Bias Witihin the Chapter "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress"

Within the first chapter entitled, "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress", from the book A People's History of the United States, the author Howard Zinn displays a bias more so in favor of the Indian tribes as opposed to the Europeans. The chapter describes the history of the discovery (at least in the sense of letting Europe know it existed since there were original inhabitants) and the soon following exploitation of the Americas by Christopher Columbus and his crew. Zinn pays very close attention to the treatment of the American Indians and the violence and cruelty brought upon them.
Christopher Columbus arrived upon the shores of the Bahama Island in October 1492 where he and his men were greeted by generous Arawak Indians showering them with gifts and hostility. Columbus was at first under the impression that he was in Asia (which was actually about 3/4 of the way farther east), from where he had promised the monarchs Spain that he would retrieve gold in return for the financing of his expedition. Being unfamiliar with these inhabitant of the island, he and his men soon exploited the Indians by taking over-advantage of their generosity, mistreating them, killing them, raiding their villages, and even enslaving them. He saw this as an opportunity to bring not only gold back to Spain but also slaves. This happened not just on the island that originally came upon but others in the Caribbean islands and against different tribes of Indians as well. This encounter between the two "worlds" of the time had a great negative effect on Indian civilizations.
Zinn makes it apparent how terribly the Indians were retreated, but he does not wish to sentimentalize their suffering. In the same way, he makes it clear how greedy and selfish the Europeans and their intentions were but does not desire to make them appear overly-atrocious. The bias that Zinn exemplifies in this chapter displays the struggles of the most negatively effected group, the Indians, while at the same time not forcing the reader to comfort to his bias, rather just informing the reader of the occuring and allowing him develop his own opinion without a sense of external influence.

Is History True?

After reading the article "Is History True?," I find myself concurring more so with the point-of-view of William H. McNeill than that of Oscar Handlin. NcHeill believes historical truth is general and evolutionary and is distinguished by various groups at different times, and in different places in a subjective manner that has nothing to do with a scientifically absolute methodology. I agree with this because people may interpret history differently based on when they're analyzing it, where they are in the world, or just because of they way they think. For example, if looking back on an war, the modern form of one side may say that it was caused by the doings of the opposing nation, and vice versa. Since we weren't actually there, we could never for sure; we can only guess or form a theory. Even written evidence is not completely reliable because the person who had written it could be biased and wrote it to his liking. He may have left out parts he didn't think were substantial, exaggerated some areas, and other things along those lines.
Also, our view of history does change over time, or evolve. For example, we may find the usage of the guillotine in the past to be a barbaric practice, but back then it was considered a normal punishment, although highly cruel. As time progresses though, we do discover more about past events but many of theses discoveries cannot be deemed as entirely true.
In addition, Our technology for recording events, soon to be history, improves over time. As this improvement occurs, the factual accuracy increases as well. For example, with the invention of video cameras and video-recording cellular phones, people can record events visually if they happen to be in the right (or maybe wrong, depending on the event) at the right time.

Class 9/16/08

Hey all.
o__O