Saying that is based on opinion and assumptions, so here’s the proof an amateur historian, found detailed maps, logs and accounts of voyages to the Americas in the early 1400’s. Others have found similar pieces that show Chinese exploration to Africa and Arabia. In knowing this, the way we are taught about Columbus is false; in fact it was the Chinese that explored Latin America many years prior to the
What is Zinn’s thesis for first 10 minutes of reading? 3. According to Zinn, how is Columbus portrayed in traditional history books? - In traditional history books, it starts with heroic adventure; there is no bloodshed-and Columbus Day is a celebration. 4.
According to Zinn, how is Columbus portrayed in traditional history books? A: As a great hero that discovered the Americas but was willing to do anything to get what he wanted. 4. Why does Zinn dispute Henry Kissinger’s statement: “History is the memory of states?” A: because Zinn thinks that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Zinn’s argument was not against selection, simplification, and emphasis, but his argument was against the mapmakers distortion.
I believe the author was trying to show that even though there are still segregation problems, the United States is coming a long way in that issue. What really stuck out to me in the end of the interview was how baffled Standweiss was because our president only checks one box when it comes to his race, even though he is a mixed individual. I’m not depicted that any race is better than others, but it seems like President Obama believes he can make a bigger difference being classified as African American, rather than Caucasian, like Clarence King. Works Cited: "Festival of Books." Interview by Murry Fromson.
The Problem James A. Field Jr. suggests that the “worst chapter” in American history texts deals with the end of the 19th century, largely because he believes the personalities and events from the 1860s to the early 1890s did not constitute “a preseason warm-up for imperialism and the projection of national power” by the United States. [Field, p. 660] However, Walter LaFeber in The New Empire argues precisely the opposite: that key American personalities and events did constitute a considered, even well-integrated, plan for the projection of U.S. national power into the Caribbean, the South Atlantic, and even into the Pacific and Asia in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s. Question: Which historian, Field or LaFeber, gets it right, and
The anniversary of the day, October 12, 1492, when Christopher Columbus landed in the San Salvador Islands is celebrated by many countries in the Americas. Columbus’ landing was not the very first in the Americas, but he was the first European to claim land for a European nation. Many people celebrate and praise the day as the beginning of a culture, but some are violently opposed to celebrating this man, who, to them, began a culture which continues to display many evils. In my opinion, although Columbus who brought home slaves himself, and treated natives brutally if they could not find gold for him, did not set a good example for settlers coming after him, such a huge transgression cannot be blamed on one man, when hundreds of men after him did not put a stop to these evils. “Columbus is responsible for the murder of millions of indigenous people,” says osia.org.
King said fifty years ago, it was thought as unjust, and incorrect; no one thought his ideas were politically or morally correct. Now today, fifty years later, we look back on his words and some of us may think, “Wow, Dr. King was completely right,” and Lord, knows he may have been right, and if people actually listened to him, our country may be I a totally different place. If we look back and think that Dr. King could have been right with his very own idea, which’s not to say that Communism could have turned out right for our country? Even if it didn’t work decades ago in Europe or even here in America, what’s not to say let’s try it in this day and age and see if it works. Even if it doesn’t work, at least we can say we
At that time it was probably true. However in modern times, and within just a couple hundred years, the Principle of Separation of Powers has eroded away. The Principle of Separation of Powers is why the Legislative branch was split at the convention; unfortunately the founding fathers did not foresee how the Judicial branch could be used to promote the interests of an imperialistic few who took control of all branches through crony promotions and political
In addition, Loewen argues that it’s natural for one group to dominate another. “The way American textbooks treat Columbus reinforces the tendency not to think about the process of domination”. “The traditional picture of Columbus landing on the American shore shows him dominating immediately, and this is based on fact: Columbus claimed everything he saw right off the boat” (37). I read through a series of online sources and discovered that they mostly imply that taking the land and dominating the natives was inevitable, if not
Be all that you can be. After all, look at what the United States has accomplished.” (Loewen page 387) The history books leave out facts that do not paint our forefathers in a good light. The authors seem to try and mold the minds of the young people into believing that everything that has happened in United States history is moral and just. We would never believe that these “first settlers” would have been as cruel as to not only take advantage of the suffering of others but to also celebrate it. The Pilgrims did not happen upon Plymouth Rock.