First of all, Columbus is just the worst and I am glad that I am at least learning more and more about this now. My education growing up certainly did not depict the true Columbus and was definitely an example of exactly what Zinn discusses in his article. It is really disappointing to know that we have covered up, or masked, a lot of the atrocities that he committed. It was also revealing to read how exactly people are able to do this; on page 8, Zinn states that the way that the phrasing was constructed around Columbus and his actions left us to presume that “it should weigh very little in our final judgements.” Now that I know the reasoning behind “historian distortion” I wonder what other examples I may have been exposed to throughout my own education.
This reading really reminded me of a discussion we had in my 101 class about the University of Richmond’s history because it seems like we are doing the same thing. When I came to Richmond, I did not know about the “founders” of Richmond and the people like Ryland, Heilman, and more who were really not good people (owned slaves, blatantly racist, etc.) If we are condemning the fact that we mask information that then has certain implications for what is/is not important, then we should condemn the lack of openness and transparency about Richmond’s founders. Additionally, are we are doing the same thing by not publicizing the racism that occurred on campus this past semester? It is one thing to publish is but it is also another thing to “bury the public in a mass of other information (social media posts NOT about the issues or messages of comfort), which is to say to the reader (or public/campus in this case) with a certain infectious calm: yes, racism and racist acts took place but it should weigh little in our final judgements; it should affect very little what we do in the world” (Zinn 8). I see Zinn’s analysis to be very applicable to this example.
Finding more factual information about the history of some things amazes me. It’s unfortunate that not all the information is taught in schools as it leads to a false understanding of history. The history could be atrocious but not acknowledging leads to more problem sin the future, as we have seen on Richmond’s campus.
In Leadership and the Humanities, we talked a lot about the “historian distortion” phenomenon among middle-school and elementary-school history classes. It was not until high school and college that I realized the injustice/violence that certain U.S. Presidents, figures such as Columbus, and common people pervaded against Indigenous people. We need more exposure to the issue starting at a young age to stop commemorating awful figures like Columbus.
I also had the same conversation in my 101 class with Dr. Lee, about the “founders” of our University who are remembered and commemorated through beautiful buildings across campus, yet were people who were cruel and caused harm to a number of people. People tend to learn about the true lives of Ryland and Heilman before their career at UR is finished, so why is it that it is only discussed for a couple classes each semester?