#The Last Critical Review, The Bravery of Howard Zinn

Name : Muhammad Shomdani

Nim : 14121310324

Class/Semester : pbi-B/4

Lecture : Academic Writing 4

The Bravery of Howard Zinn

Introduction

Howard Zinn is the bravest anthropologist and historian who has wrote the article about “Speaking Truth to Power with Book”. From this article, he wanted to change every human’s mind and thinking to be a critical person, not only hear and know from the story that had been there since long time ago, but also they should say anything critically. Zinn’s article gave me as the reader a new insight about the truth of history. Also he never said hand over to make clear the history it’s self. Furthermore, he neglect and ignore many things of historian purity through the story of Christopher Columbus and his journey as the hero in the continent of America.

Summary

I will summarize Zinn’s article, there are several points that Howard Zinn wrote on Christopher Columbus in his article, those are: First, whether you know what the real reason Columbus went sailing, Columbus raping the daughter of one of the Spanish nobleman who was aged 13 years. Courts can not decide he should be put to death, and eventually Queen Isabella sent him on a mission looking for a new continent (when it was the main goal is to find India) and with expectations, Columbus can not go back. Second, Columbus was not the first to discover the New World. People - Scandinavians (Vikings) explored the North American continent in the 11th century and founded the colony of L'Anse aux Meadow. Third, Columbus regarded as the archetype of good and evil in Spain and North America. He also became a cultural symbol. Fourth, Motivation Columbus' exploration is to be a messenger for a non-Christian. Fifth, the world is not considered flat by Columbus and his explorer. It's called the Flat Earth Myth. The last, Columbus Journal: When finally Columbus first landed in America Blue Continent, he still thinks this is Indian land. At that time the natives greeted Columbus with joy. However, contrary what Columbus wrote in his journal? "They bring us the parrots, balls of cotton and spears and many other things as a gift. They willingly traded everything they owned ... They do not bear arms, when I showed the sword. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane ... They would easily become slaves we conquered ... With only fifty men, we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. "Columbus also wrote, "I believe that they would easily become Christians artificial, because it seemed like they had no religion."In his diary, Columbus admitted that when he arrived in the East Indies (when it was still believed he had found India, not America), he tortured the natives, hanging, whip, just after the important information: where there is gold? Furthermore, Helen Ellerbe, in "The Dark Side of Christian History" (pp. 86-88) describes the fury Columbus. In addition to torture, he also frequently raped indigenous women and whipping them for sheer pleasure. Colonies that brought Columbus to the next cruise (1496) claimed responsibility for the death of 34 million Native Americans. Well, now is still a great figure worth Columbus called American inventor, celebrated worldwide with the "Columbus Day"? After learning the facts of cruelty itself?

Main Body (Critique)

In this time, I will critique zinn’s article, there are four points on Columbus that are neglected in Zinn’s article, they are: First, Zinn did not explain who the first discover of the continent of America. I believe that Howard Zinn did not enlarge in his great book about Columbus itself truly. So, this is the weakness of Zinn, why he did not want to say correctly who had discovered this continent. Many articles that told about the fact of Columbus as the great liar, which did not want to admit that his self is not the first discover. For this reason there are many facts that said and explained about this discussion, like the first book of Dr Barry Fell “Saga America (New York, 1980)”, he is as the archeologist and the linguist has a nationality of Selandia Baru who has graduated from Harvard Univerity showed the evidences minutely that for centuries before Columbus, the clan of muslim had stayed at this continent who come from North and West Africa. The other evidence is in the book “Africa and the Discovery of America (1920)” whose Loe Weiner as the historian from Harvard University wrote that actually Columbus his self knew the presence of muslims who dispersed in Karibia, North, Middle, and South America, including Canada. Last but not the last, Gavin Menzies in his book “Who Discovered America?” showed the claim of evidence that Chinese Admiral had charted Western Hemisphere for about 70 years before Colmbus. So, it means that the first discover is not Columbus, why he was become the popular one in the continent of America, because with his coming in this continent, he brought the biggest transformation for the American itself. Etc. Perhaps in the future we will say that the Muslim nation who actually deserves to be called as the inventor of the American continent, and not Amerigo Vespucci or Columbus, because:

1. Amerigo Vespucci discovered a new continent in the years 1499-1500 AD.

2. Leif Ericson (± 500 years before Columbus)

3. Admiral Ceng Ho (70 years before Columbus came)

4. New Colombus arrived in the year 1492 AD.

5. Khashshash bin Said bin Aswad who had landed on the continent in the year 889 AD. That means the first 600 years of the arrival of Columbus.

Second, I know that Zinn just explained about the evilness of Columbus, in contrary Columbus has much goodness. Zinn’s basic criticism was that Morison told the truth about Columbus quickly and buried deep in the center of his book, and then moved on to things more important to him. In Zinn’s opinion, that is much like lying, or hiding the truth. Both of Zinn and Morison is the great historian for the history of Christopher Columbus, both of them did not tell in the equal writing, Zinn always stated the negative side of Columbus, and Morison always stated the positive side of Columbus. If I look at many arguments from the people that have read about the critique of Howard Zinn, do they disagree or agree with him? And they compare the illustration of Zinn and Morison as the historian who told much about Christopher Columbus. The most of them agree with Howard Zinn and on average they dislike Samuel Eliot Morison because of his lying and hiding the history of the heroic is Columbus, who is always glorified by Morison.

Third, I wonder that why Columbus was commended to go to India and the answer is technology. On the other hand, Columbus was not mandate with Isabella’s instruction. He should go to India but he did not do it, instead he considered the continent that he found is the continent of India. In fact, that was not India.

Fourth, I bulge Zinn’s article why Zinn did not write any references in his article when talking about Columbus and others. For this reason, reference is the strength of any readings, without it the reader still perceive that the writer is like playing or pretending in his writing. The reference is one of the most essential things that will convince the reader when knows the writer’s writing. Remember, you are like ship captain that always instruct the vessel crew.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are two basic points that can be concluded from Zinn’s article: Firstly, history is not static. There will be many changes when many found evidence that more reinforcing. Like the example above, when there is evidence that is clearer than before, so a history will be moved into a new historical results, for instance, case of Columbus are probably going to change the paradigm of history. Secondly, just giving people certain information about one situation may lead them to look for what else has been concealed from them.