Chapter 3 of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

Christopher Columbus came thinking he found Asia when in fact all he found was the Americas. The ship they were in was called Saint Maria. The first place they landed was Cuba. They were in search for gold mostly, which Columbus promised the king and queen in Spain. He took the Arawaks Indians as slaves when it was hard for him to find gold. When he arrived in Haiti he created the first military base called Navidad which means charismas. Columbus then traveled to the Hispaniola and his thoughts was he arrived in China. He described the Indians as naive and willing to share. Indians did not believe in marriage. To them people may choose who are their mates and if

In Edward L. Hudgins article, What is an American?, Hudgins defines an American in ways I had not thought of before. Hudgins stated all these ideas about Americans being driven to do their best and meeting challenges head-on. I would like to think that being an American means everything Hudgins stated, however I think Hudgins is giving the optimistic answer of what being an American means. What Hudgins explains as being an American is what I believe most Americans were like when the country was first founded. The idea of taking risks and working until the risks paid off is one that most Americans do not believe because the possibility of actually achieve one’s dream is extremely less likely today than it was when the country was first established.

In chapter four of A History of the United States by Howard Zinn, he explored the condition and state of the English colonies concerning the American Revolution. He implored on how the American Revolution successfully supplanted the tyrannical system of England with the same kind of tyranny. He continued expanding on all components of the American Revolution such as what led to the rebellion and dissatisfaction of the people and how after the American Revolution, nothing had really changed other than who became the current puppet master.

Later on in A People’s History of the United States, Zinn questions whether “all this bloodshed and deceit – from Columbus to Cortez, Pizarro, the Puritans – [was] a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization.” Zinn

1. Each author had their own objective in writing each of the books. Both books tell the tale of history much like any other textbook. However, each book leaves out certain events creating a noticeable bias between the two. In The People’s History of the United States, the liberal author Howard Zinn writes about American history in a particularly unconventional way to convince the reader that there is another side to the history of the United States, one that does not necessarily invoke a feeling of patriotism, but rather showcases several flaws. On the other hand, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen write about American history in a very patriotic way in A Patriot’s History of the United States to persuade the reader that one should feel a sense of pride in the history of the United States. Although they bear many similarities due to history not changing, the differences between The People’s History of the United States and A Patriot’s History of the United States are very pronounced due to the bias of each author.

1. Zinn's purpose for writing A People's History of the United States is to write about American history from the viewpoint of the people, and not from the rich or the men that made the decisions, but from the people who lived through those decisions and whose lives were affected. His purpose is not to make the people who were in charge look bad, but to see what they did from all perspectives.

Howard Zinn’s, Peoples’ History of the US and Larry Schweikart’s, Patriots’ History of the US are two analytical views on history that most people would consider politically conflicting. Zinn’s Marxist book was widely praised by liberal activist and Schweikart’s book is greatly publicized by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. These two widely known historians turned their focus on writing two historical pieces that would fill in the “historical holes” that weren’t being taught in the educational systems. It created a type of diverse learning that made for a great argument while still allowing the readers to understand all sides of the topics at hand. Zinn really dismissed the common “white mans history” and focused his approach on a multiple minority perspective. Schweikart’s book is very different in the sense he takes aim at Zinn as he targets words like “great discovery” and “war on terror” which Zinn only used as scare quotes. Schweikart’s book really reads like old history textbooks from the moral principals of the American founders that built this nation to the ideological view of American prosperity. No matter who shares the views of the political perspectives or condemns them because of its bias stances both historians felt responsible in writing the history of the United States.

Richard Rodriguez, in his article, “Does America Still Exists?” states that America is the nation of united diversity. It is a country where everyone is welcomed and treated equally. He expresses his confusion about the real definition of America when he talks about how the people in America are into racism and differences despite the country being made up of immigrants. The author asserts that America does exist, first by defining America, and by showing the inter-connection between people born from different regions of the world. The responsibility of the people is to stop being racist and staying with the people of own origin only but reaching out and mixing with others as one nation.

1949--> Columbus unleashed 200 troops w/ 20 on horseback to terrorize the natives b/c he was upset he couldn't govern

Arguably one of the most important parts of US history is the American Revolution. Without the revolution there would be no United States because it never would have broke apart from Britain. Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of The United States, and David Kennedy’s The American Pageant both discuss the American Revolution. When describing the revolution, Zinn chooses to describe the different points of view of the everyday people in the colonies and the people in charge, while Kennedy describes the colonists as all having one perspective. The result is that Zinn paints a more full picture of the events including the first protests, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party.

How did judicial review become an important part of the American court system? (2 points)

A Peoples History of the United States was written by Howard Zinn. Zinn’s main purpose for writing this book was to give a precise and detailed exposition of American History from the victim’s point of view. “I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves…” He wants to uncover hidden episodes of the past, be skeptical about the government and even talk about the cruelties the victims put on each other because of their oppressors. He wants to understand why the oppressors killed the victims and how these victims felt and what actions they took. Zinn wants to tell history’s greatest achievement from the point of view of the people who get slaughtered, robbed, taunted and anything else that happened to the victims while

This book has proven to be an enlightening read. It both teaches and inspires. Howard Zinn has offered us a perspective of the real story of American history heretofore unavailable to us – history from the perspective of real people – immigrant laborers, American women, the working poor, factory workers, African and Native Americans.

Spring of 1540 (pg 6): A Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto went to the temples of Cofachiqui and met the lady of Cofachiqui, where he held a storehouse of weapons and chest upon. After loading their horses with corn and pearls, they continue on their way.

In our modern time, there is a line on what is poor and what is rich, and could even be seen in other different ethnic groups. Even now, their lives in America are at risk of our current president who promotes xenophobia and focused on increasing the United States’ economic values. Anglo-Americans’ desire of becoming economically stable became the opposite of what they desired in the laws they created and caused many individuals in different ethnic groups to be unable to be economically stable compared to the Anglo Americans. Many Anglo-Americans desired to gain and become a higher individual in America, however, to do that, they had to criticize and prevent the other ethnic groups to advance higher than them,