Book Review - Major Events in World History

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

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

Table of contents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Mesopotamia”

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

“Abraham: The Father of Three Faiths”

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

“The Greek Empire and Alexander the Great”

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

“The Life of Jesus”

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

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

“The Crusades”

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

“Mongolian Invasion of Europe”

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

“The Renaissance”

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

“Invention of the Printing Press”

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

“Portugal Sets Sail”

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

“Columbus Explores the Americas”

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

“Cortes and South American Aztecs”

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

“The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade”

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

“The Seven Years War”

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

“The European Enlightenment”

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

“The American Revolution”

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

“Haitian Revolution”

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

“The Women’s Movement”

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

“Gold Rush”

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

“The Suez Canal and the Scramble for Africa”

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

“The Rise of Communism”

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

“Civil Rights Movement”

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

“The War on Terror”

This is United Statesian propaganda. It is highly biased.

 

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

I definitely do not recommend this book.

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.

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.

Book Review - History Smashers: The Mayflower

People ask me for recommendations of good books about “Thanksgiving” on a regular basis. Unfortunately, there aren’t really any children’s books on this topic that are historically accurate or books that avoid stereotypes and racist portrayals of Native peoples. Much of the Mayflower, Plymouth Colony, and “Thanksgiving” history is made up or exaggerated. There is a lot of mythology around US history that gets taught as real history. This topic is one of those mythologies.

Recently I saw an advertisement for a book called History Smashers: The Mayflower. This History Smashers series appears to be attempting to address these common mythologies told as history. The books are geared toward middle grade readers. So, I ordered the Mayflower book and gave it a good read. Due to the pattern of most books on this topic being highly inaccurate or continuing to perpetuate stereotypes, I did not go into with high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised.

Ch – 1 – Who Were the Pilgrims, Anyway?

This chapter does a good job correcting many common myths about the colonists on the Mayflower, including what they were called (hint: not pilgrims) and that they had been freely living in Holland for some time before 1620. This chapter also does something I do not often see addressed – how primary sources are not always reliable. It discusses how many primary sources have cultural misunderstandings, biases, and inaccuracies from the writer. From the book: “Still it is important to remember that historical writers had their own motivations and biases, just as people do today. And like modern people, seventeenth-century writers didn’t know everything, so some of their writings include misunderstandings or assumptions that are just plain wrong. Really, a primary source isn’t necessarily the truth of what happened; it’s an account of what the writer noticed and believed at that time. And sometimes people lie in primary sources…” I was impressed by the explanation of why primary sources are not always the best sources for accurate or truthful history. Many students are taught to rely on primary sources as authoritative, rather than viewing them with a critical eye.

Ch – 2 – Voyage on the Mayflower (But Not the Speedwell)

This chapter addresses the fact that the colonists were “given permission” to settle in Virginia, but the person giving the permission had no right to do so. It also addresses the Doctrine of Discovery and how it was used to invade and take over Native lands.

Ch – 3 – Journey Across the Sea

I was not as impressed with this chapter. It still uses the word “pilgrims” throughout rather than accurate terms for the time. If you correct the terminology earlier in the book, why go back to using historically inaccurate words? It also does not address that they were not actually on a religious pilgrimage. I would have liked to see some information about this. This is something that I address when I teach this topic and my students are usually surprised. It would be a great myth to add. Part of it discusses the word “pilgrim,” but still implies that they made the journey as a religious pilgrimage.

Ch – 4 – Welcome to Plymouth Rock! (Or Maybe Not…)

Here they address the Plymouth Rock myth. It starts with the Cape Cod landing which is often overlooked and mentions that Native nations have their own laws and rules for entering their territory.  It addresses the myth that the Mayflower Compact is an early version of the constitution or the first democratic government in the colonies. It talks about Wampanoag democracy which is also overlooked in history texts. It talks about how the colonists stole corn, followed Wampanoag and other man-made trails, and even mentions that there is no historical record of the colonists talking about paying anyone back for the stolen corn. Included is information about their grave robbing and ransacking of Native homes. It shows examples of historic paintings about “Thanksgiving” and what is wrong with them, including stereotypes of Native peoples. Manifest Destiny is discussed and how Native stereotypes and invisibility were present in art to push the manifest destiny narrative. It is quite detailed in addressing common myths and omissions of this history.

Ch – 5 – People of the First Light

In this chapter they address “wild and unsettled” and “wilderness” myths. The land was populated and not “wild” at all. It addresses how the English did not understand the Wampanoag people and that what they wrote about the Wampanoag is often false. They talk about English descriptions intentionally making them sound primitive when they were not, to further the aim of colonization.  They discuss the “freedom of religion” myth and their persecution of Wampanoag people for not being Christian. There is more detailed discussion on false information and biases in primary sources. It talks about Wampanoag industriousness and ecology, cultural concepts of giving thanks and taking care of the Earth, and it even gives details about their metal use, fashion, community, government, confederations, trade, and trade routes all over North America. It is impressively detailed. I was very happy to see information about modern Wampanoag cultural preservation. It directly names Zervia Gould Mitchell and Jessie Little Doe Baird and their language revitalization work. Children’s books do not often name modern Native people by name. This is a very welcome change. It addresses the “no written languages” myth and discusses birch bark writing and wampum as a form of recording information. Unfortunately, it does say “Native culture” instead of “Native cultures” plural. I am rather picky about that as it is a common misconception that we are all the same. It is important to pluralize the word “culture” when discussing many different Native nations all together.

Ch – 6 – Long Winter at Plymouth

This part addresses diseases that killed Native people in New England, how the colonists found used, but empty, land due to a plague from years earlier. Samoset and Tisquantum are introduced.  

Ch – 7 – The Pilgrims and the Wampanoag People

Here they go into more details about Samoset. They introduce the Native names of the area and discusses the previous epidemic in more detail. It talks about Thomas Hunt kidnapping Natives and selling them into slavery. I did notice stereotypes in the images, though. The book is attempting to address and squash stereotypes, but they still show Samoset and Tisquantum in summer clothes instead of winter/spring clothes as they would have been wearing when they approached the colonists. The clothing is at least accurate, but not weather appropriate. This is something I discuss with my students. Native people tend to be shown in less clothing to make them look primitive or inferior to Europeans. There is no reason to depict Native men shirtless in the spring in New England. This chapter also goes into much more detail about Tisquantum, his back story, and some of his actions with the colonists.

Ch – 8 – The Myth of the First Thanksgiving

Here they call “the First Thanksgiving” an “origin myth,” which it is. It talks about the name “Thanksgiving” and brings up the use of this term after the Pequot Massacre in 1637. It introduces the concept of harvest festivals being a universal concept in the world. They still tell the “fish, shellfish, and eels” myth even though this food would have been out of season due to the weather. It would have been too cold to dig for clams and eels or go fishing in the fall. They go into more details about historical inaccuracies in paintings that depict this myth, and they discuss how primary sources become myths over time. This leads to them being considered history when they are not. Unfortunately, here they use the slur “squ*w” uncensored and do not explain that it is a slur. They again have drawings of Native men in the winter wearing summer clothes, which makes no sense. It has great historic information that smashes a lot of myths, but still some issues.

Ch – 9 – From the Mayflower to the Seaflower

The last chapter discusses why not everyone celebrates “Thanksgiving.” They talk about how Wampanoag and English viewed the land differently. It addresses the English beliefs that their god wanted them to have the land that belonged to someone else. It busts the myth that the English and Wampanoag were “friends” and talks about distrust, tension, and the fact that the English displayed Native heads on poles for all to see. It brings up the destruction of Native farms and towns. It then goes into more detail about the Pequot Massacre and King Phillip’s War. They address how the Wampanoag were later enslaved. They tell the history of the Seaflower ship carrying enslaved Natives to the Caribbean, and then about the reconnection of Wampanoag people in New England with the descendants of enslaved Wampanoag people in the Caribbean, which is a pretty incredible story. I was thrilled to see it included. There is a discussion about how Native people were robbed of land, cultures (but again says culture instead of cultures), and ways of life, and how people were forced to assimilate. There is a quote from Linda Coombs, a Wampanoag Historian. Again, naming modern Native people by name is an important part of writing about us, but is often left out. Her quote was a great inclusion. It also quotes Wamsutta James’ Thankgiving speech which was suppressed. This led to the establishment of the National Day of mourning in 1970, which continues today. The chapter ends with discussion on Native foods.

There are some book recommendations at the end that includes some good books, but also some problematic and not recommended books. I would avoid the Sarah Eaton’s Day, Samuel Morton’s Day, and Tapenum’s Day books.

Overall, I was quite impressed by this book. It does a great job addressing many common myths and stereotypes. It also includes Native voices and resources, which is something these books often do not do. This is a vital part of telling this history that is unfortunately left out in most cases. I was thrilled to see names and quotes from modern Wampanoag people and the highlights of some of the work they are doing. I was, however, disappointed in the stereotypical imagery of Native men. There is no reason to include art that perpetuate stereotypes when the book is attempting to “smash” those myths and stereotypes. They should have depicted them in weather appropriate clothing as they would have actually been dressed. The uncensored use of a racial slur for Native women with no explanation of the harm of the word was problematic. They should have addressed the word as a slur.  Still, I do recommend this book. I would definitely address the stereotypes and racial slur as your students/children come to them in the book. Even when people make a solid attempt at addressing historical myths, they can still make mistakes. This would be a valuable discussion to have. Who wrote this book and from what perspective? Non-Native people may not pick up on the issues I did due to their cultural lens. Learning how to identify those issues is an important skill to have. I am always learning how to identify the same types of issues regarding other cultures and people groups because I do not have their lived experiences and cultural lenses. Always continue learning and asking these questions.