Human Progress

Columbus, the Indians, and the Human Progress
To lead the human progress, many sacrifices were made to determine our society: from uncivilized to civilized society today.   Zinn displays his opinion whether the means of killings or sacrifices meaning anything.   For example, he questions the reader about Morison, a historian who refuses to omit or lie about Columbus, emphasizing the ‘genocide’ Columbus did to the Arawaks.   Afterwards, Zinn reasons the readers the conflict between man and the historic events because the balance of losses of humans were not stressed at all.   The answer provided by these men who made the sacrifices said that it was an acceptable choice because it “had to be done”.   Zinn begins to contradict that point by referring it to the people, who had their lives in the lower class level in society, if their sacrifices were the casualties of progress for a civilized society and were the sacrifices a choice to the sacrificed individuals their own act.   From the Spanish deeds, the men killed the Native Americans and took their gold and silver, but it infers the readers that the Spanish did no good during the genocide, but worse because a statement in the essay Zinn affirms, “They ended up losing anyway up losing anyway, and all that was left was a deadly inflation, a starving population, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and a ruined peasant class” (pg. 18).   To emphasize, it did no good in the human progress because Columbus, Cortés, Pizarro, and the other white settlers who made the Indians’ population decrease.
Zinn’s idea was brought out where the readers would have a chance to think about what would be right and what would be wrong.   His explanation is quite agreeable because his points affirm the reasons why the human progress did not come from the Indian massacres.   For example, Zinn explains that when the Indians were killed, there was nothing good that came out of it, for it was all murder.   When Columbus and his men killed the Arawaks...