28. Unbiased history not pretty

The events of history are often distorted by the perceptions and prejudices of those that write it. Sometimes it is an honest lack of perception; other times the reason is an influenced perspective, perhaps based on bias or personal interest. Either way, the truth is often slanted toward the opinion of the writer. Historian Howard Zinn writes, "The historian's distortion is more than technical, it is ideological; it is released into a world of contending interests, where any chosen emphasis supports some kind of interest, whether economic or racial or national or political."

There is probably no story of history more misrepresented, more glorified, than the one told of Christopher Columbus and the discovery of America. He has been aptly dubbed as "the most successful failure in history." Moreover, his character is one of utter ignominy. Could it be that through America's arrogance, or at least of those that wrote America's history, that a triumphant beginning needed to be created?

Following, in part, is the story as told in Howard Zinn's highly acclaimed, A People's History of the United States.

Knowing that the earth was round, Columbus set sail west in attempt to reach India and Asia- in search of gold and spices. Spain was recently unified and was in search of wealth. Its population was poor, with the top 2 percent owning 95 percent of the land. Spain sought an alternate route to Asia because the Turks had control of the land route, and the Portuguese were traveling south around Africa. Columbus's first mistake was the size of the earth, as it turned out to be some four times larger than he calculated. Had he traveled unimpeded toward Asia, his fate was certain disaster. Columbus was lucky that he sailed into the Americas.

On October 12, 1492, a sailor under the early morning moonlight first sighted land. Zinn notes, "The first person to sight land was supposed to get a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for life, but Rodrigo (the sailor) never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the night before. He got the reward."

On the island, Columbus and his crew were greeted by the Arawaks, who were known "for their hospitality, their belief in sharing." Columbus had other ideas, he wrote, "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts." Of course the "whatever" Columbus was searching for was gold, as his deal with the Spanish royalty was 10 percent of the profits.

In his return to Spain, Columbus met with the Court in Madrid to report on his expedition. He claimed to have reached Asia, which harbored "many wide rivers of which the majority contained gold." He asked the Spanish royalty for another voyage in which he promised "as much gold as they need...and as many slaves as they ask." What King or Queen could refuse a promise like that?

When Columbus returned to Haiti and couldn't fill his ships with his imaginary gold, he opted to fulfill his promise with slaves. Zinn again notes, "In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the best 500 specimens to load onto ships." Though two hundred died in route, it did not deter Columbus from proclaiming, "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold."

However, because so many died in captivity, the pressure was on Columbus to fulfill the other half of his promise- gold. Now, back in Haiti, Arawaks were required to collect a certain amount of gold- for which they received a copper token to wear around their necks. Those found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death. When the Arawaks resisted, they were hung or burned to death, leading to mass suicides to prevent capture by the Spaniards. Zinn writes, "In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half the 250,000 Indians in Haiti were dead. In essence, Zinn notes, "What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortes did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots."

Not exactly the story I was taught in school.

Unfortunately, much of the world's history is told from the perspectives of the governments, diplomats, and conquerors- the people who write the books and record the history. Often people like the Arawaks don't write books because they are uneducated, oppressed or too busy trying to survive. But we have to ask, what about their history, their side of the story? Because when their story is told, by the likes of Fredrick Douglas or Anne Frank, for example, it is often shocking and appalling. Christopher Columbus was, granted, a quality navigator, however he severely miscalculated his theory, then cheated, thieved and murdered- all in the name of fame and wealth.

America doesn't need this kind of glorious discovery, nor does it need to honor the likes of Christopher Columbus.

27. Outsourcing isn't recent trend

With labor being the most expensive burden on a company trying to make a profit, it is easy to understand the attraction of obtaining the cheapest labor available. Americans often act as though the adoption of the questionable means by which corporations obtain cheap labor, in this case the outsourcing of jobs to third world countries, is a recent endeavor. For some current generations of Americans this may be, but the issue for companies and corporations is, and has always been, about finding ways to reduce costs and increase profits. And, in the wake of profits, ethical consideration and human decency rarely stand in the way.

Early in our history, rather than outsource jobs, America imported labor. The South was built on slave labor, which created huge profits for plantation owners. Slaves were bought and sold, barely fed, barely clothed, kept ignorant and harshly punished to preserve their value to the plantation owner. The Civil War was fought for financial preservation, as the South fought to preserve slave labor against those demanding humanity and civil rights.

During the industrial revolution, the focus again became cheap labor- this time through immigration. Companies benefited as those looking for a new start immigrated to America- more than willing to accept low paying jobs. Of course, as we know, companies began abusing their power by working employees long hours in unsafe factories for low pay. And again humanity issues surfaced and, subsequently, unions were developed to protect worker rights (or human rights- depending on how you look at it).

The outgrowth of unions and fairly paid workers led to the middle class, which seized the opportunity to invest money and start their own businesses- to delve into the American dream. However, capitalism, the economical game of Darwin's "survival of the fittest," suggests that only those that create a product for profit will survive.

As competition in the marketplace increases globally, the cost of American labor becomes a hindrance which, again, has companies looking for cheap labor. Since American companies can no longer import slave labor or count on cheap immigrant workers, they have begun chasing workers across the world. And since Europeans, who always seem to be one step ahead of Americans in cultural philosophies, have realized there is more to life than working and are unwilling to give up their four weeks of vacation (although this may be changing as well in the global marketplace), American companies have begun utilizing third world labor, such as child labor and sweatshops.

Corporations have, from the beginning, made it quite clear that pleasing their wealthy investors is more important than saving American jobs. Thus, in some ways, the capitalistic economy that once enabled American prosperity is now operating against it. In the 1840s, Karl Marx proposed, "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie (modern capitalists, employers of wage labor) over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere." And for Americans it means, more jobs are lost, more homes are foreclosed, and that the disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" will continue to increase.

Although the ethics described here (slave labor, immigrant labor, and sweatshops) and employed by corporations is nothing less than appalling and disgraceful, many will argue that management owes its investors nothing less than "whatever it takes" to meet quarterly earnings projections. And, unfortunately, as companies like Enron, Wal-Mart and Pfizer has demonstrated, there are many other ways, equally atrocious, to define, and practice, "whatever it takes."

Nevertheless, in MBA schools across the country, the obligation to the shareholders is pounded, over and over, into the heads of students. The impact on communities in which the decision has been made to close factories is not discussed. A part of every MBA program should include Michael Moore's first documentary, Roger & Me, in which Moore visually explores the suffering endured by the people of Flint, Michigan after General Motors picked up and left. If nothing else, the film would serve as an examination into the humanistic aspect of business- outside the financial statements. We need to at least ask, from a sociological perspective, at what point the obligation to the community exceeds the value afforded to wealthy investors. And we need to ask how many families can be left in ruin in the name of corporate greed. Marx asked the same question in his time, and wished "...to do away with the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labour lives merely to increase capital and is allowed to live only insofar as the interest of the ruling class requires it."

I am not suggesting Marxism for America, rather the ideology that capitalism is not perfect, especially in its treatment of wage labor. Greed is not good; too many people get hurt.

26. Debate pits rights vs. religion

A passionate and controversial issue heating up the political airwaves at both the state and federal level is the issue of gay marriage. The proposed gay marriage amendment (to protect "traditional marriage") recently failed in the Senate, although the issue will undoubtedly be brought forth again in the future.

At the state level, petitions are being circulated to "preserve" marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In fact, I was greeted by such a campaigner recently at a local establishment. As I politely declined, I noted the irony of the individual collecting the signatures. This irony and the issue at hand is the subject of this column.

The controversial nature of this debate is complicated by the fact that those that differ in opinion argue on diverse philosophical fronts. Gays and Lesbians are asking for civil rights, that is, not to be discriminated based on their sexual preferences and their desire to commit to a life-long partner. In this manner, and for them, the fight is a civil rights issue. Those opposing gay marriage argue predominately on an ideological level. Predominately based in religion, these beliefs stem from The Bible and its monopolistic claim on morality. It's interesting that the arguments rarely cross disciplines. The political right steadfastly avoids the issue of civil rights while the liberals supporting gay marriage tend to tread cautiously around religion and The Bible.

I have previously described discrimination as "inflicting hardship on an individual based on attributes for which he or she has no control over." Understanding that sexual preference is genetic and not a choice, it is, by my definition, discrimination to withhold the many federal and state benefits to gay and lesbian couples that wish to make the same commitment to one another as heterosexual couples make.

The moral claims by those opposing gay marriage fail in the light of religious freedom. This country ensures religious freedom and thus any argument based on the ideology of a particular religious sect, even one in the majority, arrogantly ignores the rights of others to define their own morality. Secular humanists believe that moral principles are tested by their consequences. What negative consequences are to be suffered onto society by extending homosexuals the same marital rights afforded to every other American? Couldn't those in religious opposition concern themselves with their plight into heaven and allow others to "take their chances?"

Moreover, extracting morals from The Bible is a risky proposition across a spectrum of ideologies. And here, the assumption is that most protesting gay marriages do so based on a religious belief. Thus, in effect, the majority of those protesting will point to The Bible as the source of information outlining their moral opinions. And here is the irony of the petitioner at the local supermarket. The petitioner was an African-American female. If the irony isn't obvious, ask yourself if there are two groups of people in the country that has suffered through more discrimination than African Americans and women. And then ask yourself what was often the source of that discrimination.

The Bible describes the subordination due men of their wives, "{older women shall} ...train young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind and submissive to their husbands..." (Titus 2:4-5). It also describes the nature of slavery, "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you." (Leviticus 25:44).

In greater reflection, The Bible describes marriage, further to that of homosexuality, under a number of specific conditions. If marriage is defined in the Bible, and if it defines our morality, then let us be consistent. For "...whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32) and "Let them marry whom they think is best; only, they should marry within the family of the tribe of their father. (Numbers 36:6). Where are the proposed marital amendments forbidding the marriage of divorced women and across racial lines? It appears that discrimination is often supported through selected morality.

The arguments on the issue are greater than I presented here, however I believe the core argument to be civil rights versus religious ideology. I realize my arguments may be upsetting to some; but it must be fair to challenge the source of moral standards when it is inconsistent and promotes the same discriminatory ideas that have proved to be fallible in the past.

Furthermore, I just found it a bit ironic that an African-American woman, a member of two groups that had fought for so many years to attain her civil rights, would be taking part in the discrimination effort against others wishing theirs.

25. Unions bad for bad bosses

I was somewhat disappointed to learn that at least one local employer's training program included a video on keeping unions out of the facility or shop. Apparently, the video is complete with reenactments on how to act if approached by a union representative. Now there is nothing illegal about informing employees on why the company thinks a union would be bad for their employees. But to be so forthright, and to include reenactments at a time when an employee is going through orientation, begs the questions: What are they afraid of or what are they trying to hide? Perhaps the company is just being proactive on an issue that it feels so strongly about. Or, more likely, the company is a family-owned private company that doesn't want to open its books to the union. In this manner, the company might be protecting the interests of its family members that layer the corporate level. Mid-size private companies, especially those with little local competition, often get away with doing whatever they please.

The employees are entitled to hear both sides and make their decision. They do have the right to unionize. And a vote on whether or not to unionize seems like democracy in action. The way to keep unions out of a facility or shop is to treat their employees fairly, listen to them and educate them on the benefits of not unionizing- not to hold their hand and teach them to "just say no"- as though the correct answer is always "no." If upon hire, employers don't trust their new employees to think for themselves, what are they ultimately saying about the people they just hired?

Unions protect the employee in the era of "employment at will," in which one can be fired for any reason whatsoever, fair or unfair, and without recourse (except obviously for protected classes that may be able to prove discrimination based upon age, race, etc.). Thus, harshly realized, companies are free and able to ruin your life at any time, for any reason. It is often misunderstood that employees have rights. Further, employees have many misconceptions as to what the labor laws actually say. Without a contract (or implied contract), employees are only entitled to unemployment benefits if they are terminated without just cause.

Union representatives do sometimes make promises that they can't keep because until a union is put into place, it has no ability to bargain. As an employee, the decision to consider a union, or to instigate one, is risky. Rumors spread fast, and even though one can't be legally fired for talking about unionizing, employees are vulnerable since companies don't always behave- especially when their profits might be at risk.

The case against a union stems from the fact that unions often protect only the "poorly performing" employees. They create a lengthy and time-consuming process toward termination- resources that could be offered to good employees in the form of wage increases or benefits. Employees often take advantage of the situation, aware of their protection, and the rules, to perform just well enough to prevent being fired. Besides being expensive and time consuming, it can also create an uncomfortable workplace environment- that is, an "us against them attitude."

Unions are entitled to review employer financials to negotiate fair wages. In a country in which the richest 10 percent own approximately 70 percent of the wealth, it is clear that profits are not trickling down to the employees. And unionized employees do, on the average, make more than non-unionized employees. At the same time, this often ties management's hand to reward their better employees, since increases are often predetermined. And since benefits and wage increases are often agreed upon in advance, the incentive for employees to go "above the call of duty" is often removed. Thus contrary to intended purposes, unions often protect the poor employees while holding back the good ones. Hence, good employees working for good companies should not want union, while poor employees working for bad companies should insist on one.

Ultimately unions establish a contract that binds employees and employers. Their terms are agreed upon and contracted so that the conditions are apparently clear and fair. There are many advantages and disadvantages of being unionized, and ultimately that decision should be left to the employees. The employer should stress the advantages of not being unionized and prove that fair treatment is possible without a union. However, I believe that it is demeaning and belittling to go so far as to reenact scenes instructing the employees on how to act if approached by a union. Fair treatment of employees should be the deterrence that keeps a union out, not propaganda and negative campaigning on how to "just say no."