zinn

In my opinion, I felt that the authors thesis was, that
we should not just except history for the way the government
teaches us to, but for how it really was (tell history as those
executed would tell it, not the executioner). The author goes
back into time to tell how the history of Columbus really was.
He tells us how Columbus first reached the Caribbean islands
where he sought off for slaves and gold. How he would cut off
the slaves hands who tried to escape. Zinn then goes on to talk
about the arrival into America how the native Americans were
forced from their land. He asks the question if this was blood
shed was necessary for human progress. Could the Europeans have
survived with out killing of a race of people. And were other
events in our history necessary for human progress such as
slavery in the United States or the bombings in Japan in World
War II.
He then ends his argument letting us know that America had a
large population before Columbus came. He said that they were
very settled and customized before Europeans came and forced
them out.

Were actions in the past necessary to for progress? This seems
to be the argument the author is stating and to answer that
question, you would have to look at the future. The author
should state other alternatives to what we should have done
(Americans) to better ourselves in a non harmful way. And he
needs to state these alternatives to argue how we would have
bettered ourselves without harm to others.

In my opinion, I think it all comes down to survival of the
fittest. I do not agree with everything that us Americans have
done in the past. I don’t think we needed slavery at all or
segregation and think that was wicked on our part. I do not
agree with what we did to the native Americans but wonder how
over populated Europe would have been today if we did not. All
in all we must do what we have to in order to survive.