This theme of "one of the worst history books I have ever read" isn't going away any time soon when I review the Joy Hakim series A History of Us. As with the first two, this book is full of incorrect information, baseless opinions, and a significant amount of bias and racism. Getting right to it:
A History of Us – Colonies to Country
Preface – The opening of the book paints a picture of a
natural, wild, paradise that she calls an “animal playground.” She claims that
Natives are “clustered in small spaces across the land” and says that people
live in “tiny clearings” in this wild, essentially empty, continent. It says
“and this land is much as it has been since the times beyond remembering.” Of
Native Americans, she says “They have been fortunate, these people who are now
called Indians. They have had the luxury of much land and few people. They have
lived in a kind of natural paradise.” This picture is 100% false.
Pre-Invasion population estimates vary, but as many as 112
million people lived in the Americas before Europeans. Mesoamerica was one of
the most densely populated places in the world in before European invasion.
There were massive cities north of modern day Mexico, extensive trade routes,
and people everywhere. The land was not a “natural paradise” either. It was
intentionally shaped to the needs of the people. There were purposefully
cultivated food forests, maintained grasslands and prairies, carefully
cultivated farms, and signs of human intervention everywhere. It was never a
wilderness. These “tiny clearings” were actually massive cities and connected
satellite communities. This supposed small number of people “clustered in small
spaces” were actually millions of people spread out in a well maintained
environment. If it was a paradise, it was a man made one.
This type of myth leads to false and harmful ideas about
wide open land for the taking when Europeans came. It was just there and
available for them, beckoning them to come and improve it. These are US origin
myths. They’re not real.
In the preface, she also claims that the ideas behind
slavery, classes, aristocrats, peasants, and all of that will be “blasted away”
on July 4, 1776. In what world? This is a total fantasy. She says that people
came to “escape those European ways.” Nope. They forcefully brought those ways
with them. She claims that July 4, 1776 “unleashes” the ideas that will “end
slavery” and that the US founding was all about “opportunity for all” and
“equality and fairness.”
“The idea is so daring that nothing like it has been heard
in governments before. This is it: ordinary people are as worthwhile and
valuable and competent as anyone, even as worthwhile as kings and queens.” Except
these ideas already existed in some societies and governments, especially in
some Indigenous cultures around the world.
This is not history, it’s fanciful stories and myths that
she is weaving throughout these books. None of this is true.
Chapter 1 - Natives are not mentioned.
Chapter 2 - Natives are not mentioned. Of note though, she
says that Lawrence Washington built Mount Vernon, there is no mention of
enslaved people that actually built it.
Chapter 3 – Frenchmen and Indians
It starts off with a bunch of oversimplifications and
misrepresentations of treaties and cultural beliefs about land.
“Indian hunting grounds were disappearing as the whites
moved in. The Indians were alarmed. They were willing to fight to preserve
their land.” This wasn’t just “hunting grounds,” but homes, nations, towns. And
of course we were “willing” to fight (and it wasn’t just about land) …anyone
facing an invasion and genocide would be.
A picture of a man is labeled “General Braddock was 60 years
old….” It finishes with “But he didn’t know how to fight Indians in a
wilderness.” Again…this was not a wilderness.
The book claims that treaties were signed “without the
Indians understanding the details” as if intentionally deceptive treaty
practices were our fault. It wasn’t due to lack of “understanding the details”
unless those details were intentionally left out. This makes us sound ignorant
and stupid. It says the English “bought land.” A lot of land was not “bought,”
but taken…stolen.
“And yet, though Indians never owned land individually,
Indian tribes did claim the right to use an area of land.” Okay, this is
correct. Territories were agreed upon and maintained. But the next thing is incorrect.
“It was those rights they signed over to the English.” No. Native nations did
not “sign over” rights. They made specific agreements for the use of the land.
They were deceived sometimes. There were cultural misunderstandings sometimes.
But they did not “sign over” rights.
That was just the first page of this chapter. These books
are exhausting.
She claims the colonists meant to honor the treaties, but
they didn’t always actually mean to honor them. She then blames “frontiersmen”
for the treaties not being honored instead of corrupt politics and lies. There
is no mention of some of the bad practices behind the treaties that lead to
them being known as “bad paper.”
She then lays the blame for Natives being invaded and killed
on Natives instead of the colonizers. “If
the Indians had united, perhaps they might have been able to resist the
frontier people. But old feuds kept the
Indian tribes apart.” “They kept picking at each other – the English, the
French, and the Indians – raiding and scalping and killing.” This is not
accurate. Plus, a lot of “feuds” between Native nations in this time were a
direct result of invasion, genocide, colonization, slavery, disruption of food
networks and trade, and being pushed around constantly by Europeans. She simply
describes the “frontier people” as “rough and rowdy.”
The first time any nations are specifically named, it claims
the French respected the land and were a lot like the Natives. While French
colonization was certainly different, it was still invasion and colonization.
It still involved land theft, killing, rape (all those “marriages” weren’t
always consensual), deceptive politics, and everything else. They weren’t just
nice, happy, friends with Natives as she describes. She even says the French
were “the best friends the Indians had.” It is so much more complex than
“friends” and “not friends.” It even says that the French were basically
innocent – “they understood and respected the land in a way the English never
learned” – and then says the issue was that the Iroquois simply didn’t like
them and that’s why they were enemies. “But the Iroquois didn’t care. They
didn’t like them.” It’s just absurd the way this is written.
“The Iroquois led a strong league of six Indian nations.” There
is no real indication of what time period this is talking about. The sixth
nation didn’t join the Haudenosaunee Confederacy until 1722. This may mean that
this part of the chapter takes place after 1722, or it may mean the author
doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Either one is possible.
She refers to all this invading and fighting “adventures” in
a small side bar about Braddock.
In a description of the beginning of the French and Indian
War, she uses racist descriptions for Natives. “The Indians screamed
blood-chilling war whoops.” This.is.racist. These kinds of descriptions are
absolutely not acceptable.
The chapter ends with a small, ridiculous, description of
Daniel Boone that promotes stereotypes and glorifies westward expansion. “…he
could fight and hunt like an Indian.” What exactly is “like an Indian?” This is
just a monolithic and romanticized racist trope.
Chapter 4 - This chapter starts a highly racist description of a Mohawk leader...that turns out to actually be Irish and not Native at all. Sir William Johnson was accepted by the Mohawk, but that doesn’t make this description okay. It then says “He was both an English American and an Indian American, and he did his best in each of those worlds. No one on this continent has ever done that as well.” What the heck kind of statement is that? It’s yet another one of those weird opinions the author inserts unnecessarily throughout the text. Apparently he became rich and famous and bought a bunch of land. The book calls him “remarkable,” but he was buying stolen land and becoming rich off of Native resources.
It then describes an actual Mohawk person, Tiyanoga, as “friendly.”
This term is patronizing and perpetuates “good Indian/bad Indian” narratives.
It also touts his conversion to Christianity as a character trait (as if
Natives who don’t are bad or not as good). The author mistakenly calls sachems “kings,”
after already calling them sachems. She goes on to explain that the British
called them kings. So why not just stick with sachem instead? Her back and
forth makes no sense.
Back to William Johnson – it says that he and his wife married
in “the Indian way.” There is no such thing. Native nations and cultures are not
a monolith. There is no “Indian way” for anything at all.
The chapter does, surprisingly, discuss Benjamin Franklin
being influenced by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, but quotes him saying “ignorant
s*v*ges” and then continues to repeat this racist phrase several times without
discussing the fact that it’s a racial slur. It then says “Was it because the
Indians didn’t have written languages and sometimes wore few clothes?” Hm,
racist generalizations much? Neither of these things are true and they also
lump us all together into a monolith…yet again. The Haudenosaunee specifically had
wampum belts which were a form of writing in a sense. This is part of where
Franklin got his ideas from, but let’s just pretend these darn Indians couldn’t
communicate any other way but orally.
The chapter speaks of Johnson’s army as “some Indian
warriors” as if they’re completely insignificant. There is then a random snippet
of John Stuart (Indian commissioner of the southern colonies) hating “s*v*ges.”
There seems to be no real reason for it to be here other than her love of repeating
that racial slur (and essentially calling us that slur) often.
The chapter includes an awful painting of Pontiac’s Rebellion
even though that isn’t even discussed anywhere in the chapter.
Chapter 5 - This one starts with a quote from Jeffery Amhurst stating “he really did believe they were s*v*ges.” Seriously, Hakim takes every opportunity she can to use that slur. It’s awful and completely unnecessary in any book, let alone a history text. Of course we also find more racist descriptions of Natives here like Amhurst hating Johnson – “…a provincial – especially one who ran around in Indian garb…” The chapter is quite short, but certainly has room for racism.
Chapter 6 - The top of the second page here has a breakout box of information about Spanish missions which is crassly titled “Indians: Mission Impossible.” How gross cans Hakim get? She keeps outdoing herself. This box says nothing of slavery or cruelty and claims the deaths were all from disease. It says that the Spanish “didn’t intend to kill them.” Except they did. Minor details, right?
Amazingly this chapter mentions the intentional spread of
Smallpox via blankets, but then it is followed by a serious amount of absolute hogwash.
“The Native Americans needed guns in order to hunt. Many had forgotten how to
use bows and arrows. They were soon without food or clothing.” This is absurd.
She just makes things up to suit the narrative that she wants to tell…and that
narrative is racist and inaccurate.
She again blames only “settlers” for land theft and killing
of Natives, but not the US or official government policy. She intersperses this
supposedly balanced perspective with racist statements like “The Indians went
on the warpath.” I don’t see her saying anything about the English or other
Europeans going “on the warpath.” They were respectable soldiers and militaries
and governments, of course. This is racist plain and simple.
Chapter 7 - Hakim spends a lot of time praising missionaries and the [forced] conversions of Natives and enslaved Africans and this chapter is no different. It starts with a little story about an “English preacher.”
Of England, Hakim states “…and she has had to keep the
English colonists and Native Americans from killing each other,” and then says “The
king of England had a great idea for settling the Indian problem.” Hold up. She
actually says “Indian problem” without quotes. She, completely unironically,
calls us the “Indian problem.” If you aren’t aware, look up the racist history
of US policy on “the Indian problem.” If I wasn’t convinced that Hakim is incredibly
racist, this would seal the deal.
Of the Proclamation of 1763 the book states “it was just
another Indian treaty that would soon be broken” and “The Indians who lived
west of the Appalachians were doomed to see their way of life destroyed.” But
these statements are said in a very Manifest Destiny sort of way and context.
As if this was normal, acceptable, and inevitable.
The chapter praises Daniel Boone again. He is credited with “cutting
a path” west with no mention of the fact that he used pre-made Native roads and
trails. He didn’t “cut a path” anywhere, he followed someone else’s as he
invaded their land. It praises invaders (settlers) again and says “they were tough
enough to build homes in a strange, raw world.” There was nothing “raw” about
this continent. It’s just more baseless praise of invaders. The end of the
chapter has a picture of a racist comic/drawing from 1764 with no explanation of
its racism and harm.
Chapter 8 - This one is short and doesn’t say much about Natives, but it certainly has more rude opinions of people from the author. She calls a French man’s name “strange” here. She also uses the phrase “Indians had attacked.” She uses this terminology regularly for Natives who were defending themselves, but rarely (if ever) of the Europeans committing genocide. It ends with the claim that Natives were “forming a new kind of society” with the Europeans. The same Europeans who were stealing land and committing genocide…but sure, we were just happily “forming a new kind of society” with them. This history is anything but actual history.
Chapter 9 - Natives start disappearing from Hakim’s version of history here. We are occasionally mentioned (mainly to fit her narrative), but it happens less and less.
But don’t worry! She still says plenty of horrible things.
This chapter is horrific.
It is titled “A Girl Who Always Did Her Best” and is about a
female slaver/human trafficker. I’ll highlight some of the worst parts here.
“It wasn’t only plantation owners who worked hard…” She
calls them “plantation owners” instead of slave owners (which are more accurately
– slavers and human traffickers). Hakim spends a lot of time in her books
praising human traffickers as great and hard working. This one talks about how
great this young woman was and how busy and not lazy she was…while ENSLAVING HUMANS
to do all of the real work. Sure, that’s not lazy.
“Yes it [trouble with England] would develop, in part
because of that independent American spirit. The colonies were producing strong
mindful people… Eliza P. wasn’t the only person learning to use her mind on a
plantation. It was good training for those who intended to run a nation. George
Washington was running plantations and so was Thomas Jefferson.” She says this as
if it’s a good thing. These were HUMAN TRAFFIKERS (“slave owners”)! She is praising people who enslave other
humans as learning to “use their minds” and calls being a human trafficker “good
training.” This is disgusting.
Hakim praises enslavers and plantations constantly in these
books. She regularly calls the west a “wilderness” even though it wasn’t, as we’ve
established several times. She credits invaders with “blazing trails.” There is
a drawing of enslaved Africans in this chapter that is labeled as “workers” in
her caption.
Honestly, my mind is absolutely blown that this
gets passed off in schools as decent “history.”
Chatper 10 - There is no mention of Natives in this chapter. Her biases are strong, though, as she talks about how great the US is at human rights and says that the US is better than most of the world.
Chapter 11 - Again, no mention of Natives. We’re just slowly “disappearing.”
She uses the term “New World” here without acknowledging the Eurocentric bias of that term. She says the American Revolution was pretty much only about taxes, not the proclamation of 1763 which was a large part of it as well. She says the colonists “dressed up as Indians” for the Boston Tea Party without discussing stereotypes or why they dressed that way. Because why would she include that?
Chapter 12 - This chapter is full of weird praise for people like Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, etc. She elevates them above others to some god like status. “Sam Adams was different from other rebels in other times…he was inspired by a grander idea…where people could be free of kings and princes.” This is purely opinion that isn’t really based in reality. The cherry on top here is “A nation where, for the first time in all of history, people would truly rule themselves.” This is patently false. This wasn’t a new idea, they weren’t the first to try it, it wasn’t the first time in “all of history.” The Haudenosaunee Confederacy is currently the oldest living democracy in the world, but democratic societies have existed in the world long before the US, including other Native nations. And “people” ruling “themselves” – meaning white land owning men? Because not all people in the US could have a say or were represented here. The “people” were certainly not ruling “themselves” – white land owning men were ruling the people. Many people weren’t considered human to these so called “founding fathers.” Nothing about that statement is true. She says “Sam Adams had a great dream that was for all people” – except non white people, women, etc. Again, “all people” here means white men. This “great dream” wasn’t for Natives, Black people, or even women.
There are no Natives mentioned here though, of course.
Chapter 13 - Same as chapter 12, but different people. Same baseless opinions and same lack of Natives.
Chapter 14 - No Natives. I’m seeing a theme. We don’t exist in textbooks much at this point until the 1800s, then we disappear from textbooks again by 1900.
Chapter 15 - “Into the fort they went – Benedict Arnold like a proper soldier and Ethan Allen and his men howling war whoops like Mohawk Indians.” This is racist. It is stereotype and another comparison to animals (“howling”).
“They knew that most American Indians seemed to live a free
democratic life in self governing tribes.” Pretty sure just a few chapters ago
she claimed that this had never happened before in history. Here she surprisingly
acknowledges historic records of Native influence on US government ideas, but
still continues to claim it is new and unique and had never been done before. It’s
full of constant contradictions.
Chapter 16 - Hakim calls Washington’s actions during the French and Indian War “adventures.” Wars are horrifying, they are not adventures. There is no mention of the fact that the Haudenosaunee called him “Town Destroyer” because of those “adventures.” She praises him and talks about how great he was.
Of R.H. Lee she says “he was a slave owner that hated
slavery.” No. Just no. If he hated it, he would have set enslaved people he “owned”
free. Not only did he not do that, he bought and sold humans, said he did so to
benefit himself (his family), rented out enslaved people for profit, and died
with more people enslaved than he started with. He stated politics were the “science
of fraud” yet was only ever a politician. He was a flaming hypocrite that made
good speeches while taking actions to benefit himself only.
I know this is off my usual topic, but I can’t stand
untruthful glorifications of these “founding fathers.”
There is no mention of Haudenosaunee involvement at the
Continental Congress. No mention of Natives at all.
Chapters 17, 18, and 19 - No Natives mentioned. Of the last twelve chapters, one has mentioned Natives briefly.
Chapter 20 - No Natives, again. This one repeats the same lies “a free nation, a great nation, a nation run by its citizens – something that had never before been done.” No mention of “merciless Indian s*v*ges” in the documents, but plenty of glorification of “all men are created equal.” I’m surprised she didn’t take the opportunity to call us “s*v*ges” again.
Chapter 21 - No Natives mentioned.
Chapter 22 - “When it was necessary, women put guns to their shoulders. Those on the frontier were used to doing it. Many had fought Indians in those terrible raids in which right and wrong were often on both sides.” Gross. There was definitely a wrong side here. Imagine this sentence about Nazi Germany or something? It’s just gross.
It mentions the Mohawks siding with the British without any real
explanation as to why.
Chapter 23 - “Remember the world in the 18th century was like a ladder, where everyone had a particular rung to stand on.” This is not only used to excuse the horrible actions of people, but it is a false statement. This may have been a true perception of many people in Western culture, but not the whole world. This completely ignores world Indigenous societies.
This chapters calls the idea of equal rights “new” and goes
on and on about how people wanted equal rights for all, even though that isn’t
entirely true.
Chapter 24 - There are no Natives in the actual chapter, but there is a small breakout box called “War and Peace Pipe.” The whole “peace pipe” thing is a stereotype.
Chapters 25, 26, 27 - These are about the American Revolution and full of praises for horrible people, but no mention of Natives.
Chapter 28 - “…the Indians, who were being paid by the British for American scalps, were creating havoc on the frontier. But no matter which side they chose, the Native Americans would be losers.” What a horrible way to phrase that. Also, I’m pretty sure Natives weren’t the ones “creating havoc.” Europeans invading and starting wars did that.
The chapter contains a common monolith of the so called “Native
American way of life.” There is no such thing.
“They believed what they were told – the Indians were
s*v*ges.” Her favorite racial slur again. I don’t recall her ever mentioning
European-Americans having bounties on Native scalps or calling them s*v*ges.
It talks about how the colonists considered “Indian fighters”
heroes. “Mostly they just wanted to push the Native Americans west to free new
lands for the settlers.” No, they wanted us dead and gone.
There is a whole lot of praise for George Rogers Clark, who
was horrible. Of him it says he “…could talk to them [Natives] in a way they
understood” as if we were dumb. It then praises him for “capturing” the Ohio
valley from Natives. She clearly thinks very positively of invasion and
colonization.
Chapter 29 - Here she claims the ideas in the constitution were “new.”
“No nation had even tried to do it before.” This is a commonly
repeated lie throughout these books.
This part claims that the ultimate goal of the US has always
been “freedom and equality for all.” This is not true, and we know this from
primary documents. Their own words. The fun part is where she calls systemic
oppression and racism “mistakes.”
There is no mention of Haudenosaunee at the Constitutional Convention
or their influence on any of it.
No Natives mentioned.
Chapter 30 - This is about Russians on the west coast, but there is no mention of them enslaving the Aleut.
Regarding the Spanish in California – “but most terrible for
the Native Americans, who watched as their old world was destroyed” – no, they
were murdered. She claims the Spanish were trying to “spread Catholicism in the
west.” No mention of genocide.
Chapter 31 - “Americans formed guerrilla bands and fought as the Indians did – with raiding parties.” This is the only mention of Natives.
It wouldn’t be complete without more drivel about being “founded
on ideas of freedom and equality.”
“And upside down it was. David had licked Goliath. The
colonies would soon be states; the infant New World was growing up… A new
nation was being formed: a nation that would try not to make the mistakes of
its European parents. A nation that would be founded on the ideas of freedom
and equality.” She says this so much, it’s like she’s trying to convince herself
it’s true.
Chapter 32 - No Natives
Chapter 33 - This chapter is all about the Euro-Americans dividing up land that isn’t theirs.
“Once again, the Native Americans were going to be pushed
off their lands.” There is a brief mention of disease and gun deaths, but no
mention of genocide or intentional US policy.
Chapter 34 - Regarding Jefferson – “He filled Monticello with collections of things he found interesting, like books, animal bones, and Indian artifacts.” Artifacts, as if Natives were not living cultures existing and using those items in that present time. Just like when people call our cultural items “artifacts” today. No, they are not “artifacts.”
Later on in the chapter there is some false information
about religious freedom and separation of church and state. It claims that nowhere
in the world had ever allowed complete religious freedom. I’d like to see the
facts to back that up. I’m sure she can’t actually produce any. Regardless, the
US still has never actually had complete religious freedom either. Native
religions were illegal until 1978 and we still face regular legal barriers to
actual religious freedom.
Chapter 35 - She keeps claiming certain men who were enslavers/human traffickers “hated slavery.” Sure, they “hated slavery” …but they just kept enslaving people ...because that makes sense.
There’s a random statement about being afraid of Natives – “Bartram
went off into the woods, where the mountain lions didn’t scare him, but some of
the Indians did.”
Chapter 36 - No mention of Natives, but the Eurocentric use of the word “people” shows up here.
Writers like Hakim often use the word “people” as a
reference to Europeans/Euro-Americans as if they represent all people. They specify
other types of people, but “people” is usually used to mean white people. They
think they’re using the term universally, but who they’re actually talking about
are Europeans/Euro-Americans. “…and people didn’t take baths. They thought it
unhealthy.” No, not all people were like that. Native nations throughout the
Americas had advanced understanding of hygiene and this was an important
cultural value. Don’t the universal term “people” when you mean a specific
subset of people, okay?
Chapter 37 - No Natives.
It claims the US constitution is the “best in history.”
Otherwise, it is an odd chapter about fancy parties and delegates.
Chapter 38 - No Natives
Chapter 39 - This may be beyond my expertise, but there is a terrible ending to an explanation of the 3/5 compromise here. It claims that the “men who wrote our constitution wanted to be fair.” Because counting humans as only 3/5 of a human is “fair.” Okay.
There are a lot of inflated claims about the US
constitution. It says the constitution is more than 200 years old but still “great.”
“No other country has ever had a governing document that has worked so well for
such a long time.” Ahem...the Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace. There are
probably several others.
“They wanted to guarantee basic human rights and freedom” –
except for Natives, Black people, Asian people, women…
“No nation had ever done what those men hoped to do.” I
think you already know my answer to this.
No Natives here.
Chapter 40 - “They say that the Founders didn’t mean women, who were not allowed to vote. And they didn’t mean Native Americans or blacks. Now, hear this, because there is more than one side to this question, and you will need to form your own opinion. I don’t agree with the experts. I think that when the Founders said “we the people,” they meant all the people.”
What.
Read that again.
Wow. We have the dog whistle “more than one side” argument here
and patently false claims that the “founders” meant “all the people” even
though they intentionally excluded Natives, Black people, women, etc and called
us “merciless Indian s*v*ges” in their founding documents. Good thing these
experts mentioned are actually the experts. Clearly, she is not.
How much more does one need to be convinced that these books
are racist and completely inaccurate?
The rest of this chapter is drivel made up of her baseless
speculations about this.
This chapters reinforces the idea that humans can be
property, calls land theft “rivalry over land” (as if we simply had a rivalry
with invaders over our own land), claims they were “compromising” as if that’s
valid to avoid issues with people who weren’t as “progressive” as them, etc.
“Native Americans usually began their treaties with that
phrase, “we the people.”” This may be correct about some nations, but this is a
monolithic statement that lumps us all together into one group as if we are all the same. She does that constantly.
“The settlers wanted Indian lands. They would have them.
Could a way have been found to share the land and please everyone?” That’s like
saying I walked into your home, stole your home and everything in it, attacked you,
killed people, and then asked if there was a way we could “share” your home and
belongings.
It claims that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship
to everyone born here, but this is not true. That was passed in 1868, but
Natives were not “granted” citizenship until 1924.
There’s an odd caption with a picture that says Washington “owned
slaves himself” and then that “he was willing to allow slavery in order to get
the constitution approved.” He enslaved people…he wanted it as much as the rest
or he wouldn’t have been an enslaver.
“The Framers did not come up with a fair way to share the
land with the Native Americans.” That’s because this wasn’t their land to “share.”
There is no such thing as a “fair” way to share stolen property.
“Most of the delegates didn’t want slavery. They knew it was
wrong.” Almost half of the delegates were enslavers. There were some that were
largely anti-slavery, but were still willing to compromise and allow it, so…I don’t
see that as a good thing.
The last few pages of this chapter are full of false and
ridiculous information about slavery.
Chapter 41 - No Natives mentioned.
Chapter 42 - “In this country, when a candidate loses an election for president, he doesn’t become spiteful or nasty. He pledges to help the new president.” I had to audibly laugh out loud when I read this.
I may sound more and more jaded as I review these books, but
that’s because they’re horrendous and hard to read. I stand by my statement on
the first and second books – this book is a dumpster fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment