Book Review - The Usborne Encyclopedia of World History

 

This is an immensely popular book that is used by homeschoolers and teachers. It is also used by many curriculum companies as a companion book to go with their books and materials. I have heard of it over the years, but never looked at it. I have heard from some that it is wonderful and from others that it is Eurocentric and racist. I finally picked up a copy and read it for myself.

There are multiple versions of this book. There are non-secular versions used by some Christian curriculum companies and in certain circles. There are versions that are outdated floating around, although no longer printed because it has been updated. The version that I read and reviewed is the most recently updated secular Usborne Encyclopedia of World History. It has a knight on the front with flames in the background.

Overall, I am almost shocked at how many people rave about how great this book is. I have seen plenty of people claim that it is not Eurocentric or that it is accurate and inclusive. It most certainly is not accurate or inclusive. It is extremely Eurocentric. It is quite racist in many parts. It felt like reading a world history book from the 1980s or before. It felt like the education I got growing up. I am not shocked, however, at how popular it is or how horrible it is. It is very heavy on Eurasian content, largely focused on Europe and the Middle East. While it does include other parts of the world, that content is quite minimal compared to the Eurasian content. The way non-European/Euro-American cultures are written about is also Eurocentric. I feel like this aspect of Eurocentrism is often overlooked. As long as it contains other parts of the world, it’s fine, right? Not quite. The way in which those peoples and cultures are written about matters as well. The way non-European cultures in this book are written about is atrocious. The way European and Western civilizations are written about is heavily skewed in favor of European/Western cultures. It is biased in a positive way toward them. 

The book is heavily biased overall. It is racist at times. It also contains many inaccuracies and things that have been historically disproven. This book paints an extremely biased and inaccurate picture of the world. Any company that cares about an accurate and non-biased portrayal of the world should not use or promote this book. If you are a teacher or homeschool parent, please consider avoiding it or using it as an example of bias.

My review is focused on how it addresses Native Americans and the Americas overall. I do mention a few other issues regarding other parts of the world.

I’ll start with numbers. It is divided into 4 sections by time period. Each section is broken up into individual topics. The sections are as follows:

Prehistoric World – 46 topics, 5 about modern humans, 1 that briefly mentions the Americas

Ancient World – 52 topics, 17 are Europe, only 10 are outside of Eurasia, 5 of those are Egypt, 1 is “Ancient Africa,” and 4 are the Americas. None are Australia/Oceana.

Medieval World – 54 topics, 34 are Europe, only 8 are outside of Eurasia, 3 are Africa, 1 Pacific Islands, 4 are the Americas.

The Last 500 Years – 52 topics, almost all of them are focused on Western nations (Europe/Eurasia, United States) or interactions with Western nations. While global interaction is vital in the past few hundred years, there is a Western bias to how it is addressed in this book. No modern mention of Native Americans past 1890.

Prehistoric World

 “New Worlds” – This topic uses the term “the first Americans” which is problematic. We predate “America.” The term “the first Americans” is not well liked among many Native peoples. We are not the “first Americans.” It teaches the land bridge theory exclusively. It states this was 30,000-13,000 years ago. These dates are off based on current science. It also indicates this is the origin of all Indigenous peoples in the Americas. There is no mention of other theories, new scientific findings, or multiple origins (not one migration/one ancestral population). There is no mention of the “Ice Free Corridor” – the fact that the land route into the Americas was blocked by ice until 10,000 to 13,000 years ago so that humans could not pass. We have sites in the Americas that greatly pre-date this time period, which means humans were here long before that corridor opened up to human migration. There is a statement that people may have “followed the coast,” but it is not clear if that means by land or water. It is still only teaching one origin of all people in the Americas. We need to change how this is taught. Teachers, homeschoolers, curriculum, textbooks – all need to update what is taught about this and how. Traditional Indigenous stories and understandings also need to be acknowledged and incorporated. No one actually knows when or how the Americas were populated. Scientific findings and conclusions are constantly being updated. It is irresponsible to teach this one theory as a known fact. Continuing this myth is harmful.

Ancient World

“The First Farmers” – This is about the Fertile Crescent/Mesopotamia. It claims it is the first farming in the world. To be fair, new information has been found about this topic since this book was last updated, however it was known then that agriculture independently started in multiple places around the world at about the same time, including in South America and Southwest Asia. There is no one origin of agriculture. This could have focused on multiple locations outside of, and including, Mesopotamia.

“The First Towns” – If agriculture independently started in different parts of the world around the same time, it would stand to reason that the first towns, or early urban development, also happened independently around the world around the same time. This topic is focused on Mesopotamia, but no one can really agree on the “oldest town” in the world. There are urban centers that developed around the world at similar times. This could have focused on multiple locations outside of, and including, Mesopotamia.

“The First Cities” – Same issues as above. This could have focused on multiple locations outside of, and including, Mesopotamia. “The invention of writing” – could have focused on multiple locations, as writing developed independently in different parts of the world at different times, but not directly related to one single oldest form. This indirectly implies it is the origin of all writing.

“Crafts and Trade” – This is focused on Sumerians, but all of these things – pottery, stone carving, metalwork, etc. - developed in many parts of the world. Native Americans in the Great Lakes are among the world’s earliest creators of metal tools. This could have focused on many places alongside Sumer.

“Cities of the Indus Valley” – This claims that farmers in the Indus Valley were the first people to grow cotton and weave it into cloth. The oldest cotton cloth in the world found so far is from Peru. The cultivation of cotton occurred independently in the Americas and the Indus Valley around the same time, possibly in the Americas first.

“The Hebrew Kingdoms” – This topic is not secular. It states “you can read about the Hebrews in the Old Testament of the Bible” as a historic resource and goes on to describe several stories from the Bible. It does not indicate that these are beliefs or religious stories, they’re just told as history (and I am not talking about things that are historically known that are also written in the Bible).  

“The Frist North Americans” – There are only two pages for hundreds of cultures and civilizations here, compared to page after page after page about European cultures, Middle Eastern cultures, etc. There are whole topics about daily life, wars, kings, amazing buildings in Eurasia….and two pages for all of North America. For example – there are multi-page topics that cover “The Greeks a War,” “Life in Ancient Greece,” “The City of Athens,” and “Alexander the Great,” or “The Rise of Rome,” “The Roman Army,” “Life in a Roman Town,” “Fun and Games,” “The Spread of Christianity,” and “The Fall of Rome.” And then two pages to cover all of North America over thousands of years. This is an example of hidden Eurocentrism. The same time and effort is not given to non-Western cultures. Again, it claims the Bering Strait theory and presents no other theories. It claims dates that are way too recent as the origins of all people in the Americas. It uses words like “roamed around” to describe ancient Natives, but does not use this to describe early cultures in Europe. This descriptor makes it sound random and less developed than other parts of the world. This is Eurocentric language used to make other cultures/civilizations look less advanced. All of the descriptions are extremely simplistic, again to make these cultures look more primitive than European cultures in the same time period. The drawings also do this. They are stereotypes and drawn to look less advanced than Eurasian cultures. They say a “shelter” made of ice blocks in the artic is called an “igloo.” This is incorrect. Iglu means house…any kind of house. An ice house is an igluvijaq. This calls Native homes “tents” and “shelters,” and European homes “houses” and “homes.” It states that “some tribes learned to grow corn, beans, and squashes” – in Europe and Asia the development of farming is described in great detail and states they “started farming.” The word “farming” is not used on these two pages nor are there any descriptions of early development of advanced farming and irrigation techniques, or the cultivation of edible food forests. It makes farming and food science sound like an afterthought. Around 2/3rds of the world’s produce was originally cultivated in the Americas.

“The People of Ancient Peru” – This is only one page. It opens with “By 2000 BC, the people of ancient Peru had settled down to farm, and were growing corn, tomatoes, peppers, chili peppers, squashes and potatoes.” – Potatoes were being cultivated as early as 8 - 10,000 years ago. Corn was being cultivated about 10,000 years ago. Other crops were being cultivated much earlier than 2000 BC. “Around 1200 BC the Chavin people created the first civilization in South America.” Again, this is false. The Norte Chico civilization predates the Chavin by hundreds of years and is considered a contemporary with urbanism in Mesopotamia. It is one of the early independent developments of civilization of the world. This is where the book first mentions human sacrifice in the Americas, regarding the Moche people. Of 11 mentions of human sacrifice in the entire book, 7 of them are about people in the Americas despite the fact that human sacrifice (sometimes called other things) occurred around the world. This is the beginning of an odd and Eurocentric focus on Natives and human sacrifice in each subsequent section about Natives. This is not focused on in any of the other cultures in the book or even mentioned for most. This is harmful.

“The Olmecs” -  This is only one page. It starts by claiming they had “no farm animals” despite the fact that the Olmec did in fact domesticate several animals, like dogs and turkeys. Like the previous sections, the lists of foods cultivated in the Americas are kept short even though the majority of the world’s food today was originally cultivated by farmers and scientists in the Americas. A sidebar with a list of foods from the Americas would be nice, just to show the massive amount. Again, the book mentions human sacrifice, but makes no mention of the fact that the ball game played with rubber balls was the first use of rubber in the world. This idea of “firsts” is very common with Eurasian civilizations, but not ever used for civilizations in the Americas. It claims the Olmecs “died out” rather than stating their civilization declined. The people remained, they didn’t just “die out” and disappear. Other world civilizations are described as having been invaded, splitting up, declining, collapsing, but not “dying out.” This is reserved for the Americas, which is a problem because it leads to false ideas and myths that these civilizations just “disappeared” and it’s a “mystery” what happened to them. This is a common myth that textbooks, history museums, websites, TV shows, and other media perpetuate.

“Ancient Cities of the Americas” – This is only two pages. It states that Teotihuacan was the largest ancient city in the Americas. It depends on what they mean by “ancient.” Tenochtitlan was the largest pre-European Contact city in the Americas, larger than Teotihuacan. It does correctly indicate that Teotihuacan was the sixth largest city in the world during its time. It calls their art “crafts.” While “crafts” is used early on to describe arts in ancient Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, it switches to “art” right after that. The book continues to call arts in the Americas “crafts” throughout. European art is not called “crafts.” This is Eurocentrism. It mentions stone, clay, and obsidian tools, but not metal use. Metal use was extensive in some parts of the Americas, as well as some of the oldest in the world. It moves on to the Maya, but uses “Mayan” incorrectly. Mayan should be used to describe the language only, whereas Maya should be used for everything else. It should say “Maya cities” and “Maya gods and kings” rather than “Mayan.” It then immediately leaps to human sacrifice. They do at least credit the Maya with the invention of zero (New evidence suggests the Olmec may have invented zero first). It mentions that “experts” are just now learning what their writing means, but makes no mention of the Spanish destruction of their written records. This is a key reason why not much of it is understood.

This is all that is mentioned of the Americas for the “Ancient World.” Other than Egypt, Africa only gets two pages. The few descriptions of the ancient Americas are very simplistic and Eurocentric. The cultures and civilizations are described from a Western worldview/perspective. They are written in a way that implies inferiority to European civilizations. The drawings of people are mostly stereotypes with not a lot of attention to accuracy or diversity. This is basically how it feels to read this part of the book: https://indigenoushistory.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/what-if-people-told-european-history-like-they-told-native-american-history/

Medieval World

The terms “Medieval” or “Middle Ages” are Eurocentric terms based on European metrics of development over time. They do not appropriately apply to the whole world during the same time period. Post-antiquity Era, Pre-modern Era, and Post-ancient Era are all terms that encompass the whole world rather than just the Western world.

“Looking at the Medieval World” – The summaries on these two pages are highly Eurocentric. They are entirely framed around Europe and their contact (or lack thereof) with the rest of the world and their major events.

“Vikings Abroad” – While this calls them “ferocious warriors” on one page, the next calls them “daring adventurers and traders.” It states “Others went to live in Vinland (America), but Native Americans attacked their homes…” instead of saying they invaded and attacked Native homes, so Natives defended themselves. This type of wording and phrasing is difficult to notice when read from a Western perspective. It is the way things have always been taught in the US. But when reading with a non-Western lens, these phrases jump out as being biased and skewed.  The “Vikings” (an occupation, not a people group) did not simply go and settle empty lands. They invaded. Natives did not simply attack them. They defended themselves against an invasion.

“Mongol Invaders” – Though I am not an expert on Asian histories and cultures, this section sticks out to me as biased and Eurocentric. It uses expressions like “cruel and bloodthirsty,” “invaded” and “killing thousands of people” to describe the Mongols, but not European people groups and nations. While these may or may not be true about the Mongols, they can easily be used to describe what Europeans were doing to each other and around the world. The book uses terms like “gained control,” “great sailors and warriors,” “settled,” “conquered,” “winning land,” and “skilled soldiers” for Europeans and makes no mention of how many people they killed. Europeans are never called “cruel and bloodthirsty.”

There is a focus on “becoming Christian,” Christian kingdoms,” and church history over other religions.

“Explorers and Sailors” – This lesson is highly Eurocentric. It opens with “Travel in the Middle Ages was very difficult and dangerous, but a few brave explorers set out on amazing journeys.” Difficult and dangerous for who? The lesson only focuses on Eurasian travel and one African traveler. There is no mention of Indigenous “great explorers” in the Americas or travel between Pacific Islands and the Americas. There is no mention of the possibility of intercontinental travel that included the Americas. Then it states, “Although traders had reached Africa, India, and China, these countries were almost completely unexplored.” Okay, wow. “Traders” should say Europeans, but again this is a Eurocentric focus. Why the focus on European “traders” here? Why not talk about intercontinental travel from multiple perspectives? This also calls Africa a country. Let that sink in. It lists Africa, a continent, and then says "these countries..." And then saying that Africa, India, and China were “almost completely unexplored” is absurd. Millions of people lived in those places and I guarantee they thoroughly explored them.

“The People of the Pacific” – Aside from the Eurocentric descriptions here, this claims the Sweet Potato comes from the Pacific Islands. This is a crop from the Americas that they got from contact with the Americas before European contact.

“Native North Americans” – This is two pages for the entirety of Natives north of Mexico. Lessons about Europe get page after page after page. They don’t attempt to sum up a thousand years (“middle ages”) of European history in two pages, yet they do this to North America. Again, with the “igloos” thing. Iglu means house. It is not specific to an ice house. The descriptions are again simplistic and from a Western slant/bias. They’re so overly simplistic they’re wrong. Their description of “Mississippi towns” is horribly false. These were cities, not “towns.” They were larger than most European cities at the time. The mounds were not just in the “center” of the “towns” and they were not just used to bury “chiefs” as the book claims. The drawings are largely stereotypes. It uses European terms like “priests” instead of “religious leaders” or cultural terminology. “Chief” is also a European term (and I don’t mean English. it is in the English language, but there are better English terms for Native leaders in various nations as well as cultural terms). When describing the development of Europe, they move from the term “tribes” to “kingdoms,” “nations,” and “city-states.” When describing Native nations, they only use “tribes.” When describing the development of Europe, they move from the term “villiages” to “towns” and “cities.” When describing Native nations, they use only “villages” (with the exception of Mississippian and Pueblo “towns” that should be called cities). “Villages built like this were called pueblos, and the people who lived in them became known as the Pueblos.” No. The SPANISH later called these towns and cities, “pueblos.” The SPANISH called the people “the Pueblos.” And “were,” past tense? These Pueblos still exist. The people who live there have their own names for themselves in their own languages. There’s an entire lesson on European art during this time period, but here they have a tiny section (one sentence) in which they call Pueblo art, “crafts.” These descriptions annoy me a great deal.

“The Aztec Empire” – Two pages. “The Aztecs were a wandering, warlike people…” The word “warlike” is used to describe the Assyrians, “tribes of warriors from Asia” that eventually created Eastern European kingdoms, the Maori of New Zealand, and now the Aztec, but never Western Europeans…. who were certainly “warlike.” And nomadic peoples did not “wander,” they traveled intentionally. The “Aztec” were a triple alliance of three city-states made up of the Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, as well as others. It claims they, “Aztec” people, settled at Lake Texcoco and then built up an empire around their city of Tenochtitlan. This really isn’t how it happened. It states they built temples, but not pyramids. The images show pyramids, but there is no mention of this. The oldest and largest pyramids in the world are in the Americas. It makes no mention that Tenochtitlan was one of the largest and most advanced cities in the world. The rest of the pages focus mostly on human sacrifice. There is little focus on their technologies, arts, or sciences, and no focus on their culture, daily lives, or anything else like what is found in the sections about Europe. The Spanish exaggeration of human sacrifice combined with cultural misunderstandings led to this hyper focus on human sacrifice in Central America. The numbers were greatly inflated to make the Spanish look justified in their “conquest.” Many Europeans were cruel, bloodthirsty, warlike people. Aside from a very real history of human sacrifice in Europe, they killed millions of people in invasions, conquests, and massacres. Why is there not a hyper focus on this? A lot of that was done in the name of religion/their god. And let’s not forget “burn the witch” in the name of their god. If the Aztec believed in capturing people instead of killing them in battle and then killing them later, how is that much different than the Roman prisoners turned gladiators being forced to kill each other? Ritualistic human sacrifice has been practiced all over the world, including in Europe. The hyper focus on human sacrifice in the Americas while not mentioning it in regard to anywhere else in the world is Eurocentrism. There is so much more you can teach about the Aztec – exceptionally clean cities, paved roads, aqueducts, math, science, astronomy, government, economy, architecture, writing system, books, libraries – and yet all these books ever focus on is human sacrifice and war. At least this mentions chinampas, not by name and inaccurately described, but okay cool. There is also no mention of chocolate, which was hugely important. They only name three crops out of dozens. It claims they fought “constant wars,” but never makes this claim of Europe in the Middle Ages. It was basically constant wars there, too. Again, with calling art, “crafts.” While Eurasian civilizations are described as “skilled” when they make things and work metal, the Aztec are called “craftworkers” and not described as “skilled.” There is no mention of sophisticated Aztec weaponry or the fact that obsidian is sharper than steel. Then the book claims Cortes was simply a “soldier” and that the Aztec thought he was a “god.” Let’s kill this myth already, folks. It is known to be false multiple times over. The Mexica Didn't Believe the Conquistadors Were Gods | JSTOR Daily It says he did not attack the Aztec, but invaded and conquered them….what’s the difference? And it says their way of life disappeared. Their language and aspects of their culture remain in Mexico today. They never “disappeared.”

“The Maya and the Toltecs” – two pages. The images of the city and pyramids are labeled with information about human sacrifice. Why? Why not information about how they’re built or regular daily life? They don’t use the word “pyramid” at all and there’s hardly anything about their cities and architecture. The pages are full of incorrect use of the word “Mayan” where it should say “Maya.” “Mayan” refers to the language, “Maya” refers to everything else. In the Ancient World section, there are two whole pages dedicated to explaining Christianity, beliefs, and early history in a way that sounds respectful. In this one topic there are three sentences that poorly attempt to sum up Maya beliefs. That’s it. Theirs a brief mention of their accurate calendars, but not much detail. There are about three small paragraphs about the Toltecs with little information about them as a people. Again, the images are labeled with information about human sacrifice instead of details of what the little paragraph talked about. Amazingly enough, they use the word “kingdoms” to describe the Maya civilization.

“Empires of the Andes” – Two pages. They start by calling the Chimu a “group.” Native nations are not “groups.” It does mention quipu, but not the extent of what they actually are. It states they were used to keep official records, but they were also used to communicate various information beyond numbers and official records. They’re extremely unique in human history and beginning to be recognized as a form of “writing” in a sense. It claims the Inca did not use metal tools. This is patently false. They developed metallurgy and made tools of copper and bronze. This is on top of decorative use of metals like silver and gold. There is no discussion whatsoever of Inca metallurgy. There is one image of a gold knife (while stating there were no metal tools) and that is it. That’s the last we see of the Americas until European invasion. The book then moves on back to detailed information about Europe and their arts, specific countries, education, science, etc. It uses the word “people” in place of “Europeans,” as Eurocentric texts tend to do. It makes false claims to bolster European invention – like claiming the printing press was invented there. The next lesson is called “Artists of Italy” (Natives are never called artists), then “Ideas and Inventions” which is entirely about Europeans. It could easily highlight inventions around the world, but does not.

“Voyages of Discovery” – Now we get standard false narratives about Europeans “discovering” the rest of the world. It talks about trying to reach India, but India was not called India in the 1400s. Europeans were trying to get to the Indies, which is what south Asia and the islands of Southeast Asia were called at the time. The section about Columbus leads with the myth that “people” (Europeans) thought the world was flat, but Columbus and some others believed it was round. This myth was disproven a long time ago, yet it persists. Many cultures around the world knew the Earth was round by the 1400s. This also claims Columbus was trying to reach China, instead of the Indies. It states he “had discovered an exciting new land.” The rest of his story is very basic and Eurocentric, as to be expected. The images are stereotypes. There is no mention of genocide, torture, invasion, enslavement, etc. The rest of these two pages are about Henry the Navigator, John Cabot, and Amerigo Vespucci. It is categorized as “the world” instead of a specific continent as the rest are, but is entirely about Europeans and their lack of knowledge about the world.

The Last 500 Years

“Looking at the Last 500 Years” – Among many issues in the summary, it states “During the 16^th century, a few powerful rulers governed large areas of the world, and ordinary people had little say in how their countries were run.” Which people? Which cultures? Because this is not true all over the world. It is a broad generalization that is mostly accurate in Eurasia, but not everywhere else. It repeats the whole – people thought the Earth was flat – myth. This summary is focused entirely on the Western world.

“Exploring the World” – “The 16^th century was a very exciting time for explorers. After Christopher Columbus arrived in America in 1492, people dreamed of finding treasure in the exotic New World. They also hoped they would find new routes to the rich trading countries of China and India.” – As per usual, they use “people” to mean “European.” New world to who? New routes to who? This is entirely about Europeans, but it makes it sound like the world in general. The whole topic is about “exploring” places in the world that Europeans hadn’t been yet. But people lived in all of those places and had already explored them. This topic is even labeled under “the world” rather than “Europe” even though it is entirely about European “explorers.” Never mind that most of these Europeans (if not all) were not actually explorers either. They were slave traders, treasure hunters, and conquerors. They wanted land, fame, and riches.  They were not motivated by exploration and they were not exploring. Yet this is all about Europeans “exploring.”

“Early Settlers in the Americas” – They continue the use of the term “New World” here instead of using less Eurocentric language. It states that the Spanish “forced the Native Americans to work in their mines” which is slavery, but doesn’t call it slavery. Eurocentric materials like to avoid the subject of enslavement of Indigenous peoples in the Americas by Europeans. On the very next page they state the Portuguese “brought slaves from Africa.” The part about the French and the British talks about claiming land and fighting over land with absolutely zero discussion on whose land that really was and that the Native nations did not consent to this. The only mention of Native Americans here is that the Spanish “forced the Native Americans to work.” We are absent from every other part of it. The map key states: “This map shows land owned by European countries in 1750.” Emphasis mine.

“Settlers in North America” – Same as the previous section. All about Europeans “successfully” colonizing someone else’s land with little mention of those people. It perpetuates the “pilgrim” mythology of seeking freedom of religion (hint – they weren’t really). It claims the Mayflower landed in Plymouth, but it didn’t initially in real life. It claims they survived with the “help of the local Native Americans.” It doesn’t even bother to name the Wampanoag. Fortunately, the thanksgiving myth here is very minimal. It mentions that some Europeans came “in search of land and adventure.” The land part is right, but I wouldn’t call invading and committing genocide “adventure.” It perpetuates US founding mythology that “at first, the settlers from Europe lived peacefully with the Native Americans.” This has never been true, but it is commonly taught as fact. “By the 1720s, most of the native tribes on the east coast of America had been wiped out or had been driven west.” Not really accurate. Most had been enslaved and pushed around in the east, but not “wiped out.” Genocide was certainly happening, which is glossed over by saying “wiped out,” but it is not accurate to say that “most” had been completely eliminated. And of course, they use “America” to mean the United States. America is two whole continents, not the US. No mention of genocide, enslavement of Natives, land theft and invasion, forced assimilation, etc.

“The Slave Trade” – This topic does not acknowledge the enslavement of Indigenous peoples as the beginning of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (Columbus) or the continued enslavement of Indigenous peoples throughout North America during the same time period as the enslavement of Africans in North America. It briefly mentions the enslavement of Indigenous peoples in the early 1500s in the West Indies, but not beyond that. There are a lot of other issues I see in this section, but that is beyond the scope of this review and my expertise.

“Exploring the South Seas” – This topic is Eurocentric drivel about “exploring” the Pacific Islands, making heroes out of people like Captain Cook, claims he made friends with the Indigenous peoples, etc. It even claims the Maori “agreed to let” the British have “control” over their land in the 1800s. It completely ignores genocide except in Australia, which is oddly sympathetic for such a Eurocentric text.

As this “last 500 years” theme continues, almost every section for nearly every part of the world focuses on Europeans in those places.

“The American Revolution” – This topic makes no mention of Native American nations who did, in fact, play important roles in this history.  It makes no mention of the fact that the British had made laws that there was to be no more land theft or expansion, and that Native nations were to be left alone, as a major cause of the war. It does not mention the influence of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy on the Constitution or structure of the new US government.

“Changes in Farming” – This is only about Europe. I only mention it because it states “But in the 18^th century, some farmers discovered that they could stop the soil from wearing out by planting a different crop in each field every year. This new system was called crop rotation.” Emphasis mine. This is false. European farmers in the 1700s did not “discover” this and it was not “new.” Crop rotation has been utilized around the world for thousands of years. In the Americas, Native farmers utilized crop rotation as well as other advanced farming techniques.

“The Growth of the USA” – This topic starts out by stating that the US “won” land. The first page is extreme erasure and pro-western expansion drivel. The next page is appalling. It only mentions generic “Native Americans” on the plains as if the rest of the land wasn’t ours and we weren’t anywhere else but the plains. It says there were “clashes” between the Natives and cowboys. That’s it. No mention of genocide, invasion, land-theft, corrupt laws, coerced treaties, etc. The “Struggling to Survive” section is a poor description of Native resistance to westward expansion. It doesn’t even try very hard. It says “many tribes were completely wiped out” which is not accurate. Some were. Not “many.” “A New World Power” perpetuates US exceptionalism quite strongly. It includes a picture of Sitting Bull with no information about him or context for who he is. It simply states “Sitting Bull, a Native American chief who fought the US army.” It doesn’t even identify his nation. We’re all just generic, monolithic “Native Americans” at this point. The “important dates” at the bottom is horrendous. “1890 – The Native Americans are finally defeated at the Battle of Wounded Knee.” Emphasis mine. This made me angry the first time I read it. It is absolutely atrocious that they wrote this. This is racist. There is no excuse. Wounded Knee was not a “battle,” it was a massacre. Calling it a "battle" is disgusting. And "the Native Americans?" Which ones?? This sounds as if all Native Americans in existence were "defeated" here in this one single incident. The Apache Wars went until 1924, are we not Native Americans? And "finally?" We were "finally" massacred and genocided? As if that was the desired outcome? The only possible outcome?? The word "finally" here is really gross. And then "defeated." This is the "vanishing Indian" mythology. We were all just "defeated" and gone, as if it was our own fault we ended up in that position. 

Sections labeled “The United States” past the 1800s make zero mention of Native Americans. There isn’t even mention of us in the “Rights for All” section under “Human Rights.” We do not exist past the 1800s in this book. There are a total of three topics that do not mention European or Western countries. All of the topics labeled “The World” are focused entirely on European and Western countries, or interactions with said countries.