What could be seen as "the muddiest point" in the first chapter of Zinn's A People's History of the United States?

The
"muddiest point" in any work is where the greatest amount of questions or confusion
arise.  Since it is based on an individual's perception, the best I can do is to offer potential
areas of complexity in Zinn's first chapter.

One "muddiest point"
might be in Zinn's retelling of Columbus.  For so long, Columbus had been seen as heroic.  His
vaulted position had been a part of the traditional historical narrative.  However, it might be
"muddy" to have to reconfigure his position in the face of so much evidence.  A
"muddy" element in Zinn's treatment of Columbus is how someone who did so many bad
things to so many people could be seen as glorious by so many. Analyzing this disconnect between
historical reality and historical mythologizing could be one of the "muddiest" points
in chapter one.  The lack of simple and concrete answers makes this a very difficult
process. 

Another point that might be "the muddiest" could be when
Zinn submits his thesis.  The purpose of the book is outlined in its first chapter.  In the
midst of his analysis on Columbus, Zinn puts forth his methodology of how he interprets
history:

My viewpoint, in telling the history of the
United States, is different: that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations
are not communities and never have been, The history of any country, presented as the history of
a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed)
between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and
dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners,
it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the
executioners.

This could be seen as a "muddy
point" because we have to consider other motivations in the retelling of history. Readers
have to see the difference between the "history of people" and the "history of
nations."  This can be seen as "muddy."

There is a tendency to
see history as "objective truth." Zinn believes there is no such thing as pure
objectivity. Seen and unseen biases infect our telling of history. Analyzing these
presuppositions reveals political implications.  The way we teach and learn history reflects
these understandings, a revelation that might be "muddy." Tangentially, it might be
challenging for us to figure out when we have been "on the side of executioners."
 Zinn forces us to reevaluate our own positions.  There might have been instances where we
clearly believed something and Zinn is asking us to dissect the underlying ideas behind such
convictions. Doing this can be a "muddy" and challenging exercise.

In the final analysis, the "muddiest point" of chapter one is dependent on
the reader.  It is reflective of what they feel and understand as they interpret the ideas that
Zinn puts forth.  I think two areas where this process could start would be in Zinn's analysis
of Columbus and his thesis regarding his construction of the historical
narrative.