post #1 Zinn reading

In Zinn’s article, “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress,” he says that Christopher Columbus is over-glorified. Almost every class that teaches about Columbus presents him as a hero, instead of the murderer that he was. Most classes either omitted or lied about the brutality that he had for the native, Arawak Indians. It was not until Samuel Eliot Morrison, a Harvard historian, wrote his biography on Columbus that the world was showed both sides of the story. Morrison wrote the normal biography about Columbus, which includes defining him as a hero to the New World, but then on one page he describes the torture, murder, and capturing of the native people. This passage is buried inside of many pages describing Columbus as the hero he was, but Morrison doesn’t omit the part of the torture in order to make a realistic biography. I think that the way Columbus treated the natives, as described in “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress” is very bad. I think there could have been a way for both groups to live together. There was no need for Columbus and his crew to kill so many people. I was shocked by how quickly the natives went from a great population to being almost nonexistent.
The article then moves on to describe the other cultures that have conquered natives in order to further themselves and their home country. It mentions Cortes, Pizarro, and the Puritans, who captured and killed the Aztecs, Incas, and Powhatans, respectively. The article then goes on to provide a question intended for the reader to ponder. If sacrifices are necessary to human progress, shouldn’t the people who are sacrificed get to decide whether they are sacrificed or not? It is a tough thought to ponder. Should people who are less advanced have a choice to live in the dark ages or should they be helped to be brought up to speed?