I think that the Zinn reading brought across some really intriguing points on how we should look at historical events. While I was reading the chapter, I kept going back to the idea that winners write history. The winners (in this case Columbus, King Ferdinand & Queen Isabella) focused on the prosperity their acts brought for Spain, and the world largely focuses on this as well. At the time, their largest concerns were what they could do to grow their empire and enrich themselves, and would resort to any measures necessary to accomplish this, even if it meant brute violence. This mentality of winners deciding how the world will learn about their actions has a large long-term impact, as we still celebrate Columbus’ voyage with a national holiday and elementary school children are taught to romanticize his voyage and discovering America over 500 years ago, and disregard the advancements Native American settlements had achieved at that time. While this may seem innocent at first, first impressions of historical events have lasting impacts on people, and it is difficult for people to change their perception of events once they have learned about it. This influence has allowed for Americans for centuries to refer to Native Americans as ‘Indians’ only due to the fact that Christopher Columbus believed he landed in India when he reached the United States. My main takeaway from this is how critical it is to be cognizant of the impact colonialism can have on marginalized groups and industrious nations for centuries to come, and that their influence can be in both direct and indirect ways.

I thought the second reading was also very interesting because it made me more aware of the discrimination African Americans faced in our own backyard just a few generations earlier. I have read about the various ways southern states worked around national legislation to discriminate against African American voters but was shocked to learn about to what extent it reached. An instance that particularly struck me was to what extent white elites would go to prevent an African American from earning a spot on the city council due to their fears of losing power.

I think both examples demonstrate how power can easily corrupt an individual’s perception of morality and to what extent they are willing to protect their influence. It can be difficult at that time to realize how long-lasting their influence will affect the way society views these acts in the future. In both examples, their influence is still seen in the modern world, as many people still refer to Native Americans as Indians and African Americans still struggle with segregation and gaining political influence. Both of these examples signify the importance of having both accounts of the incident, so future generations can determine the significance of the event beyond the winner’s account.