Khan Academy is a popular free curriculum resource online utilized by many schools, teachers, and homeschoolers. Perhaps best known for their math curriculum, they do offer a variety of social studies courses as well. This review looks at the unit "Before Contact" in the US History section titled "Worlds Collide."
The second part of the Worlds Collide section is titled "Before Contact." It starts with a video called "Native American Societies Before Contact." The video starts with a false claim that we didn’t arrive in the Americas until 15,000 years ago. It promotes the Bering Strait theory even though that theory has been disproven repeatedly. It does mention the idea that people were here before that, but it says “maybe” people were here before that. We have definitive proof that people were here long before that, including the White Sands footprints dated to 23,000 years ago, so it isn’t a “maybe.” The population estimates used are also very low. While they claim to be using a “midrange” number of various estimates, we know that the numbers were more like 75-112 million people, with some scholars saying 145 million. For North America north of Mexico, best estimates are from 8-18 million people. Khan Academy is averaging those best estimates with old, outdated, historically racist estimates as low as 8 million people total. It isn’t scholarly to average good estimates with estimates that are known to be false.
Then the date cited for the domestication of corn is a few thousand years off. The video states 5000 BCE, but it was actually 7000 or 8000 BCE. Once it starts talking about development in different regions, there’s all kinds of generalizations and stereotypes happening. The word choices are very Eurocentric and imply primitiveness. They call Native nations and societies “groups” which is always incorrect (this would be like calling European countries “groups.” “European groups lived in dwellings made of sticks and tough grasses.” This is what the video sounds like to me). It indicates that all plains societies were nomadic and lived in “teepees” (spelled wrong), when there were plains nations that were farmers, stayed in one place, and lived in permanent houses. It says the Ancestral Puebloans lived in “cave complexes” which is a condescending way to explain highly complex engineering and architecture. They call Cahokia a “settlement” instead of a city (another example of Eurocentrism). They claim Native cultures simply adapted to the environment, but never discuss how Native nations and civilizations were expert landscape engineers and adapted the environment to meet their needs. This is a helpful article to read about the history of landscape engineering by Indigenous peoples in the Americas: Wilderness as a Colonial Construct — Organeyez (archive.org)
The articles that follow the video then use monolithic language to lump together hundreds of unique cultures. Titles such as “Native American culture of the Southwest” use the word “culture” singularly which is incorrect. It should say “cultures.” Each article is titled this way. Each article is riddled with inaccuracies, monoliths, Eurocentric language, stereotypes, and gross simplifications.
"Native American culture of the Southwest" - This article uses the term “Native American groups,” which is incorrect. It says people started living there in 7,000 BCE when in reality people have lived in the area for over 23,000 years (see footprints in White Sands New Mexico). It lists the Mogollon and Hohokam as Ancestral Puebloans when they are not at all. The Mogollon, Hohokam, and Ancenstural Puebloans are three separate cultures and peoples. It uses an outdated and offensive term (“Anasazi”) for the actual Ancestral Puebloans. It later again says that the Hohokam and Mogollon are a “group” of Puebloans, which is false. It includes the Navajo and Apache with this discussion (societies in BCE times) when the southern Athabaskans (which became the Diné and Ndé (Navajo and Apache)) didn’t arrive in the area until the 1100-1200s CE. It says the Diné (Navajo) were hunter/gatherers when they were/are not. They were traditionally hunter-farmers. It also claims the Diné and Ndé (Navajo and Apache) migrated to the southwest from the pacific northwest. We did not, we are descended from the Na-dene (Athabaskans) which are a subarctic people in Alaska and inland Canada. It keeps claiming the Diné (Navajo) were nomadic. It makes a bunch of false claims about Puebloan religions and is written in a very condescending way. It describes Ancestral Puebloan societies with European style division of labor (men did this, women did that) when in reality their societies historically (and today) did not have strict European style gender based division of labor. The questions at the end are absurd and make ridiculous assumptions and implications. They’re also monolithic. The entire article is basically wrong.
"Native American culture of the West" - This article also uses the term "Native American groups," which is always incorrect. It uses past tense language as if we no longer live in these areas. Using the "West" as a regional division/cultural region is rather absurd. No one does this because there's the Southwest (already covered, so why now lump the entre west together?), the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, California, Great Basin, Plateau, and the Plains...all of which are very unique cultural regions with very different histories and resources. This is way too broad and leads to false generalizations and monoliths. It states that "hunting, gathering, and fishing" were the main methods of getting food, however there were and are plenty of farming cultures in these regions. "Sedentary villages" is a minimizing term used instead of terms like "towns" and "cities" used when describing civilizations in Eurasia. The article also promotes Eurocentric/non-Indigenous perspectives of the Earth including terms like "natural resources." It states "It's hard to generalize about the cultural practices of indigenous people in the West..." So then why do it? This is a harmful practice that is hard because it makes no sense to do so. Also "Indigenous" should be capitalized when referring to people.
The articles that follow the video then use monolithic language to lump together hundreds of unique cultures. Titles such as “Native American culture of the Southwest” use the word “culture” singularly which is incorrect. It should say “cultures.” Each article is titled this way. Each article is riddled with inaccuracies, monoliths, Eurocentric language, stereotypes, and gross simplifications.
"Native American culture of the Southwest" - This article uses the term “Native American groups,” which is incorrect. It says people started living there in 7,000 BCE when in reality people have lived in the area for over 23,000 years (see footprints in White Sands New Mexico). It lists the Mogollon and Hohokam as Ancestral Puebloans when they are not at all. The Mogollon, Hohokam, and Ancenstural Puebloans are three separate cultures and peoples. It uses an outdated and offensive term (“Anasazi”) for the actual Ancestral Puebloans. It later again says that the Hohokam and Mogollon are a “group” of Puebloans, which is false. It includes the Navajo and Apache with this discussion (societies in BCE times) when the southern Athabaskans (which became the Diné and Ndé (Navajo and Apache)) didn’t arrive in the area until the 1100-1200s CE. It says the Diné (Navajo) were hunter/gatherers when they were/are not. They were traditionally hunter-farmers. It also claims the Diné and Ndé (Navajo and Apache) migrated to the southwest from the pacific northwest. We did not, we are descended from the Na-dene (Athabaskans) which are a subarctic people in Alaska and inland Canada. It keeps claiming the Diné (Navajo) were nomadic. It makes a bunch of false claims about Puebloan religions and is written in a very condescending way. It describes Ancestral Puebloan societies with European style division of labor (men did this, women did that) when in reality their societies historically (and today) did not have strict European style gender based division of labor. The questions at the end are absurd and make ridiculous assumptions and implications. They’re also monolithic. The entire article is basically wrong.
"Native American culture of the West" - This article also uses the term "Native American groups," which is always incorrect. It uses past tense language as if we no longer live in these areas. Using the "West" as a regional division/cultural region is rather absurd. No one does this because there's the Southwest (already covered, so why now lump the entre west together?), the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, California, Great Basin, Plateau, and the Plains...all of which are very unique cultural regions with very different histories and resources. This is way too broad and leads to false generalizations and monoliths. It states that "hunting, gathering, and fishing" were the main methods of getting food, however there were and are plenty of farming cultures in these regions. "Sedentary villages" is a minimizing term used instead of terms like "towns" and "cities" used when describing civilizations in Eurasia. The article also promotes Eurocentric/non-Indigenous perspectives of the Earth including terms like "natural resources." It states "It's hard to generalize about the cultural practices of indigenous people in the West..." So then why do it? This is a harmful practice that is hard because it makes no sense to do so. Also "Indigenous" should be capitalized when referring to people.
It continues with past tense language like "lived" instead of "live" and "was home to" instead of "is home to." The article then goes on to grossly generalize hundreds of nations within multiple unique regions that should not be lumped together. It also uses monolithic language like "Native Americans..." instead of identifying nations or cultural groupings. It uses Eurocentric language to make Native nations look primitive and simplistic. Of the ridiculous claims in this article, one is that Natives in the Great Basin were "the first to create canoes." Different types of boats, including the typical "canoe" style one thinks of when hearing that word and large seaworthy boats, were invented and used all throughout the Americas. This is not something that can be attributed to one region being the origin or even the first. They were developed independently as well as with influence from other nations around the continent. There is no way to make the claim which were "first." Another ridiculous claim is that the Acjachemen people of California traditionally lived in wikiups and it shows a picture of a traditional Ndé (Apache) home (which are commonly called wikiups although that isn’t our name for them). Acjachemen traditional homes were conical, sub-terranean buildings covered in thatch, which is not at all like our traditional “wikiup” homes. These are completely different cultures with completely different traditional homes. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so problematic.
It goes on to generalize Native cultures in "the West," which shouldn't be lumped together that way at all, as being "rigidly stratified class structures." While this certainly did exist in the Pacific Northwest in some cultures, it was not a widespread social structure at all. To make this generalization about nations in "the West" is yet another absurd claim. To add insult to injury, it then claims that the Chinook had to process "large animals like bison." Bison were not in the Pacific Northwest! It finishes with an incredibly condescending description of spiritual beliefs and practices. In the article they also show a picture of a Diné (Navajo) woman when talking about the Chinook in the Pacific NW. These are not the same nations. This perpetuates the idea that we are a monolith - that we are all the same.
"Native American culture of the Northeast" - This continues the issue of the word "groups," ridiculous claims, broad generalizations, and Eurocentric language. The overview starts with a false statement that Natives in the northeast didn't rely on agriculture until about 200 BCE. The reality is that the Eastern Agricultural Complex is one of the 10 ancient independent centers of plant domestication which began between 7000 BCE and 5000 BCE. Corn was brought to the northeast by around 200 BCE, but that's not when agriculture in the region started or began to be relied upon. It also states that permanent and larger "villages" (should be towns) were built around Three Sisters farming, but again - agriculture started there thousands of years earlier and the people were already living in more permanent towns by the time Three Sisters farming started. Semipermanent towns in the northeast have been dated to 6400 BCE and more permanent towns to about 4000 BCE.
"Native American culture of the Northeast" - This continues the issue of the word "groups," ridiculous claims, broad generalizations, and Eurocentric language. The overview starts with a false statement that Natives in the northeast didn't rely on agriculture until about 200 BCE. The reality is that the Eastern Agricultural Complex is one of the 10 ancient independent centers of plant domestication which began between 7000 BCE and 5000 BCE. Corn was brought to the northeast by around 200 BCE, but that's not when agriculture in the region started or began to be relied upon. It also states that permanent and larger "villages" (should be towns) were built around Three Sisters farming, but again - agriculture started there thousands of years earlier and the people were already living in more permanent towns by the time Three Sisters farming started. Semipermanent towns in the northeast have been dated to 6400 BCE and more permanent towns to about 4000 BCE.
Further down in the article it states "Native Americans settled extensively in this area, especially during the Hopewellian period." So the whole Early Woodland Period, where population and urbanization increased greatly, just never happened then? The Hopewellian Period is part of the Middle Woodland Period, so that's not when people started "settling extensively." It then goes back on its earlier claims and says that people were farming thousands of years before 200 BCE (as previously claimed). Why the contradictions? Why not just get it right from the beginning? The dates here are still wrong. It also claims that a shift from hunting and gathering to agricultural systems didn't start until the Hopewellian Period, but again this is false. The people were already hunter-farmers by that time. It makes false gender role claims. The way the whole thing is written, with its heavy focus on material culture and the word choices, it is extremely Eurocentric. In the section on Societal Structure it immediately claims that the Three Sisters were "cash crops." Cash crops are a European concept. No such thing existed here. Cash crops are sold profit. Trade economies are not the same thing. It goes on to describe trade economies. These are two very different systems, but the article mixes them together as if they're the same. It continues and claims that the Hopewell people BEGAN the tradition of mound building. SO again, the whole Archaic Period and Early Woodland Period just never happened? The Hopewell are part of the Middle Woodland Period, which started in 200 BCE. Mound building started in the Middle Archaic Period around 3500 BCE. Khan Academy literally can't get dates right to save their lives. This then falsely shapes the rest of what they write. It also states that mounds "may have served burial and ceremonial purposes." May have? And only burial and ceremonial? So no political? This is just all wrong. The picture included shows tiny mounds instead of something like Cahokia? This makes mounds look small and simple and implies that this wasn't a big deal.
The article keeps calling the Iroquois a "group." Aside from the word "group" being incorrect, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) were not one "group" or nation. They were a confederacy of nations. Again, while this section claims to be about "social and religious norms," it focuses on material culture and uses Eurocentric wording. It goes on to mix up "Iroquois" and "Iroquoian" as if they mean the same thing. They don't. The whole description about the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is weird, simplistic, and doesn't include vital details.
"Native American culture of the Southeast" - All the same problems here with the word "groups," broad generalizations, and Eurocentric language. Starting with the overview, it uses the term "Five Civilized Tribes" in reference to PRE-INVASION politics. This is ridiculous. That term is racist, false, and invented by Europeans. Also those nations didn't even exist before Europeans, they formed as a result of invasion. "The prominent Native American groups in this area were known as the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles." Wow, no. First of all - "groups"...I am always annoyed by this. But the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek (why pluralize those names all the time?) are DESCENEDED from the Mississippians and formed after dispersal which was largely a result of invasion. This dispersal and coalescence happened between 1550 and 1700. The Cherokee were not originally in the southeast. Instead, they migrated earlier (pre-invasion) to the region from the Great Lakes region and are one of the only Iroquoian speaking nations in the southeast. They are still said to be descended from the Mississippians, just from the ones in the north originally. The Seminole didn't form until later during the 1700s. They were formed from largely Creek and some Choctaw people who fled south into Florida to escape colonial violence. They took in people running away from slavery, including Indigenous and Black people. Their culture is largely from the Creek who helped form the nation. So while they are mostly descendants of the Mississippians, they formed in a different way and later. None of these were called "Five Civilized Tribes" until Europeans called them that for adopting some European customs. Using this term for pre-invasion and early colonization time periods is absurd.
"Native American culture of the Southeast" - All the same problems here with the word "groups," broad generalizations, and Eurocentric language. Starting with the overview, it uses the term "Five Civilized Tribes" in reference to PRE-INVASION politics. This is ridiculous. That term is racist, false, and invented by Europeans. Also those nations didn't even exist before Europeans, they formed as a result of invasion. "The prominent Native American groups in this area were known as the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles." Wow, no. First of all - "groups"...I am always annoyed by this. But the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek (why pluralize those names all the time?) are DESCENEDED from the Mississippians and formed after dispersal which was largely a result of invasion. This dispersal and coalescence happened between 1550 and 1700. The Cherokee were not originally in the southeast. Instead, they migrated earlier (pre-invasion) to the region from the Great Lakes region and are one of the only Iroquoian speaking nations in the southeast. They are still said to be descended from the Mississippians, just from the ones in the north originally. The Seminole didn't form until later during the 1700s. They were formed from largely Creek and some Choctaw people who fled south into Florida to escape colonial violence. They took in people running away from slavery, including Indigenous and Black people. Their culture is largely from the Creek who helped form the nation. So while they are mostly descendants of the Mississippians, they formed in a different way and later. None of these were called "Five Civilized Tribes" until Europeans called them that for adopting some European customs. Using this term for pre-invasion and early colonization time periods is absurd.
"The Mississippian peoples were excellent farmers. Notably, Cherokee..." Okay, while they are descended from the Mississippians, they had not split and formed these other nations in the time this statement is referencing. Either talk about the Mississippians (up to 1550) or talk about the coalescence, but don't mix it all together like that. "Cahokia, near modern-day St. Louis, was home to an estimated 40,000 Cahokian people, after whom the city was named." Good heavens, no. Did Khan Academy even research anything?? The name "Cahokia" is a misnomer, and the Cahokians (a sub-tribe of the Illini) did not come to live in the ara until the 1600s. No, the Cahokians did not build or live in that city, despite its name. The article also states it "remained the largest city ever recorded in North America until..." Eye roll. Mexico, Central America, Mesoamerica...that's all part of North America. Cahokia was the largest city north of Mexico, but not the largest in North America. It cites false reasons as to why the city of Cahokia dispersed. "Historians know little about the religious practices of the American Indians in the Southeast" - well then why don't you ask them? They still exist and those religious practices are still intact. Historians do, in fact, know about those religious practices because of that.
"Native American culture of the Plains" - all the same problems here. "The Plains were very sparsely populated until about 1100 CE." No. The Plains may not have developed massive cities, but a lot of people were attracted to the Plains due to abundant food resources. Also the environment was greatly engineered by people for thousands of years before Europeans came. Instead of attempting to domesticate bison, Native people managed the wild herds and eliminated the need to domesticate them. They managed the bison’s habitat, with controlled burns for example, which was a superior approach. This was also useful for a variety of plants and animals, making it an even more productive habitat and better for the bison and people as a whole. (Similar methods of wild animal management existed throughout North America, as well as methods of managing plants.) The Great Plains as Europeans saw them in the 1700s and 1800s were not natural, but man made. The map chosen is ridiculous. It shows some MODERN DAY reservations created by the United States as prison camps, and then highlights a small area with the labels "Ponca, Omaha, Pawnee, Oto, Kansa" and that's it. It only shows South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas in their entity. And then it is labeled "Map of territories inhabited by Native Americans on the Plains before European contact." I am aghast. What absolute junk. There are many maps to choose from that ACTUALLY show pre-European territories and homelands and they chose this??
"Native American culture of the Plains" - all the same problems here. "The Plains were very sparsely populated until about 1100 CE." No. The Plains may not have developed massive cities, but a lot of people were attracted to the Plains due to abundant food resources. Also the environment was greatly engineered by people for thousands of years before Europeans came. Instead of attempting to domesticate bison, Native people managed the wild herds and eliminated the need to domesticate them. They managed the bison’s habitat, with controlled burns for example, which was a superior approach. This was also useful for a variety of plants and animals, making it an even more productive habitat and better for the bison and people as a whole. (Similar methods of wild animal management existed throughout North America, as well as methods of managing plants.) The Great Plains as Europeans saw them in the 1700s and 1800s were not natural, but man made. The map chosen is ridiculous. It shows some MODERN DAY reservations created by the United States as prison camps, and then highlights a small area with the labels "Ponca, Omaha, Pawnee, Oto, Kansa" and that's it. It only shows South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas in their entity. And then it is labeled "Map of territories inhabited by Native Americans on the Plains before European contact." I am aghast. What absolute junk. There are many maps to choose from that ACTUALLY show pre-European territories and homelands and they chose this??
The next section implies farming in the area didn't start until 900 CE. While corn wasn't brought to the region until around then, agriculture certainly existed long before that in this region. The Eurocentric language here dismisses traditional plant medicine knowledge. Again, it claims false gender roles. The information about horses is outdated. While a debate exists about whether or not horses event went extinct here in the first place (to be reintroduced by the Spanish later) or not, we do know that horses didn't go extinct here (if they did) until about 6000 years ago (according to the newest evidence). That means for thousands of years the people of the Plains had horses and were established horse cultures before their extinction and eventual reintroduction by the Spanish in the 1500s. As new evidence is found that date might be pushed closer as it has been several times. The people in the Plains may not have had horses for a few thousand years, but their reintroduction wasn't a new concept to them. The next part implies that ALL Plains cultures shifted from agriculture to nomadic buffalo hunters. This is false. Many nations remained sedentary farmers and did not transition to the stereotypical Plains Indian lifeways. Also why do people keep spelling tipi as "teepee?" It's annoying. This is one of the problems with broad generalizations that are used throughout these articles. "Villages usually had fluid populations and little to no political structure." False. Fluid populations maybe, but there were established politics.
"It is nearly impossible to generalize the religious traditions of the Plains region since every group had its own practices." Then don't? Simple as that. Don't generalize them. The paragraph goes on to...generalize them. Which is a major problem. It claims at the end that intertribal conflict was a result of "heightened competition" over horses. While that existed to an extent, the intertribal conflict was largely due European/Euro-American encroachment on our lands and being shoved around into each other's territories by them. Not horse competition. The images in this are poorly chosen.
I am not going to get into the rest of the "World Collide" section of this course in this review. I will get to the other units within it at a later date. I really wanted to cover the horrible "Before Contact" unit because it is so so bad. I absolutely do not recommend Khan Academy history. Find something with actual facts, as Khan does not have them.
I am not going to get into the rest of the "World Collide" section of this course in this review. I will get to the other units within it at a later date. I really wanted to cover the horrible "Before Contact" unit because it is so so bad. I absolutely do not recommend Khan Academy history. Find something with actual facts, as Khan does not have them.
