In “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, he reflects on the manner in which historical events have been presented to the masses. In his book, Zinn attempts to present truth in a manner which explores history from various perspectives, analyzing the role of government and politics in the creation of history, and the manipulation of historical events which sometimes glorify these institutions and ultimately their role in the advancement of the world as we know it today. Zinn attempts to be unbiased by also presenting the role of the victims in contributing to their own victimization and oppression. Zinn uses an example of an account in history written by Samuel Eliot Morison in his book, Christopher Columbus, Mariner, he explains that even when Morison uses the harshest of words - genocide, to describe the crimes Columbus committed against the Indians, he very quickly mentions this then goes on to glorify Columbus. He states that there is not a collective history whereby we all subscribe to the version of history told by politicians. Instead, it is best to explore the history as told by the various groups of people involved in making it.
By providing an account of history from multiple perspectives, people and societies learn from the past and are better equipped to handle situations and hopefully not fall victim to the mistakes of the past. Similarly, by investigating various perspectives, we realize elements which contributed to the success of societies. It is important not to bury or downplay the ugly events of the past. As ugly as they seem there are lessons that serve as important reminders for future generations. Zinn challenges his readers to think outside the box and not to accept all accounts in history as truths.
Work Cited
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States Volume 1: American Beginnings to Reconstruction. The New Press, New York, 2003.
2 comments:
The major idea of this post seems to be looking at both sides before making a critical judgment call. One must collect ideas from those there and use them to form his or her own opinions accordingly.
The statement that was made in regards to Zinn being unbiased I would agree to be true. He presented both sides of the argument. He never pressed his stance on the issue; he gave what other parties thought, and their responses. The thought on not listening to the popular story, but rather the story of those involved in the making I find to be a great idea.
The thesis seems to be made apparent; however, it didn’t have clear lines. Possibly to make this clearer cut, define the thesis and have ideas or topics that can be covered by that. Don’t let it be as vague or broad.
-Joey Larrowe
Post a Comment