Howard_Zinn_History_of_the_United_States

1. According to Zinn, what is his main purpose for writing A People’s History of the United States' Why does Zinn dispute Henry Kissinger’s statement: “History is the memory of states'” • Zinn’s main purpose for writing A Peoples History of the United States is to tell the history of the United States in a way that we don’t accept the memory of the states as our own. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalist’s ad workers dominators and dominated in race and sex. Nations are not communities and never have been • He disputes that history is not the memory of the states because Henry Kissinger tells the history of nineteenth-century Europe from the viewpoint of the leaders of Austria and England in A World Restored, meanwhile ignoring the millions who suffered from those statesmen’s policies. From his standpoint, the peace that Europe had before the French Revolution was restored by the diplomacy of a few national leaders. However, for farmers in France, factory workers in England, colored people in Asia and Africa, women and children everywhere except in the upper class, it was a world of conquest, violence hunger, exploitation. For the majority that who’s views he did not include, the world was not restored but disintegrated. 2. What is Zinn’s thesis in Chapter 1' • Zinn’s thesis is “I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks,of the constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott’s army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish American War as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by the pacifists, the New Deal as by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America, And so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can “ see “ history from the standpoint of others. 3. According to Zinn, how is Columbus portrayed in traditional history books' What is Zinn’s basic criticism of historian Samuel Eliot Morison’s book, Christopher Columbus, Mariner' • According to Sinn, when we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure. In textbooks there is no bloodshed and Columbus Day is a celebration. Past the elementary and high schools, there are only occasional hints of something else. • Samuel Eliot Morison, the Harvard historian, was the most distinguished writer on Columbus. In his popular book Christopher Columbus, he tells about the enslavement and the killing: “The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide”. That is on one page, buried halfway into the telling of a grand romance. In the book’s last paragraph, Morison sums up his view on Columbus by saying that he had his faults and defects but his indomitable will, his superb faith and his stubborn persistence made him great. Sinn believes one can lie about the past or one can omit facts, however Morison does neither, he mentions the truth quickly and goes on to other things more important to him. 4. What were the major causes of war between the Powhatans and the English settlers' • The Indians were hospitable but when one of them stole a small silver cup, Grenville sacked and burned the whole Indian Village. Jamestown was inside a territory of an Indian Confederacy, led by the chief, Powhaton. Powhaton watched the English people but did not attack, when the English were going through their starving time, they helped them. When the summer came, the governor of the colony sent a messenger to ask Powhatan to return the runaways, which he replied “one other than provide and disdainful answers”. The English decided to take revenge and kill 15 Indians ,burn houses down, cut down the corn, and took the queen and her children and drowned an stabbed them to death. 5. Discuss the significance of Powhatan’s statement, “Why will you take by force what you may have quietly by love'” • Powhatan truly shines a light on the Europeans need to take what they want even if they don’t need it by using violence and refusing to compromise. Even as the Indian chief is reassuring the English that they can live peacefully together, they are so stubborn they still go forth with destroying them. 6. Explain Governor John Winthrop’s legal and biblical justification for seizing Indian land. • The governor of Massachusetts Bay colony, john Winthrop, created the excuse to take Indian land by declaring the area legally a “vacuum”. Indians he said had not subdued the land and therefore had only a natural right but that didn’t have a legal standing. The Puritans appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thane inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession”. And to justify their use of force to take the land they cited Romans 13:2: “Whosoever therefore resisted the power,resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive themselves damnation” 7. Explain the main tactic of warfare used by the English against the Indians. • Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors, which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective. 8. According to Roger Williams, how did the English usually justify their attacks on the Indians' • Roger Williams said they had a depraved appetite after the great vanities, dreams and shadows of this vanishing life, great portions of land, land in this wilderness, as if men were in as great necessity and danger for want of great portions of land, as poor, hungry, thirsty seamen have, after a sick and stormy, a long and starving passage. This is one of gods of New England, which the living and most high Eternal will destroy and famish. 9. What was the most important factor that resulted in the European invaders’ defeat of the Indians' Which was most important' • The most important factor that resulted in the Europeans defeating the Indians was the sicknesses. The majority of the population was dying off slowly because of all the new diseases that the English brought with them. This made a fight against the Indians a lot easier, because naturally they were weaker. 10. How does Zinn attempt to prove that the Indians were not inferior to Europeans' Provide examples. Based on your reading of 1491, how accurate is Zinn’s thesis that Indians were not inferior' • Zinn attempts to prove they weren’t inferior by making it seem as if maybe the Indians were not as nomadic as we thought them out to be, and maybe their way of life could have been better than ours. He argues that Columbus did not come into empty wilderness but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself. Additionally, he explains that their relationships were more beautifully worked out than perhaps on any other place in the world. Even though they didn’t have a language they had laws, their own poetry and their history which they treasured. His cities John Collier, who says, if we could be like the Indians then we would have an inexhaustible earth and eternal peace. • Zinn’s thesis is actually very accurate according to 1491; the Indians have always been underestimated greatly not only in size but in power. It is very possible that the number of Indians that we initially calculated is off by a lot. Not only that but they are not cavemen, they have families and communities. They weren’t just hunter gatherers, because they had time to make pottery and jewelry. In both 1491 and the History of the United States, it is apparent that the majority have deeply underestimated the Indians life to be a simple one, resembling more that of animals than of humans. But after reading, it’s clear that they did much more, that they had their own social structure, laws, interdependence, their own way of finding food, and by far different relationships among their people. The Indians yes might have been violent when they needed to be but for the most part they were kind and peaceful people that had not experienced the greed and cruelty of the European and that was seen as a weakness.