Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress

In Chapter 1: “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress,” Zinn concludes that Columbus is a questionable hero. Columbus did unintentionally “find” America, but natives already lived there. Also, Columbus’ actions to these natives in his journey of greed and selfishness are not admirable actions.

Zinn states that history must be viewed through several perspectives, not just those of the so called “heroes” such as Columbus. “The Arawaks welcomed Columbus and his men with gifts,” and Columbus took advantage of them (3). Columbus even said “They would make fine servants…” (3). Columbus took some natives by force on the very first island he came to in order to try to obtain “information.” He was greedy and needed to find where the gold was. Columbus was promised 10% of profits as long as gold and spices were brought back to Spain, so he needed to find some somewhere (4). Furthering his selfishness, Columbus claimed he noticed land the evening before the first man actually did, because the first to notice land was rewarded greatly with a pension (5). As Columbus explored Hispaniola, his men got into a fight with Indians because they did not trade AS MANY “bows and arrows as he and his men wanted,” (5). His reports back to Spain “stretched the truth” a little bit so he could return with even more ships and more men. He forced natives to search for gold, and at times cut off the hands of those who found none. Natives began to commit suicide rather than be killed by Columbus and his men. Zinn states that children learn in history books that Columbus is a hero, and all the killing is not recorded. However, Zinn says “Total control led to total cruelty,” and “a history of conquest, slavery, and death,” (8). This best summarizes his argument that Columbus may not just be a hero. Zinn prefers to tell the story through the victims, the Arawaks, and believes that history should “emphasize new possibilities.” Maybe Columbus was not a hero, and maybe the natives were not inferior. The natives were very advanced agriculturally, and smarter than given credit. Toward the conclusion of Chapter 1 Zinn poses the question, “Was all this bloodshed and deceit-…-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?” (14).

What are the consequences of Zinn’s conclusion for our world today? The views and information provided in Chapter 1 create wander in many minds. Maybe other heroes are not so heroic, such as Columbus. Genocide and treating natives as inferior were not needed for the progress of the human race. People may also wander how much of the whole story do we know. Not all sides are known, and probably will never be know, unless a time machine is one day successful. This just makes the world today realize how much we actually are not sure of.

Columbus cannot be completely blamed for his view of inferiors because the nobility in Spain only made up about 2% of the population, yet managed to own roughly 95% of the land. Also, Jews and Moors had been driven out of Spain because of its Catholicism. Even though his actions were not moral or right, maybe Columbus did not know any better. If you’re not taught right from wrong, how do you know? I think that Columbus is not just a hero, but he is also a criminal for murder and deceit. He was also a greedy and selfish man, and I do agree with Zinn that different views must be considered in order to see more than just the one side that others choose to tell.