In Conclusion...

In his account of the Spaniards’ encounters with native peoples, Howard Zinn points out a number of snap judgments that the Spaniards make when observing Indians’ behaviors.  They use each of these conclusions to justify their actions.  For example, Zinn describes how an Indian chief presented Christopher Columbus with a gold mask.  Columbus concluded that the island must be full of such riches as gold.  His desire for gold drove him to draw even more conclusions.  Zinn quotes Columbus, saying that Columbus thinks the Indians are “naïve and so free with their possessions” (3).  Columbus, instead of remarking on how collaborative Indian society is, opts to put a sinister spin on their behavior.  He describes them as naïve, suggesting that they are gullible; thus, he concludes that it would be easy for him to milk gold out of them.  Columbus, in drawing these misinformed conclusions, set the Indians up for the peril that was to come.  His assumption that the island was filled with gold, coupled with his assumptions that the Indians knew where it was and were willing to get it for him, caused him to set the Indians to work, thinking that he would easily take what he wanted.  When the Indians came back with much less gold than expected, the Spaniards’ expectations blurred their vision of the truth.  The result was brutal; Zinn says that the Indians were killed using terrible methods.  Such punishments were imposed until the vast majority of the Arawaks were wiped out.  This is but one instance in history where quick conclusions have had devastating repercussions for people.  Yet, we continue to assume things every day; Euclidian math itself is based on five postulates.  That doesn’t make assumptions bad, but it does make it harder to accept if an assumption is wrong.