Howard Zinn argues that the majority of policies and laws during the 1800s were purposefully antagonistic against the Native Americans, as they would be the primary receivers of foreign oppression. Furthermore, Zinn argues that such relations were the result of continual tension between indians and Colonists after many tribes had sided with the British in the Revolutionary War, and still had to deal with American expansionism. Zinn also states that the man responsible for what would eventually become the Trail of Tears, was a ruthless individual who was really only the whitman’s president, not the people’s president. This would lead to many more anti-indian actions during this time period, whether it was unenforced protection of indian land, predatory agreements with the tribes, or dividing of larger groups into smaller more concentrated settlements. Furthermore, those responsible for such actions were not involved with the indians, as those who were commonly treated them like people, but rather saw them as an economic obstacle. This sentiment would even continue…show more content… Zinn’s account of this time period is overall less offensive and insensitive, as it actively discusses the tension and friction westward expansion caused, something that Schweikart and Allen’s argument doesn’t neglect, yet chooses to be selective when providing examples. However, there are concerns regarding Zinn’s account of Westward Expansion on the basis that his claim that a majority of the expansion was in order to oppress the natives is a little absurd. There is no doubt that there was clear oppression on the indians by the United States Government, the type of friction Schweikart and Allen conveniently leave out in favor of war with Mexicans, yet this oppression seems to be more closely tied to western expansion than Zinn
