Zinn Questions

4. Why is Zinn extremely critical of Samuel Eliot Morrison’s approach to Columbus?

Zinn is critical Morrison’s approach to Columbus because; although he does not lie about the genocide
Columbus was responsible for, he mentions it quickly and then moves on to other things more
important to him. This implies to the reader that it is in fact not very important, and should not affect
our judgment very much. Morrison emphasizes the heroism of Columbus, but deemphasizes the
genocide, and essentially ends up justifying his actions.

6. In the main paragraph at the top of p.10, he states his view point on the telling of history. What are
some advantages and disadvantages to looking at history this way? Why?

An advantage is “seeing” history from the viewpoint of the short-term victims, and thus learning more
than one typically might, since history is usually written by the victors. A disadvantage of distancing
oneself is that it could be harder to learn from the past if it’s not easily relatable.

10. Do you agree with Zinn’s premise that the root of the English’s war with the Indians was based
upon “the need for space, for land, a real human need”? Why or why not?

Zinn says that scarcity caused human need to lead to the murder of the Indians; however, I disagree. The
English had no dire ‘need’ for anything the Natives had. They wanted what they had, certainly, but if
they had never encountered the New World, England would have continued on as it was. Greed, not
need, led to the war between the English and the Indians.

11. Zinn asks the question, “Was all this bloodshed and deceit- from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the
Puritans- a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?” First, what is your
answer to this question and why? Second, how does Zinn try to answer this question? Third, how does
your answer compare?

I believe that all the “bloodshed and deceit” was not necessary for the human race to progress. If
violence and lies are the only way humans know how to advance and accomplish things, then we are in
a very sorry state indeed. If the Europeans had viewed the Native Americans as equals instead of
inferiors, there would not be so few alive today, and who knows what kind of understandings and
treaties could have been achieved with time. Zinn says that if sacrifices are necessary for human
progress, those that are sacrificed must make the decision themselves, we do not have the right to
decide for others for a progress that is not as clear or present as life or death. Our answers and similar in
that they both seem to agree sacrificing human lives is not something that we have the authority to
justify.

8. According to Governor John Winthrop, what possible reason(s) did the Puritans have for
justification of the seizure of Indian land?

According to Winthrop, the Puritans justified seizing Indian land because the Indians only had a “natural
right” to the land, which does not have legal standing, instead of a “civil right.” They also used various
Bible verses, such as Psalms 2:8 and Romans 13:2. They were given an excuse to make war on the
Pequots when a white-trader, who also happened to be an Indian-kidnaper, and troublemaker was
murdered.

9. By what methods did the English fight the Pequots in 1636?

The English fought the Pequots in 1636 by deliberate attacks on noncombatants for the purpose of
terrorizing the enemy, similar to Cortés’ method. They burned crops and wigwams, and used tribes
against one another. There purpose wasn’t battle, but massacre, in order to end up with the same
results as battle, but with less risk.