Compare And Contrast Zinn And Foner

There was a major difference in the interpretations of Howard Zinn and Eric Foner about the 1900’s. For starters, Both Howard Zinn and Eric Foner are American Historians who have written extensively on forgotten aspects of American History. Their works are often thought of as controversial for their views. When it comes to responding to historical moments Foner is somewhat more forgiving, while he called Zinn in his epitaph “the kind of historian 'that judges and condemns”.
For example, In Zinn's view, Columbus's attitude as the initial point of entry into the Americas led directly to years of slavery, rape, murder, and pillage, as well as the gold fever that struck subsequent expeditions. He points out the documentation of atrocity by Bartolome de las Casas, and how this part of history is often ignored in favor of the Progressive and Industrial archetype. Then in Foner’s point of view Columbus was a great discoverer, the historical development set in motion or symbolized by Columbus's encounter with the New World produced both great good and great evil for different peoples in different parts of the world. Foner's view is more lenient, but still critical, he said “progress sometimes cannot be made without sacrifice, but we must remember and learn from the past instead of ignoring it”. I feel like they are
He was a passionate critic of the national security system and the militarization of American life. Foner has many different works on civil war but he said "It is wrong to think that, during the Civil War, Lincoln embraced a single 'plan' of Reconstruction," he wrote. "Lincoln had always been willing to work closely with all factions of his party, including the Radicals on numerous occasions. The voices of these to intelligent Historians are similar but they still have different train of thoughts towards Remembering and learning from