Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress

The author of this selection seems more keen on focusing the attention away from the European settlers who established their colonies in America after Columbus's discovery, but rather on the atrocities committed to establish said settlement.

Columbus and his men more or less pillaged the Native Americans villages, forcing them to work and throwing their lives into disarray. The Europeans considered the Native Americans as a vastly less superior group than themselves and gathered that "they would make fine servants" as though just by looking at them, they immediately knew what purpose they served for them.

The bias seems to be more on the side of the indigenous people, but the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to "romanticize" the struggles of the natives. He also avoids painting Columbus and his men out as monsters. He even emphasizes the point that the exploited people of the Americas were not always innocent victims by describing some morbid practices of the Aztec people. The Aztecs were well known for their methods of appeasing the gods by sacrificing human beings. After addressing that, though, the author then states that despite those practices, they still had some degree of innocence.

In any event, the overall bias is on the side of the Native Americans and does not make any effort to justify the actions of the European settlers against them.

History: myth or fact?

Two good points are presented in the articles; Handlin who insists that history is true and absolute under all circumstances, and McNeill who says that history is more general and different groups of people can have different interpretations.

I tend to agree more along the lines with McNeill's argument. I don't agree that there are massive loopholes in history and that everything is just left to chance, but when it all comes down to it, it's possible that reports of certain happenings have been biased or perhaps twisted to favor a certain person or group. For example, when discussing a subject such as the Civil War, the north and south of the United States are going to have different interpretations and preconcieved ideas about what really happened and what people had key roles.

To say that I'm more on McNeill's side isn't to say that everything he says is exactly correct, but more that his opinion reflects my opinion more than Handlin.

9-16-08

Heyyyyy. :-)