I think Zinn’s passage about the idea of a necessary sacrifice for human progress relating to European conquest of the Americas raises some really important questions about our history on this continent. Zinn’s passage describes the unethical actions taken by European countries to establish dominance in the New World. He also looks at conquest from a consequentialist perspective, pointing out that all of the death and destruction did not lead to any advancement for European countries. Was it a necessary sacrifice for human progress? Not really. But, would the United States and everything in our lives exist as it does today? No, which is why the real history of North American can be so difficult to acknowledge. The U.S. arguably owes Native Americans reparations for the destruction of their civilization, which, as Zinn notes, was not the uncivilized savagery described by the conquering Europeans.
This is the next key point made by Zinn. The Native Americans had a burgeoning civilization, with trade, industry, government, and the arts. With that in mind, European conquest was actually counterproductive to human progress. The Native Americans could have offered something to the world to advance human progress. Indeed, they made scores of advancements in agriculture, medicine, architecture, transportation, and more. Imagine if their civilization had existed for centuries in contact with the rest of the world. So many more developments could have occurred.
I agree with your point about the civilization of Native Americans. The forgotten innovations they created allowed them to peacefully live, eat, and work amongst each other. Western society still forgets that many useful inventions such as paper did not come from European society, but countries like China. People must understand that the power the U.S. has today is attributed to the theft and destruction of the Native Americans.
Yeah, the argument that the bloodshed and genocide committed in the Americas was possibly needed for the drive to civilization was surprising. I think it did little to nothing in the author’s argument of trying to prove their point.
I agree with everything you said above about Zinn’s article. I think that the European’s destruction of Native American civilizations also relates to our affinity for the people and things who are like us. Native Americans not only looked different but also lived their life in a very different way than Europeans; I think that because the two were so different, European explorers just assumed that Native Americans had no structure in society and lived as “uncivilized savages.”