Book Review - Major Events in American History

 

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

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

Table of contents:

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

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

"Brief Summary of 400 Years"

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

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

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

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

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

"Founding of the City of Cahokia"

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

"Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace"

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

"De Soto Invades Florida"

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

"The Mysterious Roanoke Colony"

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

"Jamestown"

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

"Slavery Introduced in the Colonies"

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

"Mayflower"

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

"Great Awakening"

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

"French and Indian War"

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

"Proclamation of 1763"

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

"Declaration of Independence"

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

"The Revolutionary War"

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

"Constitutional Convention"

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

"Louisiana Purchase"

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

"Lewis and Clark Expedition"

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

"Trail of Tears"

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

"Mexican American War"

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

"Gold Rush"

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

"Election of 1860"

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

"Civil War"

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

"The Transcontinental Railroad"

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

"15^th Amendment"

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

"Opening of Ellis Island"

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

Indigenous people largely disappear from the book by this point

"World War 1"

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

"19^th Amendment"

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

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

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

"Cold War"

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

"The Vietnam War"

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

"Passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act"

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

"Invention of Facebook"

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

"Black Lives Matter Movement"

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

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

I do not recommend this book.