Starvation, Cannibalism, and Skewed History -- Oh, My!

Zinn - "Drawing the Color Line" (chap. 2)
There were several shocking things for me in this chapter, but I'll just focus on a couple.
From what I gather, the Virginians were no match for the Indians (and, couldn't conquer them as did Columbus and his crew), so they chose to enslave blacks (Africans first).  The next shocker was the "cannibalism", due to the extreme lack of food at the time.  Reading about this upset my stomach - not only the process itself, but the fact that this group endured such extreme starvation that they resorted to digging up graves and eating the corpses.  Survival at any cost, must've been the ultimate goal.  I'm not trying to judge the people, since I've never walked in their shoes, but this whole thing was a major shocker for me.
The anger that the colonists showed toward the Indians (due to their wisdom of survival on the land that the colonists didn't have) was nothing more than an example of actions by the "haters" who are still alive and well in America today.  If the they were really all that superior and wise, they would've befriended the Indians early on, and learned of their surviving ways instead of begrudging them for their skills and talents that they put to good use.

In several classmates' blog posts, they mentioned how "skewed" our overall American history has been taught to us since elementary school.  Well, African American history (as well as the histories of people of various other -- or, all -- ethnicities) are also very skewed. The accounts are usually from the eyes of the storyteller who has personal biases of his/her own, as we all do -- so both sides of the story may not be as fully developed in order to paint an accurate picture for the readers.  In a Criminal Justice class that I took last semester, it was mentioned (with regard to police reports and testimonies) that two people can be present for the same event, but each recalls it differently than the other one.  Maybe neither one is lying about what's happened, but more so telling what was perceived from his/her perspective.  So, what's recorded in history books (whomever's history it may be) can't always be totally taken at face value.  Some people may be telling the "whole truth", while others are telling "their truth" -- whoever feels the need to get the upper hand at the time (whoever stands to benefit the most).