Introduction
The understanding of historical perspectives resides on the social aspects of scholarly beliefs, values, assumptions, and biases. The History of America and the first interaction with western cultures are always subjected to different perspectives, depending on the scholarly perspective that the audience is introduced. Two famous anthropological scholars, Howard Zinn and Schweikart are among renowned scholars who not only have delved into the ethical aspects of American history seeking to highlight the bias and justifications in some of the earlier settlers into the continent. The paper discussion highlights these differences in perspectives while addressing the contrast in assumptions, values, and beliefs, as highlighted by the two authors; Zinn and Schweikart.
The major Distinctions between Zinn and Schweikart
The major distinctions between the two historical authors were a result of their different ideological inclinations. While Zinn identified himself as a socialist, Schweikart was a conservationist who had liberal attitudes underlining his principles. The ideological difference hence formed a foundation in their divergent opinions, assumptions, and values that shaped their perspectives during their work as historians.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Zinn, as a socialist, noted the bias in governments and its foundations in America. Much of his historical authorship underlined the insignificance of the historical interventions such as colonization, slavery, and governance. Zinn largely saw the bias in government initiatives as opposed to their role in inducing civilization in the American continent. Through Zinn’s arguments, the occupation and colonization of remote territories of the world by the Western powers greatly undermined other cultures and distorted history. Schweikart, on the contrary, having promoted conservationist ideologies, convinced him to note the role of governments and the need for the occupation of the American continent in a positive light. Despite acknowledging that the atrocities meted against the people in these territories, Schweikart points to the underlying benefits of introducing western civilization to the new lands, albeit at a cost.
The Major Distinction in their Interpretation of History
Their experiences and ideologies have influenced the interpretation of the two authors of history. While Schweikart offers a more personal and inductive perspective to history, Zinn provides a contextual appeal based on social morals and obligations. Schweikart, based on an examination of texts on the influence of western civilization on different societies, pointed at the cumulative benefits. He attributes the sacrifices of the past to the successes of today.
Zinn, in his examination, delivers a socialist and ethical argument that is entrenched on accountability and truth. According to Zinn, the human cost of civilization and present governance is ignored when detailing historical moments. To support his logic, Zinn argues that various cultures had to be sidelined for the sake of western civilization. Both the Chinese, Indians of the Americas, Persians, and Africans had to alter their culture to find a place within the western civilization context. Zinn disowns the superiority of values always vested in western culture. Instead, Zinn reminds readers of the cost of governance today and colonization of the past.
The Biases in the Historical Perspectives
My examination of the two perspectives shows outright bias in both arguments. Both Zinn and Schweikart fail to compromise on their ideological values when expressing their views on the role and circumstances on which some of the historical moments were based. Zinn remains blind to the fact that civilizations evolve, and only the robust and of the advanced systems survive. It is imperative to acknowledge the fact that while European civilization was introduced in various parts of the world, its ease in assimilation and sustenance anchored on the fact that it was commensurate as it was objective to other cultures.
Schweikart’s perspective, though weighed in context, appears to dismiss the cost of civilization across generations. Despite having held and ensured the success of humanity, atrocities on humanity throughout history should be outlined for purposes of reference.
