A Peoples History of the United States vs the Enduring Vision Essay

How complete are our textbooks these days? Yes, they may cover Christopher Columbus’s all the way to today’s current events. But just how complete are they? Often books tend to lean a certain direction, and offer perspective from only one point of view; most commonly the views of the victors, dominant country or possibly stories of heroes. What about the other side? Far too often the lesser of the two is left out of the textbooks and out of our minds. There are always two sides to a story, in this case, much of what we read is a mere, â€Å"partial truth†. In the following paragraphs and analysis, assumptions and generalizations we have made about our country and it’s â€Å"heroes† will be examined in an in-depth interpretation of the standard American textbook, The Enduring Vision vs. Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States, a strongly worded book meant to offer a different point of view, one not of the hero, but of men they truly were. Everyone knows who discovered America, Christopher Columbus, of course! â€Å"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue† At a very young age we are taught that, but that’s only half the story. According to, The Enduring Vision, â€Å"Religious Fervor led Columbus to dream of carrying Christianity around the globe, but he also hungered for wealth and glory. †(p. 27) Upon discovery, Columbus became very fond of himself, and what he had done. He discovered a land and a people that before his discovery never existed. Because of this, Columbus’s hunger for wealth and glory came to the forefront. The textbook makes no mention of the less publicized portions of his life; it certainly was not carrying Christianity to the world. The book fails to mention, the cruel and inhumane things that were done to the Native American who currently inhabited the â€Å"New World†. Those actions seem to be brushed under the rug, because of the fact that he is an American hero. However, Howard Zinn offers a view from a different perspective. â€Å"†¦They willingly traded everything they owned†¦. They were well built, with good bodies and handsome features†¦They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane†¦. They would make fine servants†¦. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. † (Zinn 17) Columbus’s lust for wealth, power, and domination of the people blinded his view of spreading Christianity. In Columbus’s report back to the royal court in Madrid, Spain, Columbus uses religious talk to convince the court that he was establishing a community, and to establish fame and a reputation back in Spain. In exchange for a little help, Columbus was to bring them, â€Å"as much gold as they need†¦ and as many slaves as they ask. Concluding his report he said, â€Å"Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His was over apparent impossibilities† (Zinn 20) this was not entirely true, his report was exaggerated, however, the court granted him his expanded fleet and men. However, Columbus was not out to colonize the new world, he was looking for his personal gain ; Gold, and slaves. This American â€Å"Hero† isn’t everything the history books and movies make him out to be. Columbus was a liar, cruel, and was out for glory and fame. It’s a sad truth to such an important piece of an American history. As American we would like to believe that Columbus was the man he was made up to be, and definitely not a â€Å"Christ-like† figure. He was much more than an explorer who owned a few slaves; he is a man responsible for the institution of slavery and the murder of many, many Native Americans. Another well-known figure in history has a distorted past, he happens to be one of our most respected presidents; Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is perhaps most known for his hand in writing the Declaration of Independence. Although Jefferson was a major player in gaining our country’s independence from England; he wasn’t much for granting independence to a certain group of people in America. Although, it is noted that Jefferson had a personal distaste for slavery, that did not stop him from owning slaves, hundreds of slaves until the day he died. Jefferson even slipped a portion his views into the Declaration of Independence. It is a very common cliche phrase that is known by many, in which he lists property, in a list of â€Å"unalienable† rights. That among these are Life, Liberty, and property† However, Congress didn’t approve, and instead, they chose, â€Å"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness†. Slaves were often referred to as property at that time, not human beings, but property, as if they were a possession. So, who really was Jefferson, was he a noble president, who still today remains a prominent figure in the history of the United States? Or was he just like everyone else, a slave owner, and didn’t truly believe that â€Å"All men are created equal†? Personally, I believe that Jefferson was a product of the time period. Being a slave owner was common; he was in line with what wealthy plantation owners. He may have believed that slavery was not a moral institution, but that doesn’t require him to being an abolitionist. According to Zinn, Jefferson’s paragraph was removed because, â€Å"slaveholders themselves with the desirability of ending the slave trade. †(Zinn 77) Thomas Jefferson was an extremely intelligent man, and I believe he wrote that, with the foresight of the country in mind. He knew that it should not be a part of America going forward, however, at the time; it was a part of life. In addition to that, Jefferson needed to keep his popularity high, and by ending the slave-trade, Jefferson would lose many of his supporters. For this I believe that in this case Zinn may be bias, he goes after every flaw in people we look up to, and we simply cannot expect them to be perfect. Yes, they may have made some mistake and at times be hypocritical, but everyone is guilty of that at some time in their life, especially at a time where presidents where selected on what they had done in battle, not in politics. The next difference comes in the form of another president. Andrew Jackson, the face of our twenty dollar bill. According to the textbook, â€Å"Jackson’s victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans made him a national hero, and southerners admired him as a Tennessee slaveholder, a renowned Indian fighter, and an advocate of Indian removal† 216). Many American regarded Jackson as a â€Å"Living link to a more virtuous past. † Upon, gaining the presidency, one of Jackson’s first moves was to remove all the members of upper ranking officeholders†¦of the rival party. It was not well received by many; they began calling it the â€Å"spoils system†. He defended his actions by conveying that it was on the basis of Democracy; so that more people could work for the government. Jackson often gave jobs to family members or friends before giving the public their fair shake. Jackson was also willing to give jobs to people who weren’t qualified, because he knew them. This wasn’t the only thing that Jackson took heat for; his â€Å"morals† got him into more trouble. Jackson was easily bribed, and used deception as well as force to get what he wanted. Whether it was land or gold, Jackson was willing to use his power as president for his gain. Zinn 128) Zinn, points out the fact that this will never be printed in a text book, as Jackson is a face of this country. â€Å"If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school text books in American history you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people-not Jackson the slaveholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of the Indians. †(Zinn 125) Strong and harsh words for a man, especially a president nonetheless. As we have seen in this and past examples, that Zinn emphasizes the other side of the story, the one you don’t hear about. Unfortunately, these are stories that everyone should know. Zinn, places an emphasis on teaching what the textbooks don’t, the textbooks focus on the spoils and fame of the individual. Howard Zinn provides an alternative view that sheds light on the morals of these men, which are not well publicized. Abraham Lincoln, the savior of the Union, often considered to be one of the best if not the best presidents in the history of the United States. However, this is one of the rare instances in which Zinn agrees with the textbook. For once, Zinn focuses on the results, rather the character. Lincoln didn’t believe that the African-Americans were his equal, but he did believe they had the rights of a human being; no human should be subject to being owned by another. However, Lincoln’s main priority was to preserve the Union, and to unite the States of America. The fact that Zinn agrees with the textbook in their positive view of Lincoln, shows the Zinn is not out to attack our great American Heroes. However, Zinn simply wishes for the other side of the story to be told, after all, all this stuff should be taught. Teaching as if this never happened, is like teaching addition without subtraction. Finally, we conclude with yet another president; our first President of the United States, George Washington: The fearless and ambitious leader that America looked to, to become our first president and lead the country in a positive direction. The Enduring Vision says it well, â€Å"American Victory depended on the ability of one man to keep his army fighting despite defeat† (120) Washington’s record in battle was poor, he lost more times than he won. However, the important part was that the people followed him. George was exceptionally tall for this time, so people naturally looked to him to lead them-despite losing. However, Washington was a slaveholder himself. Although, he did free them before he died. During the Revolutionary war, Washington did turn down a request of black slaves to fight in the army. (Zinn 83) Despite, his downfall, George Washington was an honorable man, who was the perfect choice for first President of the United States. Zinn tends to tarnish Washington’s reputation, with some of the things he chooses to publish; he gives Washington little credit for his accomplishments. In fact, I believe that Washington’s failures is what makes him such an insightful historical figure, failure spurred his ambition for bigger and better things. In conclusion, I have determined that much of what is printed is only partial truth. Thanks to Howard Zinn, people can explore the character that shaped out country. Although Zinn may seem to attack these men, he is simply pointing out that they weren’t the men they are made out to be in modern day history books and films. After reading, A People’s History of the United States, I am very pleased that someone decided that the truth must be told; even though it is not always what we want to hear.