the full truth. He falls victim to his own hypocritical remark on other historians – hiding unwanted information amid a concentrated paragraph to shift focus away.
In truth I do not fully agree with either Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart, while the concepts and ideas they wrote on where each interesting and eye opening – especially to my previously unrecognized bias on the topic of American History, I do not think “The City on the Hill” and “Columbus, The Indians, And Human Progress” are as impressive as many people perceive them to be, they are both filled with bigotry and unbalanced in their recognition of certain parties in this controversial part of history. There is no objectivity in their writing, it is no requirement, but it plays a great deal in the credibility of your work.