Tuesday, August 29, 2023

Curriculum Review: A History of Us - The New Nation 1789-1850 by Joy Hakim

This whole series is a trainwreck. They’re so horrible, but you can’t stop reading in disgusted awe of how horrifying this woman’s writing can get. To be honest, the only reason I keep reviewing them is so you can know how repulsively racist and inaccurate they are so you can spare your children an extremely damaging “education.” I realize this doesn’t sound very professional and I try to keep these reviews fairly professional, but these books don’t deserve that.

These books cause harm. Period.

So, I’ll just jump into the chapter-by-chapter breakdown. I mostly just pull terrible and inaccurate quotes from the text because these books are so bad. Sometimes there’s too many horrible quotes to pull, so I will try to summarize the best I can.

The cover statement says “Details of the world’s greatest land bargains. News of an expedition to unmapped territory west of the wide Mississippi. And stories of a very powerful Indian leader…”

US history is not “land bargains,” it’s theft. These aren’t “the world’s greatest land bargains,” they’re Europeans buying and selling land that doesn’t even belong to them in the first place. Land that was claimed through violent invasion and colonization. Land that was claimed without the consent of the Native nations whose land it is.

Preface – “Getting a Nation Started.”

This preface is basically all opinion. She inserts her baseless and odd opinions throughout her writing, but this whole thing is her opinions about this time period, not really any history. Honestly, the entire series is largely her opinions, not really history, but the prefaces are just ridiculous in that regard.

Some quotes and commentary:

 “It wasn’t easy getting a country started. Mistakes were made – some big mistakes.” The “mistakes” she is referring to are genocide, land theft, invasion, slavery, etc. These are not “mistakes.” These were intentional actions taken by people who felt it was their right to do so. Chalking up intentional bad decisions as being “mistakes” completely erases the fact that this country was founded on racism, genocide, and slavery.

“No nation has ever had a more impressive group of founders.” Why does she say things like this? These statements make no sense and are ahistorical. There’s no purpose for them except white nationalist propaganda.

“Never before have people written their own constitution. Never before have so many people been able to vote. Never before has a nation offered its citizens complete religious liberty.” These statements simply are not true. She is completely ignoring the history of Indigenous nations in the Americas and likely many other traditional societies around the world. This may be true of EUROPE, but not the whole world.

“Besides, everyone knows that in the United States ordinary people can and do own land. And that is astounding in the 18th century.” Again, these statements simply are not true. This may be true in Europe, but not the entire world. The "need" to "own" land doesn't exist in most traditional societies. Collectively traditional societies have "owned" land together for thousands of years. This is a completely Eurocentric perspective on world history. 

She calls people that don’t agree with people of all races being represented by “We the people” – “cautious people.” She’s literally saying racist people are simply “cautious.”

It also says, “homes need to be built, forests cleared, and land explored.” Need? There is no “need” for this. This is all stolen land and none of this “needed” to be done.

It states, “farming methods are about the same as they have been for thousands of years.” This is only true of European methods. This not true worldwide and this is not true in the Americas. Indigenous farmers and scientists were always coming up with ways to advance and improve their knowledge and methods.

The preface has a whole rant about how people are used to slavery, it’s been practiced for thousands of years, so why is it a problem? This is supposed to be from the perspectives of colonists, but it ignores the glaring issue of chattel slavery which is very different. THIS TYPE of slavery had NOT been practiced for thousands of years. At least she acknowledges that Natives were also enslaved, but that doesn’t make up for the rest of her blathering.

She uses outdated terminology – “slaves” and “slave owners.” Of course, these were written in the 1990s. Many Euro-Americans hadn’t really thought critically about the language they use in the 90s. But just be aware that this language is used throughout the texts.

“This book is the story of America’s good beginnings, and of the cruelty of slavery that will lead us to war.” Good beginnings?? Excuse me? Invasion, genocide, theft, racism, white supremacy…these are “good beginnings?” Again, this is nationalist propaganda, not history.

Chapter 1 – “The Father of Our Country”

There is no mention of Native Americans in this chapter. It is about George Washington, but Washington had plenty of interaction with Native nations. He was named “town destroyer” by the Haudenosaunee and ever since then the name for “president” in their languages is “town destroyer.” His treatment of Indigenous people/nations is significant. There is no excuse to leave that out. 

This statement is false: “Remember, the birth of the United States was a world-shaking event. We were the first modern nation to form a people’s government, to write our own constitution, and elect our own leaders.”

She continues the trend from the last book of eliminating Native people from the narrative. Oddly enough, this book has more mention of Natives than the last book. There are later chapters that, of course, do include Native people and even a few (inaccurate) chapters about specific Native leaders, but we start to show up less and less in history at this point. She starts to eliminate us sooner than must curricula do. We usually disappear by the 1860s-1900. She starts that process by the mid to late 1700s. This should never happen. We are part of almost every aspect of this history and into modern times. In fact, Native people literally shaped the entirety of US history in the 1700s. You can't really tell that history without us. 

Chapter 2 – “About Being President”

Natives are not mentioned in this chapter. I do want to point out that it says Washington “supervised” people at his Mount Vernon home. No, he enslaved people. She is always trying to paint a rosy picture of slavery. It’s always a “both sides” narrative that highly favors the Euro-Americans. It gets so so so much worse in this book.

Chapter 3 – “The Parties Begin”

Native Americans are not mentioned in this chapter. There are a few issues of note, though.

The author calls people “good men” repeatedly. Men that enslaved people/trafficked humans, men that committed genocide, men that were rapists, etc. These are not “good men.”

This chapter makes a claim that people with disagreeing ideals (conservatives and liberals mentioned here) working together “helped make this country great” and “which is what has always happened in America. That is not true in many other nations. In some countries, people who speak out against the government are put in jail or even killed. Members of the losing party are thrown out of the country or even killed. That doesn’t happen in America.” This is entirely false. First of all, the idea that the US is “great” is a moral value judgement, a matter of opinion. This author constantly inserts her opinions (often odd and baseless) into history. And secondly, not only is this greatly exaggerated (and I don’t know anywhere that simply throws people from the “losing” party out of the country??), these types of things have happened in the US. The US holds political prisoners. These types of things happened in the colonies that started the US. The history of US politics is not squeaky clean as this author would want you to believe.

Chapter 4 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 5 – Counting Noses

Regarding the census, she says “Almost 4 million of us were counted in 1790….” “Six hundred and ninety-seven thousand, six hundred and eighty-one of us were slaves. No one counted the Indians. We do know that half of the land claimed by the U.S. government was held by Indians.” Notice the words “us” and “Indians.” A white author should not be saying “us” when talking about slavery. She also won’t drop the word “Indians.”

Later, regarding the 1800 census: “The census of 1800 counted 5.3 million Americans. One million of us were black, and 9 out of every 10 blacks were slaves.” Again, a white author should not be saying “us” here.  

“The new country was much larger than just the 13 states. When the British lost the Revolutionary War and signed a peace treaty, England gave up land that stretched all the way to the Mississippi River.” There is no mention of whose land it was or that they were “trading” land that wasn’t theirs. There are multiple quotes like this.

Another such example: “(If you crossed the Mississippi, as Daniel Boone did, you were in a foreign land. You were in Spanish territory until 1800. Then the land was taken by France. And then – keep reading and you’ll find out who got it next.)”

She constantly primitivizes Indigenous people. Here is one quote that does this: “On the frontier – beyond the mountains – people often lived in crude huts and wore leather clothes adopted from Indian designs.”

“Boys and girls on the east coast – those with white skins – lived much as their European cousins did. But there was an important difference: people here didn’t have long traditions to guide them (as most people on other continents did). So, Americans learned to think for themselves.” This statement is false. They did have long traditions to “guide them” – EUROPEAN TRADITIONS! US culture is and has always been largely European based. They brought their traditions with them. Also she has this regular theme of claiming USisans are better than the rest of the world because they “think for themselves.” Um, so does the rest of the world? This is nonsense propaganda.

“That was true for black boys and girls, too. Their world was radically different from that of their African cousins. They learned new ways, and, at the same time, hung on to some of their old traditions.” Their world was radically different BECAUSE THEY WERE ENSLAVED AND TRAFFICKED. This statement is gross.

Chapter 6 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 7 – About President Adams

There are no Native Americans mentioned here, but there are several examples of the authors bazar opinions here that I want to point out.

 “Perhaps he stayed too long in England. He grew fat and vain and peevish there.”

 “John Adams was a good man even when he didn’t have to be.” (Again, with this “good man” theme when the people weren’t actually “good men.”)

“Perhaps Adams was just too independent to be a good politician. Perhaps he had grown lazy by the time he became president.”

“If children acted the way the country’s leaders were acting, their parents would tell them to stop being silly, make up, and be friends.”

Chapter 8 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 9 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 10 – Meet Mr. Jefferson

Louisiana Purchase mentioned as if it was a legitimate purchase from France. The problem is - European powers were buying and selling land that they had no right to buy and sell. How did France get that land in the first place? By claiming it without the consent of the people whose land it actually was. Through colonization, which is inherently violent and harmful. She says that Jefferson “sent an expedition to investigate” – the size, where it ends, what it was like, etc. There is no mention of this being a military spy mission…which is what it was. It was always a military reconnaissance mission from the get-go.

Chapter 11 – Meriwether and William – or Lewis and Clark

It says Jefferson “…wanted to train him [Lewis] for an exploring mission. Thomas Jefferson was filled with curiosity about the West. He wanted to know about its land and its plants and animals; he wanted to know about the Indians who lived there.” Again, this wasn’t an “exploring mission,” it was a military reconnaissance mission. Why did Jefferson want to know all of those things? For the purpose of invasion and colonization.

“The West was as unknown in 1803 as much of outer space is now.” Unknown to whom? It certainly wasn’t unknown to the Indigenous people who not only lived there, but managed and cultivated the land there.

Of Lewis it says: “As a soldier he learned the ways of the Indians and how to survive in the wilderness.” As an “Indian,” I’d really like to know what the “ways of the Indians” are because…this doesn’t exist?? There are hundreds of nations, and each nation has their own unique ways. There is no such thing as “ways of the Indians” any more than there are “ways of the Asians” or “ways of the Europeans” as if they’re all the same.

Of Lewis and Clark, it says: “They chose men who were used to living in the wild. They trained them until they were tough and disciplined.” The fact is, they were already soldiers, so no…this isn’t quite accurate. They hired soldiers. Because this was a military mission.

“They explored that big unknown land that the United States had just bought from France…” Hopefully you already know what my thoughts are on statements like this. *eyeroll*

“It was dangerous country, with unexpectedly high mountains, difficult deserts, fierce animals, and wary Indians.” This is a major part of US origin mythology. The “dangerous” west because of “Indians.” Wary? More like Native nations that were defending themselves against foreign invasion.

“Wherever they went they took careful notes, made maps, wrote down vocabulary lists of Indian words, and collected samples of strange plants and animals. They added 200 species to the world’s list of known plants. The Native Americans taught them to use some of those plants as medicines, some as foods.” Emphasis mine. First of all, “Indian words?” Is that like “European words?” As if they all speak the same language?? This is monolithic nonsense. Same with “the Native Americans.” There is no such thing! This is more monolithic nonsense. Also, the people that helped them and taught them these things did so out of pity…because Lewis and Clark would have died otherwise. It was more like “oh these poor children have no idea how to live” rather than just “teaching” them things.

There is a quote from Jefferson as to his instructions to Lewis and Clark. There is no mention that the purpose of such detailed notes was invasion and colonization.

“President Jefferson wanted to know all about the Native Americans who inhabited the land; he wanted Lewis and Clark to establish friendships with the Indians and prepare for trade with them.” Why did Jefferson want to know this? For the purpose of invasion and colonization. It was reconnaissance. He didn’t want Lewis and Clark to establish “friendships” with Natives…he wanted them to spy on them.

It says they might not have been successful if it weren’t for “…an Indian woman named Sacajawea.” With a poor pronunciation guide for her name. It’s just wrong. Then everything else said about her is mythology and not reality. More US origin mythology.

“Sacajawea was 16 and married to a Frenchman. She was about to have a baby. Everyone was excited about that.” No, she was not “married” to a Frenchman, she was purchased by him and was ONE of his Indigenous sex slaves. I’m guessing Sacajawea wasn’t too excited about having her rapist’s baby.

“In the spring, when Lewis and Clark were ready to start out again, they hired Sacajawea’s husband as a translator of Indian languages. Sacajawea came along with her baby strapped to her back. But it was Sacajawea who turned out to be the helpful one; her no-good husband was lazy.” This perpetuates they mythology of her tragic story. She didn’t just “come along,” she was forced to…by the man who purchased her. And he was forced to within only months of having a baby. This is a time she should be resting and healing, instead she is being dragged along to help the initiation of invasion and genocide of her own people.

“When she was a child, Sacajawea had been kidnapped from this very tribe. The white men had brought her home.” This makes it sound as if Lewis, Clark, and her enslaver Charbonneau, were benevolent and bringing her home. They were not. They had no idea this would happen and it’s not like she had the opportunity to STAY home with her family. She was forced to leave them yet again by Lewis, Clark, and Charbonneau.

Chapter 12 – An Orator in a Red Jacket Speaks

This chapter is somewhat sympathetic to Natives, but still written in a racist and Eurocentric way. Eurocentrism is sneaky like this sometimes. It’s the WAY non-European cultures and people are written about.

“The new Americans wanted Indian land and they didn’t know a fair way to share it.” There is no “fair way” to share something that was violently stolen. This is a ridiculous statement.

“The Indians would lose most of their land. No one realized that in 1805, which was when Red Jacket spoke – though perhaps some understood that the Native Americans would not give up their land easily. Terrible Indian wars lay ahead.” They would not “lose” most of their land. This is passive language that puts the blame on Native people. They would have most of their land STOLEN. This is an important distinction. She regularly uses passive language like this as to not speak ill of her precious “founders.” I’m sure by 1805 most people knew this because that was the goal.

Chapter 13 – The Great Tekamthi, Also called Tecumseh

Same as the last chapter, this chapter is somewhat sympathetic to Natives, but still written in a racist and Eurocentric way.

One section ends with “…and leave the hunting lands of the West for the Indians.” These aren’t “hunting lands.” This is Eurocentric language that is used to make themselves feel better about stealing land and displacing Natives. If it wasn’t their homes, just “hunting land,” it’s not so bad, is it? But this was the HOMELANDS of Native nations. This is language that is used to discredit Indigenous claims to land.

“He would make the white men go. He would do it by uniting the Indian tribes.” Wow, so Tecumseh united ALL the “Indian tribes?” Sigh. This is monolithic language that does nothing to educate people about what Tecumseh really did. He united many Native nations in the Ohio Valley area, like the Shawnee, Potawatomi, Kicakapoo, Ho-Chunk, etc. But he didn’t unite “the Indian tribes.” That’s a ridiculous statement.

It says his brother was a “shaman.” The word “shaman” is incorrect. Native nations do not have “shamans.” This word is from eastern religions, not ours.
“They told them to go back to Indian ways and to be proud of their heritage. And the Indians did that, too.” Again, there are no “Indian ways,” there are lifeways that are specific and unique to each nation.

“Most of the Indiana Territory, by treaty, was supposed to be Indian land. But white settlers were moving in. Harrison was afraid that Tecumseh was too powerful, that the Indians would endanger the white settlers.” It wasn’t “supposed” to be “Indian land,” it WAS, by law, their land. White squatters were invading. Native nations were defending themselves against this invasion, not “endangering white settlers.”

Chapter 14 – Osceola

Again, this chapter is somewhat sympathetic to Natives, but still written in a racist and Eurocentric way.

She calls Osceola “the Indian boy” when he was a child. This is disrespectful.

The term “Indian civil war” is used in reference to the war of 1812. This was not an “Indian civil war” any more than any other European war where Native nations joined sides was. This was a European war on stolen land. That’s it. Just because Native nations took sides, doesn’t make it an “Indian civil war.”

“Although many didn’t understand it at the time, it was a disaster for both groups of Indians.” NATIVE NATIONS ARE NOT “GROUPS.”

“The Indians who lived in Florida were called Seminoles. They were a mixture. Many had been Creek, a few were of the old, mostly extinct tribes; some were wanderers and outcasts; some were blacks who had been slaves.” Surprisingly, the mixture of who the Seminole are, is correct. However, they were not simply “the Indians who lived in Florida.” This monolithic language makes it sound like they were the ONLY nation in Florida, which is not correct. The way this is written is problematic.

“The women farmed, the men hunted. Because the climate was warm, their houses were simple roofed platforms on stilts that kept them off the moist ground.” While there is nothing “incorrect” about these statements, they’re written in a Eurocentric way that makes them sound primitive. Yes, women were in charge of agriculture and men were hunters in Seminole society, but most other things were not divided by gender. Men and women participated in arts, storytelling, religion, medicine, etc. It is Eurocentric values of patriarchal society and strict gender roles that lead writers like this to focus on such concepts. This isn’t noteworthy unless you’re really diving into the societal structure of Seminole culture. Also calling traditional engineering and architecture “simple” is insulting and primitivizing.

“Like Tecumseh, he stood out among the others. He seemed braver and more truthful.” Why is a non-Native, non-Seminole or Shawnee author making value judgements like this? Not that it’s a bad statement, but her opinions don’t belong here.

There is a small breakout box about stickball, but she keeps calling it “lacrosse” which is a modern game that was based on traditional stickball. Stickball is not the same as Lacrosse. It also says “His [George Caitlin] words here describe Choctaw men playing a similar game; both games were like lacrosse.” This is a caption for a painting, but again, the games were not “like lacrosse.” The games are the origins of modern lacrosse. Lacrosse is like stickball.

Chapter 15 – The Revolutionary War Part II, or the War of 1812

“Capturing ships and holding territory – those are two pretty good reasons for fighting. There was a third reason that wasn’t so good. Many Americans wanted Indian land. But the English and their western forts had become friends and protectors of the Indians.” I would never call reasons for war “good.” But beyond that, they hadn’t become “friends,” they became political allies. Language like “friends” is patronizing and discredits the political nature of Native nations. Then Natives aren’t even mentioned again. She did talk about the Creeks and the Red Sticks in the previous few chapters, but briefly. Even though that was a huge part of the war of 1812, she doesn’t mention it here.

Pg 83 has a story about “the Star-Spangled Banner” but it completely skips the 3rd stanza. It says “We’re skipping the third stanza – which is not often sung. The fourth stanza…” and then goes into the fourth stanza which is ALSO not often sung, so why completely skip over the 3rd with the excuse of “it’s not often sung?” probably because it’s racist and she doesn’t want to admit that in the book.

Chapter 16 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 17 – That Good President Monroe

This chapter goes into the whole Florida taken from Spain, Jackson sent to capture “runaway slaves” and then it says “but he did more than that. He had learned to fight as the Indians fought. He burned villages and destroyed crops. He captured, killed, and humiliated the Seminoles.” This is about the First Seminole War, but seriously she keeps saying things like “learned to fight as the Indians fought.” Not all Native nations fought the same way.

“Lots of people in the United States couldn’t wait to move to Florida. But what about the Seminoles? They had to make way for the white settlers.” They didn’t “have” to “make way” for anyone. They were forced to by greedy violent people. But none of this was a “have to.” It was all choice on the part of the invaders. This language is gross.

“James Monroe and John Quincy Adams decided something needed to be done to keep Europe out of the Americas” This just made me laugh…in a sad disgusted way. THEY ARE EUROPEANS. USians ARE Europeans. They’re the invaders.

Chapter 18 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 19 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 20 – Old Hickory

She refers to Andrew Jackson as “Andy.” This is just strange.

“By the time he was 30 he owned two large plantations near Nashville.” As if that’s an accomplishment? These were worked by enslaved people.

“Andrew Jackson was a man of action, a born leader who was already doing things and going places and changing the world he lived in.” As if he was doing all positive, good things. He was a horrible man and president, though. This is Eurocentric glorification of a genocidal maniac.

“Andrew Jackson did change the presidency – it was never the same again. Most people think he made it stronger.” Who are “most people” here?? Whose opinion is she talking about? “It helped that he had good manners, natural manners.” Sorry, not sorry, people with good manners don’t commit genocide.

The entire chapter is positive praise for one of the worst and most horrifying presidents in US history.

Chapter 21 – Yankee Ingenuity: Cotton and Muskets

“People didn’t practice scientific farming. They often destroyed the land by growing the same crops year after year….” In this statement “people” refers to white people only. “People” is not the default for “white!” This type of wording needs to stop. Euro-Americans specifically didn’t practice scientific farming. Indigenous people in the Americas, as well as around the world, DID practice scientific farming. They did NOT destroy the land. They DID practice crop rotation long before Europeans/Euro-Americans understood the concept.

“The south had been having economic problems. Slavery wasn’t as useful as it had been in the early colonial days.” “There wasn’t enough work for the slaves.” “Slaves became very valuable again.” These are all incredibly problematic statements. Unfortunately they’re not the worst this book has to offer.

Native Americans aren’t mentioned here though.

Chapter 22 – Going Places

“Road building was a new science” Really? Because I’m pretty sure Natives in North and South America has been building road systems for thousands of years. What she means here is MODERN road building was a new science. But roads themselves were not.

She keeps calling things “wilderness” and “the wilds” in this chapter. I have addressed this multiple times, so I won’t again. But it’s just wrong.

No Native Americans (sans “two Indian boys”) mentioned in this chapter.

Chapter 23 – Teakettle Power

This chapter praises railroad expansion, which is gross because that was…you guessed it! Invasion and genocide. But what’s even more ridiculous is that she doesn’t even mention Native Americans in this chapter…a chapter about invading more Native land (even land guaranteed by Congress and treaty as being off limits to whites). You literally can’t teach the history of railroad expansion adequately and appropriately without talking about the impact on Native nations and the significant (and powerful) Native resistance.

Chapter 24 – Making Words

This is about Sequoyah. And good heavens, this entire thing is HORRIBLE.

“A white man would take words, turn them into shapes, and scratch them on a slate or draw them on a piece of paper. Then another man could look at those shapes and say the first man’s words. Was it magic? Sequoyah could draw pictures of things he could see. But you can’t see words. You can’t touch words. How can they be pictured? Sequoyah was determined to find out.” This is so racist. Not only did some Native nations already have writing systems or systems of recording information in various forms, not just “white men”, no one thought it was “magic.”

“But no Cherokee could read or write his own language, because reading and writing were unknown to Indian tribes. Indian stories and speeches were remembered and retold by orators, or storytellers, or singers.” No. Reading and writing was not “unknown” to “Indian tribes.” It was not something the Cherokee practices prior to this, but some other Native nations DID. The idea that no Native Americans had writing before Europeans is a racist myth.  

“…some thought the symbols were dangerous witchcraft.” No, they did not. Some Cherokee thought that the practice of writing was too close to being witchcraft, but they didn’t just think his “symbols” were witchcraft themselves.

“The problem with the Indians, said many white men and women, was that they were “savages” and “uncivilized.” By that they meant that the Indians did not do and think as the white people did. But the Cherokees confounded the whites. Many of them did live as the whites did. Some Cherokees married white people. Some combined the two ways of life.” This whole thing is just racist. She loves to call us the S word, which is a racial slur. She uses it a lot. But many Cherokee “did live as the whites did” because they were forced to assimilate. It was essentially assimilate or die. Many people thought assimilation was the only way to survive. This wasn’t a random “choice” people made and making it out to sound like they just did this because they wanted to is dishonest.

There is a big description about how they were super assimilated and how great that was. She writes about it as if it was a wonderful thing. It’s like she actually believes we were “uncivilized” and Europeans saved us from ourselves. It’s disgusting.

“The Cherokees formed a government” Um, they already had one. It’s just that they formed a new, more European style government.  

She uses Eurocentric language to say people came to the “New World” looking for land. Land in the East was “full.” As if it was logical and right to keep invading other peoples land.

“That was when they discovered a problem: most of that frontier belonged to the Indians. ‘Why should the Indians have so much?’ they asked. ‘Isn’t there enough land for everyone?’ So they pushed west. Some of them put up their cabins on Indian lands. Many wanted to live peacefully with the Indians. Some didn’t. In Europe they had read that the Indians were ruthless savages.” Again, she loves calling us the S word. She does it completely unironically as if she really thinks of us that way. But calling our existence a “problem?” That’s gross. The European/Euro-American racist concept of “the Indian problem” can be taught about in a non-racist way. This isn’t it.

“The Cherokees had a warrior tradition. They didn’t know which white people were friendly and which ones weren’t.” Don’t Europeans have a “warrior tradition?” Don’t most cultures in the world? This isn’t unique to the Cherokee or Native nations. But it’s mentioned because we have to be portrayed as “fierce” S words by this author. It’s the only way she writes about us. Again with the patronizing word “friendly.” They were political and engaged in diplomacy. They didn’t know which white people wanted to murder them.

“They just knew their land and lives were being threatened, so they went on raids and killed white people and burned their cabins and farms. The settlers didn’t know which Indians could be trusted and which ones were killers, so they went on raids and killed Indians and burned their homes and fields. Life on the frontier was terrifying – and very dangerous.”  No, they defended themselves the way any other nation would in that situation. This whole “both sides” narrative she pushes is a racist dog whistle. Life on the frontier was only “terrifying and very dangerous” because white people were literally illegally invading other people’s nations with the explicit purpose of killing anyone in their way so they could have what they wanted.

Then she claims that “Some leaders like George Washington and James Madison tried to find ways to protect the Indians.” No...absolutely, no, they did not. George Washington was literally called “town destroyer” by the Haudenosaunee.

“…all Indians should live west of the Mississippi. Most white Americans – including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson – agreed. They all thought the Indians would be safe there, and could live in peace.” Removal had NOTHING to do with “Indians” being sent to “safety.” This is disgusting and absurd and complete revisionist history. There is nothing correct about this statement at all.

“The Cherokees didn’t want to move. They loved their land.” That’s it??? It’s because they just loved their land?? How about they didn’t want to move because THEY ARE A SOVERIGN NATION with every right to stay exactly where they were without foreign invaders illegally pushing them out.

“The Cherokees had no choice. Even though they had their own nation and were governing themselves, they had to go.” They didn’t “have” to go. They were illegally forced to go. She writes about history as if these things were just inevitable and “had” to happen, but they didn’t.

A picture caption says: “by the time they had to move westward, few Cherokees lived in the old ways as this man did, hunting, fishing, and gathering. Most were farmers and traders.” Wow. Just no. The Cherokee have ALWAYS been farmers and traders!! For thousands of years!  

Chapter 25 – A Time to Weep

This title is not secular. It’s clearly a Christian bible reference.

It claims “As they went they wept, because they didn’t want to go. They didn’t want to leave their homes, their farms, their hunting grounds, the land of their fathers and mothers.” This is NOT why it is called the Trail of Tears. While being illegally forced from their homelands was part of the sadness, this is called the “Trail of Tears” because thousands of people were MURDERED. Because this was a genocide.

Then it says “The people who wept were Native Americans.” Again with the generic “the Native Americans” Which ones?? This chapter is about the Cherokee. It should say “The people who wept were Cherokee.”

It then calls the Cherokee “stubborn” because they refused to move from their homelands as was their sovereign right to refuse. This is not “stubborn.” It’s the law.

“Jackson was popular. He was a man of the people, a man of the frontier, in many ways was a good president.” She really loves to praise Andrew Jackson. Gross.

Then there is a whole page that focuses on a white missionary named Samuel Worcester – “…who had come to the Indian territory to teach school and to preach Christian doctrine.” It’s all written in a very positive way.

 Of John Marshall she says, “He was a man with a mind as straight as an Indian’s arrow.” Is a ridiculous comparison like this really necessary?

Regarding Jackson’s refusal to follow the ruling of the Supreme court “Our American system of checks and balances failed. I am sorry to have to write this. It was a terrible moment in U.S. history. But the truth needs to be told.” – Oh…NOW the truth matters to her? After all this untruthful history??

“People in Georgia wanted Indian land. (I don’t want to pick on just Georgia. The same thing happened in many other states.) So the Indians of the eastern woodlands went west. Some fought before they went. The Sauk and Fox in Illinois fought especially hard, but their cause was hopeless.” All the nations fought to protect themselves, some did it physically, others through the courts, but all fought. Calling the self defense of nations “hopeless” is another baseless opinion she didn’t need to insert.

“The Choctaws were the first, they moved in 1831. Three years later the Chickasaws trudged west.” Emphasis mine. This is passive language. They didn’t “move.” They didn’t just “trudge west.” They were forcibly removed by Euro-Americans. She continuously puts the blame on Native people through passive language like this.

“The government said the new land would be theirs forever. But when the white people moved west they forgot their promises to the Indians.” They did not “forget.” It was intentional. 

Chapter 26 – The Second Seminole War

This chapter is a somewhat inaccurate, but heavily Eurocentric, overview of the second Seminole War.

“Some white settlers were shooting and burning and looting. Some Seminoles were shooting and burning and looting. There was only one way to satisfy the homesteaders and protect the Indians, said most white people. The Seminoles must move.” Again, the “both sides” narrative is racist. The Seminole were defending themselves from violent invaders. They had every right to do so. The white settlers were the invaders that had no right to do so.

In contrast to the assimilated White Stick Creeks, “The Seminoles lived an Indian life. They had black friends. Some were blacks themselves.” Not only is the language regarding Black people outdated, again there is no such thing as “an Indian life.” They lived a SEMINOLE life.

Regarding the leader who was sent to “conquer the Seminoles” – “Dade’s troops were slaughtered.” She doesn’t use the word “slaughtered” to describe what Europeans and Euro-Americans did to Indigenous people. She only uses it to describe what Native people did in rightful self-defense. This is a distortion of history and racist.

Regarding the invading party – “the American soldiers were suffering from heat, disease, and frustration – as well as Indian attack.” No, they were not suffering from “Indian attack,” THEY were the attackers. The Seminole were suffering from white attacks. The Seminole were rightfully defending themselves.

It claims the Seminoles were the ones that raised the white flag of truce, and this is how Osceola was captured. It’s the other way around, the US raised the white flag as a trick. More specifically, General Thomas Jessup raised the white flat as a trick. The idea that the Seminole were the ones who raised a white flag is just a flat out lie.

“Most of the Seminoles who were left went west to the Indian territory.” This is passive language. It places the blame on the Seminole. They didn’t just “go west,” they were forced…by the US. Passive language about these topics are a huge issue throughout these books. And it wasn’t even “most” of the Seminole. Some Seminole went west, some didn’t. Some are still there in Florida.  

“In the end, no one won the Seminole War.” Um yes…the Seminole did. The Seminole won and never signed a peace treaty with the US.

Chapter 27 – History’s Paradox

I can’t really type out quotes of how horrible this chapter is, the whole thing is horrible. It is about slavery. She has extremely warped and racist views about slavery. As I read this chapter, my thoughts ended up being “It just keeps getting worse.” I’ll just leave photographs of the pages so you can see for yourself. 


No Native Americans mentioned (even though Natives were enslaved in the Americas from 1492 to 1865. She briefly mentions this in the preface, but nowhere else). 

Chapter 28 – A Man Who Didn’t Do as His Neighbors Did

The end of the 1700s/beginning of 1800s “It was the Age of Reason. People were using their minds, reading books, and asking questions.” Um…I’m pretty sure people have been doing that for thousands of years. Again, she uses “people” to mean Europeans only. She regularly makes white people the default of the word “people.” It was only the “Age of Reason” in Europe and most of their ideas came from BIPOC people around the world, including ideas from Native nations in the eastern woodlands areas.

Alas, yet again there are no Native Americans mentioned in this chapter and it is not secular either.

Chapter 29 – African Americans

This chapter starts with a weird unnecessary statement about Pangea. Beyond that, this whole chapter is a nightmare. 

“…some of Africa’s children were torn from their roots and transplanted to America.” This is passive language. She loves to not place blame where it belongs.

“Like the people who came here from Europe or Asia, they were changed by the American land.” This is a straight up racist erasure of Indigeneity. Repeatedly just saying we “came from Asia” instead of acknowledging our Indigeneity is inaccurate and harmful. Also, Europeans weren’t “changed by the American land,” they were changed by developed Indigenous civilizations that they invaded and took over the infrastructure that already existed.

“Soon they were different from the brothers and sisters they had left behind. Soon they were no longer Africans. Now they were Americans – African Americans.” Wow no.

“An African may have come to the newly discovered land on the first of Columbus’s voyages. By 1501, Africans were living in the Caribbean. In 1619 they were living in Jamestown, Virginia, and, a few years later, at Plymouth, Massachusetts.” As if it was all voluntary?? This just says they were “living” in these places as if they came here on their own free will. This is extreme erasure of true history.

“Africans cleared the woods, tilled the soil, planted tobacco, and harvested cotton. They were farmers, trailblazers, mountain men, cowhands, and pioneers. They were Americans.” Holy wow, this is so horrible. They were FORCED to do these things. She writes as if this was all a choice. They were not considered “Americans” by white people!

No Native Americans are mentioned. I only mention this because I do for any chapter that doesn't mention us for the main purpose of my reviews. Despite the long history of community building and sharing between African Americans and Natives, I still wouldn't really expect mention of Natives in a chapter like this. 

Chapter 30 – The King and His People

This chapter is entirely passive voice about cotton itself being the cause of chattel slavery and it being a tyrannical king. It’s absurd and full of horrible opinions.

Of the human traffickers/enslavers she says, “They were smart, and lucky, too. Each of them bought a little land, worked it, bought a slave or two, worked them, bought more land, and soon had a whole plantation.” This is said as if this is positive and good. She calls them “smart and lucky”?! For trafficking in kidnapped humans??

“Walk in woods like that and you may see goblins and spooks and little people; soon you’ll think up your own stories.” WOAH. If you don’t know the history of the word “sp**ks” look it up. In this context it is a racial slur.

Then it falsely states that most lynchings in the south between 1840 and 1860 were white people, “There was almost no lynching of slaves – they were worth money.” This completely erases the actual history of lynching Black people (and sometimes other BIPOC as well). Most of those early supposedly “white” people that were lynched were Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, or Indigenous people, not actually white. And just because enslaved people weren’t often lynched because of their “value” to human traffickers, that doesn’t mean free Black people and self-emancipated (“escaped”) Black people weren’t targeted. She is clearly trying to downplay the racial history of lynchings.

“If you want to understand about slavery and the conflict between blacks and whites, you will need to do a lot of reading and thinking. Especially if you want to be fair.” WHAT?? There is no “fairness” on this topic. She is yet again trying to “both sides” this horrific history.

“You will read tales of kind masters and happy slaves…” AGAIN, WHAT?? This is a racist myth created to make white people feel better about the history of slavery in the US.

“…and you will read stories of viciousness, cruelty, and abuse. There is both truth and exaggeration in most of these stories.” WOW. Just racist.

“Yes, there was terrible, brutish, inexcusable meanness in slavery. But most slave owners – even if they were cruel – thought of their slaves as valuable property. They might beat them, but they tried not to do them serious harm. They needed to keep their property healthy.” This is horrifying and disgusting.  

“Yes, there were kind slave owners who cared for the people they owned and treated them well. There was genuine affection between blacks and whites.” I can’t even at this point. Sorry for losing my professionalism here.

Then it goes on to talk about being illegal to teach slaves to read and a woman going to jail for it and said “Whites were losing their freedom, too” as if this is about them?!?!

I am disgusted more and more as these books go on. No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 31 – Abolitionists Want to End Slavery

Another disgusting chapter.

“Don’t think this was a case of good Northerners and bad Southerners.” – This starts out correct….

“Many white Southerners hated slavery and treated blacks decently. And many white Northerners didn’t seem to know about the Golden Rule (“Do unto others…”). Northern blacks were rarely given the rights of citizens: in most places they weren’t allowed to vote or serve on juries. In the North, blacks often held the worst jobs, and black children were usually not allowed in white schools.” – and then COMPLETELY misses the mark. No, it’s not because some white Southerners were good, and some white Northerners were bad. It’s because RACISM. That’s literally the answer. Racism and white supremacy. North – bad, South – bad. All bad. It is a white supremacist country. BOTH ARE BAD.

No Native Americans mentioned (again, only saying this for the main purpose of this review, I mention it for any chapter that doesn't).

Chapter 32 – Frederick Douglass

This chapter starts out okayish, but then it says that as a young child he was sent to be a “companion to a little white boy. For a slave, that was a lucky break.” There is absolutely nothing “lucky” about being enslaved. She’s still trying to claim slavery wasn’t “that bad.” The rest of the chapter surprisingly isn’t horrible, but I think that is because it is mostly quotes from Frederick Douglass himself.

There is a section at the end about “Walking Across the Map” in the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency. It is, of course, very whitewashed and full of passive language. There is very little mention of Natives and all of it is passive and whitewashed. No surprise there.

Of course, I would not expect Natives to be mentioned here, and we're not. 

Chapter 33 – Naming Presidents

This chapter is about presidents 8-15. It’s propaganda mostly. She also claims that all of the first 7 presidents were “outstanding,” including enslavers and Andrew Jackson. Native Americans are essentially not mentioned here (brief reference). 

Chapter 34 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 35 - No Native Americans mentioned.

Chapter 36 – Liberty for All?

This is the opening: “How do you think the nation is doing? Are you discouraged? After all, there is slavery, some people are being horrible to the Native Americans, and there is much lawlessness in the land. Does it look hopeless for freedom, democracy, and fairness? Well, don’t be discouraged. Actually, the United States is doing amazingly well.” I’d like to know – in what world is invasion, genocide, the chattel slavery, and white supremacy as a national foundation “doing amazingly well?”

And the chapter ends very quickly with more propaganda and baseless opinion of the author.

This is from the last review, but it needs repeating: I want to explain why I point out “there is no mention of Natives in this chapter” instead of just skipping it. Excluding Natives from history is as “American as apple pie.” We disappear from the textbooks and stories and are said to have disappeared ourselves. We become so insignificant in the mentality of modern Euro-Americans that we aren’t included in history as books move through time. We become invisible. 87% of textbooks don’t mention us past 1890. We are still invisible today and this has a massive impact on us and our continued oppression. Erasing us from history is an intentional and vital piece of US propaganda. The reality is that we should be included in pretty much every aspect of US history, because we have been part of it since its beginning, willingly or not. I have taught thousands of US school children about Native peoples over the years. I am regularly confronted with questions of my existence. “Are you a real Indian?” even though I introduce myself as a Native woman. “Are you from India?” because they don’t understand that Natives didn’t all disappear. I have been told by children and adults that they thought we didn’t exist anymore. Reclaiming Native Truth is a project that found that 40% of adults in the US don’t know that we still exist. Hakim actively participates in this propaganda in the way she writes this series. My reviews will most likely get shorter and shorter as I move through the books because we will disappear from them completely. I always point it out because I want you to notice. 

There are obvious chapters, like ones that focus on African Americans or people like Frederick Douglass, where I wouldn't expect Natives to be mentioned, nor do we need to be. This book has several chapters where it is perfectly fine that we are not mentioned due to the nature of the chapter. I only point it out because my main purpose for the review is Native content and where we are or are not mentioned. However, there were several horrible chapters that I had commentary for that are outside of the main scope of this review, only so you can see how racist the books and writer are. I am not an expert on those histories, but I can spot inaccuracies, racism, and Eurocentrism (and her awful opinions) there regardless. 

I continue to recommend staying far, far away from these books and telling others to do the same. They are absolute trash and cause harm. 

Thursday, August 10, 2023

Book Review - Major Events in World History

 Like it's similarly titled companion (Major Events in American History), this book was published in 2021. 

Just like the other book (albeit by different authors), this book uses “America” to incorrectly mean the United States only.

Table of contents:

Ancient Civilizations – All 8 sections are about Eurasia. Two of them are potentially not secular, especially “the Life of Jesus” section. There are zero sections about anywhere in the Americas, Africa, or Oceana.

The Middle Ages – Not only is the term “middle ages” Eurocentric (because it refers to a specific time period of European history, not world history), again all 8 are about Eurasia. In fact, 7 of the 8 are about Europe specifically.

The Age of Exploration and Reformation – Again, the title is Eurocentric. This was not a worldwide “age of exploration,” the rest of the world had already experienced that long before Europe. But for Europe this wasn’t even “exploration.” This era was all colonization for Europeans. Reformation was also exclusive to Europe at the time. This is not world history; this is European history. All 4 sections are about Europeans brutally invading other parts of the world. This is the first time the Americas and Africa show up….in the 1400s.

The Age of Revolution and Enlightenment – The title is Eurocentric, yet again. Six of the seven sections are about Europeans or Euro-Americans.

The Age of Imperialism and Industry – Also Eurocentric. All four sections are about Europeans or Euro-Americans.

The World Wars and the Rise of the Modern Era – Every section relates to Europeans or Euro-Americans.

Post World War II and Modern Times – Only two, maybe 3, are about non European/Euro-American histories, but each of those still connects to Europeans/Euro-Americans in some way.

This entire book might as well be called Major Events in European History.

I will skip the introduction summary and dive right into some of the 50 sections. I will skip sections that are not relevant to this review.

“Mesopotamia”

This states that the earliest human civilizations were in Mesopotamia. This is incorrect. There are multiple ancient civilizations around the world that are contemporaries of Mesopotamia. There are multiple independent centers of ancient civilization and agriculture in the world. It also claims that writing, math, time, and maps all began here. Again, not correct. These inventions were independently created in various parts of the world around similar time periods and are not all attributed to or connected to Mesopotamia. We need to move away from “Mesopotamia is where it all began” narratives and recognize that these things developed independently around the world.

“Abraham: The Father of Three Faiths”

This is somewhat not a secular summary of these faiths and incorrectly refers to Judaism and Christianity together as “Judeo-Christianity.” This is largely a US Christian concept that is not widely accepted around the world. This section also ends with the “ten commandments” under the “explore more” section which is explicitly not secular.

“The Greek Empire and Alexander the Great”

This section incorrectly attributes Greek democracy as the foundation of many modern governments. This is a common misconception. Most modern “democracies” (or democratic republics) are not as inspired by Greek democracy as people think. There are many other democratic influences on modern governments that are not from the Greeks.

“The Life of Jesus”

This section is explicitly not secular. It is written as if information about Jesus and his early followers from the bible are known to be historically factual. Many historians do not agree. The “History Revealed” section at the end contains misinformation and has teachings about the trinity.

Several of these sections end with references to the Christian bible that seem out of place, like the Mesopotamia and Babylonia sections. I wouldn’t call this completely secular.

“The Crusades”

This is written in a very pro-Christian biased manner. It makes statements like “European Christians went to Jerusalem to take back the Holy Land from Islamic rule.” (Emphasis mine). That land has always been considered holy to multiple religions, not just Christianity. The section is not entirely accurate about the purpose of the crusades and the harm caused by them. It glosses over a lot of important information about that harm. It also tries to make it sound sort of “nice” in the “history revealed” section at the end.

“Mongolian Invasion of Europe”

This section claims that Genghis Khan conquered Asia…as in all of Asia. While they did conquer and rule a significant area of Asia, it wasn’t the entire continent.

“The Renaissance”

This says it started in Italy but makes blanket statements that makes it sound as if the whole world was experiencing this. It says that it was a time when things like art, science, literature, etc. moved to “the forefront of life.” It should say “forefront of European life.” This also incorrectly attributes many scientific understandings to Europeans. Much of the “scientific revolution” in Europe was driven by information from BIPOC people in other parts of the world. Many things Europeans figured out in that time were already known in other parts of the world.

“Invention of the Printing Press”

This starts off by saying, “It was invented in the early 1400s, although similar inventions had been used earlier in China and Korea.” It then goes on to talk about the German printing press as if this was the first invention of it instead of acknowledging that this wasn’t the first invention of it. Super Eurocentric.

“Portugal Sets Sail”

This claims that this was “the beginning of the Age of Exploration.” Again, this should be called the European Age of Colonization, because it was not “exploration.” This was also not the beginning of world travel, which this (as most others) seems to imply. Europeans were pretty late to the game in world travel.

“Columbus Explores the Americas”

No…no he did not. This is also, ridiculously, the first mention of the Americas in the entire book. Columbus was not trying to explore, that was not his motivation, and he explicitly stated in his own words that he wasn’t exploring. He invaded and colonized. That is not the same thing. This claims that he was “an Italian explorer” but he was not. We don’t know his actual origin, “Italy” as a country didn’t exist at the time, and he was a slaver trader and treasure hunter, not explorer. This misnames his ships instead of admitting we don’t know the actual names of two of them. It claims he was looking for India, but “India” didn’t exist as a country/wasn’t called that in 1492. He was looking for the Indies. This then claims that Columbus called the area “the West Indies,” but he did no such thing because he just thought he was in the Indies. It uses Eurocentric language like “New World.” This really needs to stop. It does say that Columbus and other Europeans that followed killed, beat, and enslaved millions of Indigenous people, but it claims that this is “recent findings.” None of that is “recent findings.” These things were written down by those Europeans themselves 500 years ago! It has always been known. It also says that people are replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day to “honor the Native Americans who were wiped out.” What a crass thing to say. No, that is not the purpose of IPD and we weren’t “wiped out.” This entire section is just the same old mythology that’s been repeated for decades but isn’t based in reality. It then recommends a terrible book at the end in the “Explore More” section. It suggests reading Encounter by Jane Yolen, but this is not a good book and should not be recommended. 

“Cortes and South American Aztecs”

The what?? The “Aztec” were NOT South American. This author has a serious problem with the geography of the Americas. How can anyone take this book seriously if she can’t get basic facts right?? Not only that, the history here isn’t accurate either. It perpetuates the myth that the “Aztec” thought Cortes was a god. Folks, please stop repeating this myth! It has been disproven repeatedly. It also attributes the genocide that occurred to only disease, rather than intentional killing. It was genocide. Call it what it is. It incorrectly uses the term “Mayan” instead of Maya. It says that the “Aztec, Mayan, and Incan culture are the backbone of civilization in Mexico, Central America, and South America.” No, the Mexica (“Aztec”), Maya, and Inca cultures (plural!) were descended from other civilizations before them. Those civilizations before them were the backbone of cultures in those places. It then says “…despite the entire population almost getting wiped out.” Again, crass language, but this isn’t even true. There are millions of Maya people in Mexico and Central America today. The language of the “Aztec” is spoken by 1.5 million people in Mexico. The people were not “almost entirely wiped out” at all! The civilizations ended and dispersed, but the people continued to exist and still do today. This section is horrible.

“The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade”

This claims that the trans-Atlantic slave trade started with Europeans bringing Africans to the Americas, but it did not. It was started by Columbus who brought enslaved Taino from the Caribbean to Europe. This also continues to use Eurocentric language like “New World.”

“The Seven Years War”

This whole thing is Eurocentric and makes no effort to acknowledge that Europeans were fighting over land and “resources” in the Americas that weren’t theirs. It also has a strange part about the “Iroquois tribes” that seems out of place. It’s about their lifeways and that they had “a well developed government” as if that is unusual?? It also says their longhouses were “long, narrow buildings” but they weren’t narrow. That whole part is weird.

“The European Enlightenment”

This states that the “Age of Enlightenment” occurred “when people stopped believing only in religion and superstition and started discovering more about reason and science.” This implies that “people” just means Europeans. This only happened in Europe, not the whole world. Using Eurocentric terms like “Age of Enlightenment” to apply to the whole world is entirely incorrect. And the word “people” does not mean “European” despite it being used that way in so-called “world history” resources all the time. And the whole world did not need to go through an “age of enlightenment” either, like Europe did, because they weren’t living without reason and science all that time. Much of the European Enlightenment was inspired by BIPOC cultures around the world, including Indigenous civilizations in North America. The summary at the end again uses “people” when it should say “European.” It makes it sound like some universal worldwide change in thinking when it wasn’t. Extremely Eurocentric.

“The American Revolution”

Even though the book Major Events in American History acknowledged the Proclamation of 1763 as being a major cause of the revolution, this section in this book does no such thing. This is too important to leave out. One of the major causes of the American Revolution was the fact that the colonists wanted to keep killing Native people and taking their land and the British made a proclamation that said they couldn’t. This book doesn’t even mention it. It also claims that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. It was not.

“Haitian Revolution”

Continues the use of Eurocentric terminology “the New World.” It claims that the Taino and Ciboney were “wiped out,” but they were not. It also attributes this to mostly disease, not genocide. Not only do Taino people still exist (most people in Puerto Rico, for example, have Taino ancestry), but their culture had a massive influence on the Caribbean cultures we see today.

“The Women’s Movement”

This makes no mention of the fact that this movement was quite racist and exclusive to white women. It also doesn’t mention that the 19th amendment only ended up giving white women the right to vote. It claims that it “…gave women the right to vote across the United States,” but BIPOC women were still excluded from voting. In the “history revealed” section at the end it has a short little “…but actually” about how it didn’t apply to Black women, as if that’s a footnote and not a major part of this history. This also is almost entirely about the movement in the United States so why is it in a world history book?

“Gold Rush”

I understand that the California gold rush brought people from other parts of the world to the US, but why is this in a world history book? This is typically not covered in world history. There are many actual world history events that could have gone into this book, but the author focuses almost entirely on European and Euro-American history instead. Surprisingly it uses the term “California genocide” in part of it, which I did not expect. This section did a better job with that issue that the one in the Major Events in American History book, but I still don’t see why it is included in a world history book.

“The Suez Canal and the Scramble for Africa”

Other than a few sections that involve the slave trade, this is the first real mention of Africa in the entire book. It’s as if Africa, the Americas, and Oceana just don’t exist until Europeans start interacting with them (and Oceana isn't even mentioned anywhere in the book at all). It’s also not really about Africa, but what Europeans were doing there.

“The Rise of Communism”

This is a very poor understanding of what communism actually is. It reads as anti-communist propaganda rather than objective history.

“Civil Rights Movement”

This is written as if it is understood this took place in the US without stating that. Since this is a world history book, it should explicitly state that this was in the United States. Instead, it just says “During the civil rights movement, people organized, marched, and fought for Black people to have equal rights.” As if this was something all over the world? Only later does it indicate that this was the United States. In a world history book, these things should not be blanket statements as if they apply to the whole world. At the end of the section, it says that the civil rights movement helped ignite other rights movements and then lists several people groups, but it does not mention Indigenous people. In both US history and world history resources, Native Americans disappear by 1900. In world history materials that mention issues in the US, like this, Indigenous people should be included. We are as much part of modern world history as anyone else. And especially in a topic like this, where Native people worked in solidarity with Black people, and the Red Power movement was a major part of rights movements in this era, there is no reason to leave us out.

“The War on Terror”

This is United Statesian propaganda. It is highly biased.

 

This entire book is just European/Euro-American history with few exceptions. It is certainly not “world history.” The book is extremely Eurocentric and biased in how it is written and how non-European/western cultures and beliefs are written about. It is very US-centric as well. Most world history materials include more of the world and a little less of the US. This book doesn’t even mention Oceana and both the Americas and Africa are never mentioned except in relation to Europeans. I wouldn’t consider the book entirely secular either, especially the first 2 categories of so-called “world history.”

I definitely do not recommend this book.

Wednesday, August 9, 2023

Book Review - Major Events in American History

 

This is a newer book that I am starting to see recommended in various places. It was published in 2021. 

First I’ll address one of my major pet peeves and get that out of the way. “American” does not mean “the United States.” America is two whole continents and people in both continents are “American” for that reason. This should be titled “Major Events in US History” or something to that effect. Stop using “American” to mean solely the United States, folks! I won’t address this again, but it is a problem throughout the entire book.

Table of contents:

Only 9-10 topics are specifically about BIPOC people out of 50 total topics. This is an example of Eurocentrism. In this case, the focus is largely on Euro-American people.

On page 9 there is a collection of images that represent different parts of history. There is one here of Sacagawea and it is a stereotype and not accurate.

"Brief Summary of 400 Years"

The “Early America” summary starts of surprisingly well, acknowledging that Indigenous peoples had civilizations and were thriving. However, it then states, “In the late 1400s, Indigenous people on the East Coast began to trade with the colonists from Europe.” This is incorrect. European colonizers were not on the East Coast in the 1400s. That didn’t happen until the late 1500s and early 1600s. This is an odd statement because US history resources don’t normally get these dates wrong. It is also inaccurate because it states that Native nations simply started to “trade” with colonists. This isn’t what really happened. Was there trade? Sure. But what happened was a European invasion that forced Native nations into making political decisions (including trade) that weren’t necessarily good for their nations. The situation on the East Coast was one of invasion, land theft, forced treaties, and strained trade. The summary then uses the term “European Exploration.” This was not exploration. The colonizers were not explorers. This word needs to stop being used in this context.

The "Colonial America" summary is more Eurocentric. It loosely defines colonialism, but not entirely accurately. It then states that “Europeans struggled to survive in this new land, but they sometimes received help from the Indigenous people who lived there.” The “Indians helped Europeans” trope needs to end. While some nations did take diplomatic and political actions that included assisting Europeans in these ways, we need to call it what it is – diplomacy, not “help.” It also claims that the transportation of kidnapped Africans to North America “began a long history of slavery in America.” This was not the beginning of slavery in the Americas nor in the United States. Kidnapped Indigenous people were the first to be enslaved here (and the trans-Atlantic slave trade began with Columbus bringing Taino to Europe).

Indigenous people disappear from this summary by the 1700s. Unfortunately typical.

In my review, I will leave out sections that do not apply to this review, so I will not be mentioning all 50 events discussed in the book. 

“Early America” – only 2 of the 4 sections in this part are about Indigenous peoples independent of Europeans. A section about this time period really should be entirely about Indigenous peoples independent of Europeans. 

"Founding of the City of Cahokia"

It states that Cahokia was once the largest city in North America. This is incorrect. North of Mexico, yes, but not in all of North America. For some reason people tend to forget that Mexico and “central America” are part of North America. Some of the largest cities in the world in this time were in Mesoamerica, which is in North America. They were larger cities than Cahokia. Not that Cahokia doesn’t deserve recognition and respect, it absolutely does, but statements about it need to be true and this one is not. The population estimate of Cahokia is low. It then acknowledges that it was the largest city north of Mexico, but this contradicts the previous false statement that was made. While it does correct that false statement, this shows lack of knowledge and consistency on the part of the writer. It also says it “might” have been larger than London, but it actually was larger, not “might” have been. The rest of this section on Cahokia isn’t bad. It has some good information, but it is written from a Euro-American perspective.

"Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace"

This uses the word “tribes” rather than nations. It says they “spoke the Iroquois language.” No, all 5 original nations of the confederacy have their own language. These languages are within the Iroquoian language family (among many others). But they did not speak “the Iroquois language” because that doesn’t exist. The word “spoke” is also past tense when it should not be. These nations still exist and many of the people still speak their languages. The date for the formation of the confederacy might be incorrect. It is not completely certain when it happened, but it was either in the 1100s or 1400s. This just states an exact date instead of indicating that it is not 100% known when it started. It then says, “the leaders of the five tribes decided to unify into one league, or nation.” No, they were 5 nations already that unified into a league or confederacy, not “one nation.” It says that they pass down information orally, which is true, but it does not mention wampum at all when it absolutely should. Wampum is used to record information. It may not be "writing", but these ideas were not simply oral either. They were recorded in wampum belts. It calls Haudenosaunee towns “villages.” The term “villages” is used to refer to Indigenous communities as an intentional way to primitivize us instead of acknowledging that we had towns and cities. This is another example of Eurocentric language. We have “villages” while they have “towns.” This also makes no mention of the influence of the Great Law of Peace on the founding of the United States, which is too significant to leave out. Again, some of the information here is correct, but it is written in a Eurocentric manner.

"De Soto Invades Florida"

Kudos for using the term “invade” here. The colonization of the Americas needs to be acknowledged and taught as an invasion rather than the typical “exploration.” However, the first sentence of this then uses the term “explorers from Europe.” So, they’ll use “invade” in the title, but then call them “explorers” when writing about the event? De Soto was not an “explorer”, and neither were the rest of the European invaders. It then calls the cities of the southeast “villages.” It does properly acknowledge that enslavement of Indigenous people had been happening for decades from the Spanish and that De Soto was one of the enslavers. It claims that dogs, among other animals, were unfamiliar to the Timucuan people, but dogs were a domesticated animal around the Americas, including in this region. The Timucuan people were certainly familiar with dogs even if they weren’t familiar with the pigs and other animals. This refers to Native nations as “tribes” instead of nations. They keep doing this so I am sure it will happen anywhere Native people are mentioned. Again, it incorrectly refers to the cities of the southeast as “villages.” It says that De Soto “killed anyone who tried to stop them” but he killed anyone regardless. He went through the region killing and enslaving anyone he possibly could, even if they tried to approach him diplomatically. It states that “Though Indigenous people were often willing to trade with Europeans for metal goods…” This implies that metal was new to them. It was not. Natives throughout the Americas, even in North America, had been working with metals for thousands of years. There is no mention of metalworks in the section about Cahokia. This should not have been left out. We were not just living in the “stone age” when Europeans arrived and this needs to be taught. Copper works were very common in the southwest and Mississippian valley. The “Explore More” box at the end states that the Florida Museum of Natural History has information about the “Indigenous tribes who lived by the Atlantic Ocean many centuries ago.” This should not be past tense. While some nations from the area are extinct because of De Soto and others like him, there are still many nations from the area that do exist today. We are also not “natural history” and I can’t stand it when we’re lumped in with natural history in museums.

"The Mysterious Roanoke Colony"

The myth that this is a mystery needs to end already. There was never a mystery here. Native people, Europeans of the time, and historians have known for a long time what actually happened to the people of Roanoke colony. This could just be called “Roanoke Colony” and tell the truth about it, but instead they choose to perpetuate a myth. It starts off talking about two Indigenous men who went to England and learned English as well as teaching their “tutor” some words in their language. But it says, “in their Algonquian language.” This makes it seem like Algonquian is a language, not a language family. It should name the actual language instead of implying that the language family is simply a language. It continues to use “tribe” instead of nation even though the first sentence of this section says “nations” like it should. It again uses the word “help” when referring to Indigenous diplomacy with the English. At the end it at least doesn’t say that they might have been attacked and killed by “Indians,” like most stories/myths about this event. It does, however, indicate that it is still a “mystery” what happened when it isn’t. It says “Historians have a few theories about what happened to the Roanoke colonists. But many think that they assimilated into, or took on the customs, of the Algonquian nations. This is still a missing persons case that historians are still trying to solve.” Credit for citing the actual thing that happened – that the colonists assimilated into the nations nearby, but no, they are not still trying to figure this out. It is known. It is well recorded fact in oral histories of nations there, in writings of English people involved, in English writings from the 1600s and 1700s, and in archaeological records. There is NO MYSTERY and never has been.

"Jamestown"

It says Jamestown was in the territory of “the Powhatan tribe.” While the Powhatan was a nation in the area, this should say “Powhatan Confederacy” or “Powhatan Chiefdom” because this was a political alliance of more than 25 nations in the area rather than “a tribe.” It does not acknowledge that this was an invasion and that they had no right to claim the land or build a colony. It claims that the Jamestown colony ran out of food because they brought goldsmiths and jewelers instead of farmers, but it doesn’t mention how lazy the colonists were and how unwilling to work they were. That as a major factor. You don’t have to be a farmer to learn how to survive. It mentions that John Smith wrote about how the Powhatans tried to kill him and how the “chiefs” daughter “Pocahontas” stepped in to save him, but it doesn’t mention that this story of Smith’s is untrue. It just says he wrote about it and leaves it unchallenged. This story is a myth that Smith made up. It never happened. So why not address that? It then goes on to claim that “Pocahontas” was one of Smith’s “old friends.” No, she was not. She was a young child and culturally among the Mattaponi people it would have been inappropriate for her to befriend older European men. It mentions that John Rolfe was her “husband” but doesn’t go into the whole kidnapped and forcibly assimilated, forced to marry, etc. parts of her true story. This should not be left out. This section about Jamestown is very Eurocentric and leaves out way too many important details.

"Slavery Introduced in the Colonies"

This claims that the start of slavery in the colonies was when kidnapped African people were brought to the colonies in 1619. While this is generally considered the start of African enslavement in what is now the United States, this was not the introduction of slavery in the colonies overall. Indigenous people had been kidnapped and enslaved since the start of European invasion in the 14 and 1500s, including in what is now the United States. This aspect of slavery in the US should not be ignored and left out. It then says that the colonists “forced Indigenous people and the kidnapped Africans to work for them and grow the tobacco.” So it includes Indigenous enslavement, but it doesn’t call it that and it still claims that African slavery was the start of slavery in the US. It then moves on to explain chattel slavery but indicates this only happened to Black people. White it happened to the Black majority of the enslaved population, Indigenous people were included in chattel slavery as well. It is 100% okay to focus on the enslavement of Black people in a section like this. I have no qualms with that. They just need to be honest about the start of slavery in the US and not claim that 1619 was the start of it.

"Mayflower"

It starts by saying we now call them “Pilgrims”, but this term has always been a misnomer and we shouldn’t now call them “Pilgrims.” Because they weren’t. It also claims that they were simply a religious group that wanted to “start a new life for themselves.” But this is also untrue. It says that they simply “wanted to make a new home,” but the reality is that they already had a “new home” in Holland where they lived freely before coming here and that their real goal here was to knowingly steal Indigenous land and start their “holy kingdom” that only had room for their own religion. It says they “explored” the area, when in reality they were trespassing and following manmade trails. It states they “found corn, dried fish, and berries all stored underground.” It doesn’t say they stole it, which they did. It wasn't just free food they stumbled upon, it was stored intentionally underground by the people who it belonged to. It says they found “empty houses” and “plenty of tools for fishing and hunting” but again, makes no mention of them stealing these things. It then introduces Samoset and Tisquantum, surprisingly by the correct names (not “Squanto”), but then it completely glosses over the entire story of what actually happened and simply says “He helped arrange a peace treaty.” No other details. There are way too many details that need to be included here that are completely left out. It says “Tisquantum showed the Pilgrims how to survive on the rocky Wampanoag land.” No mention of the fact that this land was invaded/stolen by the Separatists. This whole section is extremely Eurocentric.

"Great Awakening"

It says that “By 1682, about 90% of the Indigenous population had been killed.” This is true in the East Coast, Southeast, and Caribbean, but not true in pretty much anywhere else in what is now the US. It is important to not lump all Indigenous people together into statements like this. These types of statistics are not universally true across the entire continent at the same time. While the book is apparently trying to not make us into a monolith in other sections, monolithic statements like this keep popping up. It incorrectly states that most of the people in the New England colonies were Separatists (“Pilgrims”) but by 1732, which is when this statement is talking about, much of the area was colonized by Puritans, not Separatists.

"French and Indian War"

The initial summary about relationships between Europeans and Indigenous people is simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. It is also Eurocentric. There are more monolithic statements about Indigenous nations as if the entire continent was the same and having the same interactions. This type of monolithic language ignores the fact that some nations didn’t have contact with Europeans for another 100 years (from the mid 1700s). It calls the Iroquois a “tribe” (as previously discussed, the Haudenosaunee are not a nation, but a confederacy of nations). It also incorrectly separates the Seneca from the “Iroquois.” It says “the Iroquois and Seneca were among several tribes…” The Seneca are one of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) nations. This is just incredibly poor writing and research. The entire section talks about Europeans fighting over Indigenous lands as if they had the right to do so.

"Proclamation of 1763"

Amazingly this indicates that the Proclamation of 1763 was a major factor in sparking the “American Revolution.” Most materials completely ignore this major factor. It does contain Eurocentric language throughout, though. In the part about Pontiac leading “attacks” (self-defense) on forts and white settlements, it then says that the “colonists fought back…” They’re not “fighting back,” this isn’t self-defense for the colonizers. They’re the offense. They’re the reason for all of it in the first place. At the end of this section the “Explore More” box says “Just like the Ohio River Valley, all the land in the United States originally belonged to Indigenous people. Check out native-land.ca to find out the name of the tribe who originally lived where you live now.” While this is good and useful website, the language here should not be past tense. We still live here! We are still in all of these places. It should say something to the effect of “…to find out the name of the nation whose land you live on” or "...to find out what nations are from the area you live," but it certainly should not say "who lived where you live now." 

"Declaration of Independence"

There is no mention of the racial slur in the Declaration of Independence (“merciless Indian s*v*g*s”). In the other sections they try to use more accurate language and say “enslaved people” instead of “slaves” but in this section they refer to the enslavers as “owners” and say that they wouldn’t free the “people they owned.” This wording is outdated and incorrect.

"The Revolutionary War"

There is some glorification of George Washington with no mention of the name the Haudenosaunee gave him, which is “town destroyer” and the term the use for all presidents since then. There is an attempt at addressing different ways Indigenous people were involved in the war, but it isn’t entirely accurate.

"Constitutional Convention"

There is no mention of the founders being inspired by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in both the structure of the government or the writing of the constitution. There is no mention of Haudenosaunee people being involved in the Continental Congress. These are major factors that should not be ignored but are almost never taught at all. It quotes Ruthe Bader Ginsburg at the end. The quote itself is not entirely true and RBG was anti-Indigenous and helped make rulings and write majority opinions that were harmful to Indigenous people.

"Louisiana Purchase"

It starts out by identifying “Louisiana Territory” as belonging to France. There is no mention of the fact that this is Indigenous land that the French had no right to in the first place. Impressively it acknowledges that this land was sold out from under Native nations without their consent, however it uses the incorrect term “Sioux” instead of Lakota/Dakota.

"Lewis and Clark Expedition"

The image included is a stereotype and inaccurate. It says that Jefferson hired Lewis and Clark to “explore” the territory. This is not why they were hired. The Corps of Discovery expedition was a military reconnaissance mission from the get go. The military history of this event is usually not mentioned. The people that went with them were all military and the purpose was to essentially spy on the Indigenous people for the purpose of invasion and colonization as well as gather intelligence about the land itself for the same purpose. This was not a mission of “exploration.” It claims that Charbonneau had “two Indigenous wives.” He did not. He had two Indigenous sex slaves. He purchased them. They did not marry him, he purchased them and called them his “wives.” It claims that Sacagawea “agreed” to go with the expedition. She did no such thing. They hired Charbonneau and he dragged her along because she knew multiple Indigenous languages. She never agreed to anything because Charbonneau made all of the decisions for her. She had no freedom to make such choices. She was also dragged along shortly after giving birth, which is horrible for her health. And she was forced to help initiate the invasion and genocide of her own people. This is such a horrific story and this section does not do it justice at all. It’s incredibly Eurocentric and ignores many major details. It says that they brought “gifts” for the “tribal leaders” to tell them that Jefferson was now in charge of their land. This makes no attempt at explaining how wrong this was. It mentions Sacagawea’s reunion with her brother, but just says that she hadn’t seen him for many years. It makes no mention of the fact that she had been kidnapped from her nation as a child. It claims that Lewis and Clark brought back “details about the dozens of tribes they met on their expedition.” They did not. They thought they did, but pretty much everything they wrote about the nations (other than their locations) was incorrect. They misinterpreted things they were observing through biased and racist lenses. Most of what they wrote about the Native nations was junk. This section is entirely Eurocentric and makes it sound like this event was positive.

"Trail of Tears"

This incorrectly starts out by referring to the Cherokee nation as “the Cherokee Indian tribe.” There is absolutely no need to follow the name of a Native nation with “Indian.” Please do not do this. It also states they “worked as farmers” as if farming and agriculture had not always been part of their lives. Southeastern nations like the Cherokee have been farming for thousands of years. This entire section is Eurocentric and contains many inaccuracies. It also glosses over significant details or leaves them out completely. It’s also somewhat in the passive voice instead of placing blame where it belongs, like it says people “died along the way” instead of saying they were killed. It also falsely claims that they “lost the land of their ancestors forever.” Again, this is passive voice – they did not “lose” it, it was stolen from them. But this isn’t entirely true either way, as the remnants of Cherokee that were not removed are still there and there is a reservation in North Carolina to this day. This does not do the Trail of Tears justice at all.

"Mexican American War"

The image used is the painting “American Progress” with absolutely no explanation of the racism of this painting. But I seriously want to know how the author of this has absolutely no geographical knowledge?? It literally says “Mexico was a large country. It extended from the land near the Rio Grande all the way down to the equator.” What?? First of all, before the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico’s norther border was the entire southwest up to Oregon. But Mexico has NEVER stretched all the way to the equator. The equator passes through SOUTH AMERICA. How in the world did someone actually write this and think it was true? Did no one bother to fact check anything?? It states that Comanche and Apache in the north made it “nearly impossible” for Mexico to “establish cities and trade routes” with no mention of the fact that this was all self-defense in the face of hostile invasion and colonization. It is also completely inaccurate about the results of the war. It claims the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is what annexed Texas into the United States. This is false. Texas became part of the US in 1845, a whole year before the Mexican-American War started. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo annexed the rest of the southwest into the US, not Texas. This whole section is just strange because of how ridiculously wrong most of it is.

"Gold Rush"

It does accurately state that they killed thousands of Indigenous people because of the gold rush, but it stops short of calling it what it was, which was genocide. It simply states that Indigenous people “lived there” instead of saying that it was their land. It also incorrectly states that 120,000 Indigenous people “died” (passive voice, they were killed) during the gold rush. The reality is more like 150-300,000. This also makes no mention of the enslavement of Indigenous people that made the entire California gold rush possible despite California being entered into the US as a “free state.” This section is Eurocentric, just like the rest of them.

"Election of 1860"

This ignores Lincoln’s actual racism and simply claims he was against slavery. There is no mention of his anti-Indigenous racism and actions.

"Civil War"

There is not much for me to comment on here, but it frustratingly states that the south “believed they were fighting a war for their own freedom” rather than correctly identifying the cause of the war which was their desire to preserve slavery.

"The Transcontinental Railroad"

This is entirely Eurocentric. The explanation of the Transcontinental Railroad ignores the invasion of sovereign Indigenous land. It claims that Indigenous people “sometimes tried to attack the railroad workers” and that there was simply a lot of “conflict” between Native nations and US soldiers. This was all rightful self-defense on the part of Native nations. It also claims the government sent people to kill buffalo simply so they wouldn’t “get in the way” of building the railroad. It states that Native nations relied on the buffalo, but it makes no mention that the government sent people to kill buffalo for the explicit purpose of starving and killing Native people and forcing the nations into submission. Again, major details are completely glossed over or ignored in the name of a Eurocentric narrative. This section is a horrible joke of so called “history.”

"15th Amendment"

This starts off by saying that the 14th amendment made “every person born or naturalized in the United States a citizen” but it did not apply to Indigenous people/nations. There is no mention of this. The rest is outside the scope of this review.

"Opening of Ellis Island"

Ignoring most of it because it is outside the scope of this review, the end of this section says “The United States had always been a very diverse country, with Indigenous people, Black Americans, people from the Caribbean, European settlers, and Mexican, South American, and Chinese people a living there by this point.” WOW, no. This is just a complete erasure of actual history. No….the United States had not “always been a very diverse country” especially since most of the BIPOC people mentioned here were not even citizens for most of its history to this point. Indigenous people were not even citizens until 1924. The United States had always been a very white male country. This whole statement is just wrong.

Indigenous people largely disappear from the book by this point

"World War 1"

No mention of the invention of Code Talkers in WWI starting with the Choctaw.

"19th Amendment"

 “For almost 150 years, women did not have the right to vote in the United States. But for nearly as long, American women fought to gain that right.” This should say “Euro-American women” because those are the only women that this applied to. The women’s suffrage movement was largely racist and never included BIPOC women. This section glosses over that by claiming that the women’s suffrage movement was multi-cultural and about fighting for rights of all women. But it was not. That’s not to say that the BIPOC women involved weren’t fighting for their own rights as well, but the entire movement was focused on white women and many white women wanted to (and did) exclude BIPOC women. It makes no mention of the fact that the 19th amendment only applied to white women at the time. It simply says that “over eight million women voted for the first time.”

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

This briefly mentions the Navajo Code Talkers (it says they communicated “in their Indigenous language,” when they could have just said “in the Navajo language”). However, it makes no mention of the 30 other Indigenous languages and nations used as code talkers during WWII. It wasn’t just Navajo that was used as code and this needs to be taught. Otherwise, there’s nothing of note for this review.

"Cold War"

This section is largely propaganda. It is very “pro-American” and anti-communist in how it is written. It completely ignores many facts of this history. Not Indigenous people mentioned, however, so that’s all I’ll say about it.

"The Vietnam War"

This is not honest about how the war started or why the US was involved. Otherwise, nothing of note for this review.

"Passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act"

As a disabled person, I am pleased to see this included when it is not often included in such books. Otherwise, there is nothing of note for this review.

"Invention of Facebook"

I understand the significance of social media, but does this really need to be in a book about major events in US history?? Especially where Indigenous people have completely disappeared from the book at this point??

"Black Lives Matter Movement"

I am happy to see this included as a major event in US history.

Like almost every US history resource, Indigenous people completely disappear from the narrative by the late 1800s, with occasional mention during WWII regarding only the Navajo Code Talkers. And that’s it. We only exist at random, disconnected points in the past and then just disappear from the narrative as if we don’t exist anymore. This book does the same. Not only is the book Eurocentric overall, Indigenous people are not covered well. There are places where it seems like the author is trying to be honest about Indigenous histories, but then completely misses the mark. 

I do not recommend this book.

Curriculum Review: A History of Us - The New Nation 1789-1850 by Joy Hakim

This whole series is a trainwreck. They’re so horrible, but you can’t stop reading in disgusted awe of how horrifying this woman’s writing c...