Howard Zinn once said “Anyone reading history should understand from the start that there is no such thing as impartial history”. This means that to understand the full cause and impact of any historical event, one must also understand the historical background surrounding it from all parties involved and that in all history bias is unavoidable. Not tracing wars and conflicts from where they stem, can lead to a completely altered view as compared to being aware of all events to leading up to the battles.

I agree with Zinn’s quote, “Anyone reading history should understand from the start that there is no such thing as impartial history” as it can be supported by many circumstances. Upon reading “A People’s History to The United States”, the Native American’s distrust and raids against the western colonies seem unprovoked and barbaric, yet knowing the incidents that occurred between Columbus, his crew and the natives can completely change how one would look at the situation. Columbus was responsible for eradicating the Arawak civilization by overworking them in the gold mines, exposing them to western disease and bringing them back to Europe to sell into slavery. Taking this into consideration the native’s actions towards the Europeans seems to be in retaliation and an attempt of prevention, not an act of savagery. Throughout “A People’s History to the United States” Zinn tries to provide both sides of each historical event, giving the best attempt of recording an “impartial history”. Yet, even Zinn in his book exclaims that unintentionally some aspects of history are emphasized more than others, giving a bias impression. Another case in history which is often recorded with bias is slave revolts. These revolts are often seen as savage acts of brutal killings in which many innocent whites are murdered by inhumane slaves. In reality, slave revolts were no less brutal