Noah Mitchell
May 7, 2008
Junior Morality
A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, presents change over time and elements of history that remain constant in American society from the perspective of minorities and the oppressed. Reoccurring themes in Zinn’s explications include valuing the “other side’s story,” recognition of the wealthy’s oppression over the poor, and the racial majority’s (Protestant whites) oppression of minorities. Zinn rejects the “textbook” version of history, emphasizing the use of primary documents, documents written by people of the time period.
For example, Zinn discusses the story of Christopher Columbus’ “discovery” of America. Though the event is glorified by American textbooks, Zinn reveals a darker side of the story: Columbus should have died on his miscalculated voyage. He was lucky to strike Caribbean land. When he arrived, he saw capital in the American Indian race: “They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want” (Columbus’ log). If ever he showed friendliness to the natives, it was for personal gain. He searched for gold, his top priority. They took 500 Arawak natives as slaves to send back to Spain. Of the naked prisoners, 300 survived the voyage to be sold in Spain. Columbus exclaimed, “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.” Laws arose that natives in Cicao on Haiti must collect an amount of gold every three months, in return for which they would be given a copper coin. If they failed to collect this gold, which was rare in the region, they would be bled to death or killed by dogs if they fled. The testimonies go on. Zinn’s purpose in this account is not “to romanticize” the victims of history, but rather to “[disclose] those hidden episodes of the past when… people showed their ability to resist.” As Zinn says on page 10, “The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don’t listen to it, you will never know what justice is.”
Another example of increasing awareness to the “other side” of history is found in Zinn’s discussion on slavery. A recent textbook reports that “the records show that over the course of two years [1840-1842] a total of 160 whippings were administered, an average of .7 whippings per hand per year. About half the hands were not whipped at all during the period.” Yet, Zinn points out that one could say “Half of all slaves were whipped,” or “Every four or five days, some slave was whipped.” Note the change in connotation. The textbook is perhaps euphemistic, and Zinn’s commentary warns the reader to think of any fact in the opposite point of view. An application of this principle could be that when a report on the ratio of casualties to total troops on duty in Iraq seems small, this still means that American people are dying at least every few days in action.
A second theme is that of class conflict due to wealth. Accounts of the poor’s misery vary by time period. During industrialization of the nation, poverty became an entrapment for innumerable citizens as workers began simple-task labor in childhood and became stuck in low-paying jobs. The Lowell system, in which young girls live in dormitories and work in mills, became prison-like with stringent rules and regulations. Women were fired for less-than-justifiable reasons. The war between labor and management dragged on through the 19th and 20th centuries. The Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor (AFL) ran strikes and unions across the nation. In addition to these blatant class conflicts, poverty was a principle force in the suffering of racial minorities, including freed slaves, who could not survive on their own and practically remained in bondage. Wealth also drove wars, which caused immeasurable suffering. For example, Secretary of State John Hay named the Spanish American War a “splendid little war” that the country “needed” for economic reasons.
Racism recurs throughout Zinn’s accounts. Whether the subject is slavery, American Indian persecution, or Protestant-Catholic conflict (such as the riots in Kensington, PN), Zinn provides documents that reveal unpleasant accounts of persecution and suffering. For instance, an account of emigration from Ireland describes the voyage in similar terms as the voyages of the Middle Passage: “The ‘Urania,’… with a large proportion of [the immigrants] sick and dying of the ship-fever, was put into quarantine at Grosse Isle… horrors… unhappy beings of all ages… fever…the crew sullen or brutal from very desperation, or paralyzed with terror of the plague… foulness of the air…. There was no accommodation of any kind on the island…. Upon that barren isle as many as 10,000 of the Irish race were consigned to the grave-pit….” Once these Irish immigrants established themselves in America, they held contempt for “the black slave, who was becoming more and more the center of attention.” The Irish could not sympathize with another oppressed race since they themselves were so disadvantaged in the class system. Racism also dominated the United States’ domination of the Philippines: the Philadelphia Ledger reported, “the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…,” and a volunteer wrote, “…we all wanted to kill ‘niggers,’ … This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces.”
All this augments Howard Zinn’s emphasis on considering alternate perspectives. This emphasis is a valuable guideline not only for history, but for modern politics and even social encounters in my everyday life. Whether it be listening to my grandfather’s accounts of his experiences in World War Two or listening the blues of a homeless man’s saxophone on the street, I should remember to consider what the stories mean not to me, but to the one expressing it. This guideline stirs a more comprehensive worldview and demonstrates the uses of an open mind. A People’s History encourages a healthy, critical doubt in the reader that could even be applied to Zinn’s own book: I believe critical doubt could be applied to Zinn’s praise of socialism. Is Zinn being objective or biased in those segments of chapters? Surely there are documents that provide negative testimony to the socialists and their movement in America. One must, after all, keep an open mind and consider alternate perspectives.