what is Zinns basic criticism of historian Samuel Eliot Morison's book, Christopher Columbus, Mariner?

Question

these questions r too difficult

Answer 1

I've read both Morison and Zinn, but it's been a while. However, knowing what I know about each author, I can venture a guess.

Morison was one of America's top historians from a generation or two ago. But he was a Boston brahmin -- something of an elitist -- so he had a Eurocentric view characteristic of his era.

He also was a sailor and an expert on the sea. He greatly admired Columbus as a sailor, as a sea captain, and as a leader of men. He admired Columbus's accomplishments. (He also admired the other discoverers, but Columbus most of all.)

Morison wrote two books on the voyages of discovery -- one for North America and one for South America. I've read a lot of his stuff, and he's one of my favorites.

But he had that Eurocentric view characteristic of his time.

Howard Zinn is a renegade historian. He looks at things from the underdog's vantage point -- in this case, from the point of view of the Native Americans who were brutalized by the Spaniards.

The only work of Zinn's that I've read is his "People's History of the United States", and I must say that I was impressed. He certainly has a different point of view.

Zinn, as I recall, goes on at length about the treatment accorded the Indians by the Spanish, and he's appalled. He pins the blame on Columbus, and as we know, European disease ravaged the native population throughout the continent in the decades and generations following the initial contact.

Zinn, I believe, would criticize Morison for his Eurocentricity, for ignoring the native perspective, and for ignoring the impact that the European discovery and subsequent exploitation had on the indigenous population. He'd say Morison went overboard in his praise of Columbus. For Zinn, Columbus was a bad guy.

The truth is surely somewhere in the middle. It's important for us to remember that standards of behavior, morals, and attitudes five hundred years ago were not the same as they are now, so we should not judge by today's standards. For example, human rights was not high on the Spanish agenda in 1492.

(By the same token, historians' attitudes were not the same a half-century ago when Morison wrote as they are today.)

Bottom line is that some of Zinn's criticism is certainly warranted, but Zinn went overboard too. When he wrote, he was a man on a mission with his own agenda.

So it's probably true that Morison whitewashed the Columbus story, but Columbus was not quite the bad guy that Zinn makes him out to be. Columbus was a remarkable person for his day and age, and we have to keep that in perspective.

Answer 2

Samuel Eliot Morison

Answer 3

Zinn makes every American "hero" out to be a bad guy. He has rewritten history to his liking minus many needed facts. One only has to look at other stories of America written at various times, to see what truth is lacking in any Zinn analysis. Take for instance The Captive Oatman girls, Olive and Mary Ann, and contrast Native Indians written about by Olive and Lorenzo Oatman's first-hand knowledge and see why they called "savages." Then see how Zinn tells us of their "accomplishments."

Answer 4

Sorry but i never read Morison's book... but probably what I told you in the last question. It is probably very pro columbus (for him) and doesn't tell you the negaitive things his visit did.

Answer 5

LOL Rae, the Indians (native Americans) discovered that those sticks that Columbus's men were carrying hur like the dickens when they made fire. they discovered that the blankets made them sick and die. that the Europeans had a sickness that made them crave Gold and Silver. that the Europeans had NO respect for the Earth, and seemed to feel that the Earth was theirs for the taking rather than something to be loved and tenderly cared for. BB, Raji the Green Witch