Not an Untouched Wilderness

One of the biggest US founding mythologies is the idea of an “untouched wilderness.” A core story that almost all of US history is then built upon. The “pilgrims” landed in an untouched wilderness and built something out of nothing. Lewis and Clark “blazed paths” through the “wilderness.” The pioneers went west into a wilderness and “tamed” the wilderness. They shaped the “unused” land the “Indians” had done nothing with and built this “great nation” from the wild. 

You’ll find this story in children's books, chapter books, educational resources, textbooks, documentaries, teacher resources and lesson plans, online resources and articles, etc. It is literally everywhere. I see it in basically every single curriculum that I review, so I decided to post this.

It is completely, 100%, a myth. There is no truth to it. It is a foundational US origin story, but it has absolutely no basis in reality. 

Where did this myth come from? It comes from a mixture of colonial ideology, romanticism, and legal policies created to erase Indigenous stewardship.

Colonial ideologies - after early Spanish contact and genocide, diseases spread throughout North America far beyond first contacts. Many died from genocide as well, which is usually discounted by the disease narrative. Make no mistake, millions of deaths were caused by genocide and conditions created to destroy people - disruption of food systems and subsistence food production, disruption of trade networks, malnutrition, starvation, loss of land and resources, loss of will to live, and enslavement. All of this also helped the diseases kill more people. All of this caused what has been called the “great dying,” in which so many Indigenous people died that the temperature of the earth cooled. By the time the English began invading and committing genocide, they were witnessing the aftermath of this - seeing previous cities, farms, and towns grown over and thought it was the natural state of things. Indigenous societies, politics, and power still had a MASSIVE influence on the colonies and the formation of the US, but the land the English invaded in the 1600s wasn’t the same as what it had been 100 years earlier.

Romanticism - if early invaders had told their families and friends in Europe the truth about Indigenous people, the land, and the colonies…far less people would have come. They had to “hype” it up quite a bit to sell the idea of coming to the Americas. Think about it...if someone wrote home saying "This place is terrible. We're starving, we have no idea how to farm or build adequate housing, the Natives don't want us here but sometimes they trade with us even though we keep stealing from them, everyone is dying...don't come." of course no one would send their families!

They needed romanticized stories of “virgin land” and “wilderness” to spread throughout Europe to attract more colonists. Later in the 17 and 1800s, people like John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt sold the idea of “virgin land” as central to an “American Identity.” They used the idea of wilderness to not only displace Indigenous people from their lands to create national parks, but also to create a symbol of purity and national pride. It was also used to reinforce racist ideologies and environmental hierarchies. 

Policies - The Wilderness Act of 1964 then essentially erased thousands of years of Indigenous land management and legally codified the mythology of “untouched wilderness” into US policy. This is just one example of legal policies that perpetuated this myth.

Now we will examine the realities of this land - This was not an “untouched wilderness.”

The number of people living in the Americas was somewhere between 75 to 112 million! This was about one fifth of the world’s population in the 1400s. There were more people living in the Americas than in Europe during Europe’s Middle Ages. Mesoamerica was one of the most densely populated places on Earth. There may have been over 1 million people living on the island of Hispaniola at one point. Estimates say 10 to 18 million people were living north of what is now called Mexico. We may never know how many people were actually living in North America at the time, but we do know that it was very populated.

We often hear that “the Indians lived in harmony with the land” or we simply “lived off the land” as is, with no mention of Indigenous landscape engineering - shaping the land to meet our needs in a way that doesn’t harm the natural systems. It’s always “the Indians lived with what the land gave them” and not “Indigenous people shaped the land to meet their needs." It should be the latter. Indigenous people were and are stewards of the land, not passive like the myths, but active and working within natural systems.

Agricultural practices covered more than ⅔ of what is now the US. The other ⅓ would be areas that don’t support agriculture like the arctic and areas like Death Valley. Many societies were hunter-farmer societies, rather than the often taught “hunter gatherers.” Around ⅔ of the world’s produce was originally cultivated by farmers and scientists in the Americas (North and South). The rest of the world did not have potatoes, tomatoes, corn, squash, chocolate, vanilla, several types of beans, chili peppers, and many more foods before the 1500s. Foods that were originally grown in the Americas have influenced food in all cultures of the world since then. Think about Thai food without chili peppers, Italian food without tomatoes, and French creme brulee without vanilla.

“But indigenous agriculture didn’t look like European agriculture, so colonizers did not recognize it as such. Indigenous agriculture largely was designed to work as a natural system, with the curves and fluctuations of the land. In Europe, agriculture always left scars on the land and was rigid and structured. Colonizers thought the land they encountered was natural. They had no understanding of indigenous practices and technologies that had shaped it, because they did not recognize indigenous people as capable of landscape engineering.”How is “Wilderness” a Colonial Construct? — Organeyez | by Naira de Gracia | Medium 

When the English colonizers invaded the east coast, they noted that they could drive their horse drawn wagons through the forest without obstruction, unlike the untended forests in Europe. They did not recognize the human touch needed to create such conditions due to racism. 

Agroforestry - forest farming - combines agricultural knowledges and practices with forestry technologies and management. One of the most famous examples in the Americas is the Amazon Rainforest - it is literally a man-made food forest. It did not occur naturally. Another great example is the forest gardens/food forests of the Pacific Northwest, in which these deliberately altered and managed forests promoted a much higher biodiversity than surrounding forest areas. Methods included controlled burns of undergrowth and promoting some forests natural fire cycles, soil enhancement, development of forest gardens which mimics natural ecosystems, and alley cropping. Ancient Wisdom Meets Modern Farming: Indigenous Agroforestry Success Stories - CSA Farm Directory 

IAN 

Pacific Northwest's ‘forest gardens’ were deliberately planted by Indigenous people | Science | AAAS 

The great grasslands of the west are also man made. Small pockets of grassland existed naturally, they were expanded by humans and carefully managed over thousands of years to benefit the bison and other animals of the region.

“With careful use of fire they could manage wild herds of bison without needing to domesticate them. In other words they managed the bison’s habitat rather than domesticating the bison. In many ways it was a much superior strategy. This because productive habitat then becomes full of a large variety of useful animals and plants. The most significant type of environmental change brought about by Pre-columbian human activity was the modification of vegetation. … Vegetation was primarily altered by the clearing of forest and by intentional burning. Natural fires certainly occurred but varied in frequency and strength in different habitats. The result of clearing and burning was, in many regions, the conversion of forest to grassland, savanna, scrub, open woodland, and forest with grassy openings.” -William M. Denevan, Imperfect balance: landscape transformations in the Precolumbian Americas

By modifying the vegetation and habitat to favor bison, they insured their food supply without needing to domesticate them.

Urban development also altered and shaped the land. Most Native nations were not historically nomadic, which is a common myth. Most stayed in one place and farmed, developed towns and cities, built roads, etc. Many also worked with metals - including copper, gold, silver, tin, bronze, platinum, and even a little iron from meteorites in Alaska.

Some of the largest cities in the world were in the Americas in the 13 and 1400s. These cities were full of culture, learning, and advancements for society. They were centers of trade for entire regions of the Americas. People developed arts, music, dance, and ceremonies. Cities and communities developed economies as well as political and social structures. There were vast trade networks that spanned both continents. Some cities and towns built road systems. Urban development also included agricultural practices, agroforestry, land management, and animal management. Mound builders built large earthen pyramids and effigy mounds which enhanced the natural landscape and also for utilitarian purposes like avoiding annual flooding (as well as religious, ceremonial, social, and political purposes). Ancestral Puebloans built large cities of adobe, consisting of multi-story buildings like apartments, irrigation canals so they could farm in the desert, and road systems.

Water systems - many nations developed advanced irrigation systems - rain catchment systems, step farming, dug canals (can still see some 1000+ yr old canals in the southwest), built aqueducts, etc. The Maya even developed advanced water purification systems. “Native people had running water when Europeans were still pooping in their bedrooms.” - Laura Martinez, MA

Even nomadic nations shaped the land - many practiced a form of flood plain agriculture - planting at certain times of the year in flood planes with rich soil, leaving the area, and coming back months later to ripe crops. Some practiced controlled burning and animal management as mentioned above. 

A few stories from history from a different perspective that show the lack of "wilderness":

After invading Peru, Hernando de Soto decided to invade the southeast part of what is now the United States. He was already known among his men as being a brutal “Indian killer.” In 1539, de Soto came to the area now known as Florida with a fleet of ships and an army of soldiers. Along with soldiers, he brought Catholic priests and average people from Spain. They immediately enslaved people from Timucuan, Muskogean, and Siouan nations. They traveled north through Florida attacking and fighting the nations they came across. De Soto continued to capture people to enslave as he went. They thought that there was gold northeast of where they were, so they traveled up through modern day Georgia. He continued north through South Carolina and North Carolina and then turned west to Tennessee. De Soto came across great mound cities when he invaded the southeast. Some people think that the mound cities had already declined, or been abandoned, before the Europeans came, but de Soto described these cities and the people in his writing. He saw them thriving. These cities did not decline until the 1600s, after Europeans came and did things like De Soto as well as spread diseases. De Soto burnt down whole towns and killed even peaceful people who approached them.

When the English colonized the southeast and created colonies in the 1600-1700s, the area still had many Native nations, but the mound cities were abandoned and the people had dispersed into the Southeastern nations like the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, etc. by that time. What the English saw was what they called "wilderness" because the cities had been forced to disperse before they arrived. 

In 1534 a French invader named Jacques Cartier traveled down the St. Lawrence River from the Atlantic Ocean. He traveled to the area now known as the city of Quebec, Canada. The king of France wanted him to find gold and “precious things,” because the myths of great lands of gold had spread around Europe by this time. Even though it wasn’t true, Europeans believed there was a great land of gold here and were scrambling to get it. As he traveled down the river, he wrote that he saw big towns full of people and large fields of crops and orchards along the river. He saw great societies of healthy, thriving people. He encountered the Mi’kmaq, Montagnais, Algonquin, Huron and Abenaki nations. He said that he “claimed” the area for France without recognizing to the rights of the nations that he was seeing. He didn’t spend a lot of time interacting with the people he saw. He traded with some Mi’kmaq and captured two Haudenosaunee leaders and enslaved them as guides. He made several trips between France and the eastern part of Canada over the next 10 years. Each time, he was taking land and starting colonies and also looking for riches. On his second trip he came to the Haudenosaunee city of Stadacona where he saw a large thriving city. He captured their leader, Donnacona, and several other people. He took them back to France as slaves and they were never able to return to their homelands. They died in France. On his last voyage the nations fought back against him because he had taken captives and been cruel to them before. They fought the French to defend their nations. The French settlements did not last long and they returned to Europe. The French also brought diseases with them which spread and killed many people in the area. Cartier saw massive towns, not wilderness

Decades later in 1603 another Frenchman named Samuel de Champlain came to invade the same area. By this time, disease had killed many Native people and others fled the area because of the disorder left behind by the previous invaders. Champlain saw overgrown riverbanks and abandoned towns instead of the thriving cities and towns that had been there before. He called it a wilderness and spread stories about it being untouched. This fueled myths in Europe that this was a wilderness. 

Jamestown - this colony could not have survived without assistance from the Powhatan Confederacy. They experienced multiple starvation times when they broke promises and Native people cut them off from trade and diplomacy. They resorted to cannibalism during "starving times." If this had been a wilderness, Jamestown would have never survived.

Mayflower - These people were mostly religious extremists (that were NOT called "pilgrims") that came to the Americas to establish their own "holy kingdom" that only allowed one religion. They had already been living in Holland freely with no one persecuting them for over a decade by the time they got on the Mayflower. They were not fleeing persecution, and they were not seeking freedom of religion, as they didn't believe anyone else around them should have different beliefs than them. Patuxet, what they called Plymouth, was their third landing place in the Americas, not the first (and there was no Plymouth Rock). The second was Pamet, or what they called Provincetown Harbor. They sent out an exploratory party to look around the area in November 1620. That party came across an empty farm. It was empty because the Nauset people lived inland in the winter, this was their spring/summer home. The colonizers uncovered buried corn - corn that was in baskets and covered by woven mats, so it obviously belonged to someone and was set aside for a purpose. They stole that corn. Later they came back and stole more corn, pillaged the homes and stole items, and also robbed the nearby graves. You can actually read all of this in their own words, too, they wrote it down.

A month later they decided to move on, got back in the Mayflower, and ended up in Patuxet (Plymouth). Patuxet was empty because of a plague spread by other English people fishing in the area in 1616 to 1619. This plague killed tens of thousands of people and reduced the Wampanoag population by 90%. This is why "Plymouth" was empty when the Mayflower arrived. They colonizers took over existing infrastructure. They took over existing farmland, houses that were already built, traveled paths and roads that already existed, etc. Half of the colony still died that winter because they had no idea what they were doing or how to survive. Had the Wampanoag not stepped in that spring and eventually created a political alliance with them, none of them would have survived. Had this been an actual wilderness, none of them would have survived.

Lewis and Clark - the Corp of Discovery didn't discover anything, and they certainly didn't "blaze" any paths through a "wilderness." This was a military reconnaissance mission with the intention of spying for the purpose of invasion (expansion). They used man-made trails - trails that Indigenous people had used for thousands of years. They didn't make their own. They used maps (yes, Indigenous people had maps!) and detailed directions from Native nations to travel. They would have gotten lost otherwise. They were saved multiple times by different nations because they had no idea what they were doing and would have died without being rescued. Had this been a wilderness, they would not have even made it to the Pacific Ocean.

There are many, many more stories like this, these are just the highlights.

To reiterate - had this actually been an untouched wilderness, NONE of the invaders and colonizers would have survived and there literally would not be a United States. The mythology of wilderness actually negates the existence of the US, and yet stories in US history hinge upon that myth. When teaching about Native peoples it is vital to highlight the development, advancements, and technologies of Indigenous societies. It is also important to discuss these myths openly and honestly to help break down the stereotypes students have learned and internalized and to open their minds to a completely different understanding of history.

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.

Curriculum Review - Calvert Publications - 2nd Grade History and Geography

 

This may be a somewhat lesser-known secular homeschool curriculum, but it seems to have gained popularity in recent years. I was graciously sent (by a friend) the 2nd grade curriculum to review. The 2nd grade curriculum was chosen because it came up in a homeschool group I am in online. 

It comes in a box of 10 booklets, each one being a whole unit, and a teacher guide. Each booklet/unit is divided into sections. In the review, I will name the section that I am referencing. 

UNIT 1 - Looking Back

About ¼ way through the book is a section titled “Studying about History and Geography.” It states that “Christopher Columbus discovered North America.” It is stated that this was learned in 1st grade, so I guess I need to get a look at the 1st grade curriculum as well. It goes on to say “we love our country because we know how hard the early pioneers worked and how brave they were.” So this is already setting up to be some strong propaganda.

It says the country is the United States of America, but then goes on to call it “America.” If you’ve read any of my reviews, you know this is a big pet peeve of mine. America is two whole continents (or 1 depending on what continent model you’re taught), not a country. The United States is NOT “America” and United Statesians (what I call people of the US) are not "Americans" (or at least not the only Americans). This incorrect terminology is used throughout the books, so I will not address it again, but I notice it every time I see it.

The next section is called “Learning about Early Times” and goes on to say that there were no houses or buildings here and all you could hear were birds and animals. It is unclear what time period this is referring to, but it seems to imply that before Europeans came that there were no people or civilizations here. In between this section and “the Native Americans” section there is information about planets, Earth, land and water, and European “explorers.” So my interpretation seems to be pretty accurate, that they are saying before Europeans came that there were no civilizations or towns or any development. Of course, this is extremely inaccurate.

In “Ideas That Changed the World” it talks about inventions and developing methods of travel for long distance. It is very Eurocentric. Even though it is written in a more generic “people” kind of way, it is pretty clear by the end of the section that “people” means Europeans. “Using these new ways of travel, explorers met new groups of people. Now, they could trade with people from faraway places.” This is clearly an introduction to European “explorers,” not the history of Asian, African, Native, or Pacific Islander seafaring and traveling, or explorers, if you will. This section implies that those “new groups of people” (ie non-Europeans) were not trading and traveling. Except they were long before Europeans stopped being afraid of traveling out of sight of land.

And sure enough, the next two sections are about European “explorers,” Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus. The way both are written about are extremely Eurocentric, but I am going to focus on the Columbus part. “A Journey by Ocean” is what the Columbus section is titled. It starts out with the myth that Europeans believed the world was flat and that the were afraid to sail of the edge of the Earth. I can’t for the life of me figure out why this myth is still being taught in 2022. It’s been known to be false for decades at this point. “Christopher Columbus was the first man brave enough to make this journey into unknown waters.” Hmm, no, he was not. He wasn't even the first European to do it. In reality, he was motivated by finding gold and finding people to enslave. He was known to be not brave, but arrogant. It misnames two of his ships (La Nina and La Pinta are not the actual names) instead of saying we don't actually know their names. It claims he thought he landed in India, however there was no country or area known as “India” in 1492, so he couldn’t possibly think that. What he really believed was that he was in what Europeans called the Indies. These are two very different things, yet it continues to be taught that he thought he was in “India.” It maintains the claim that he was “discovering” land. It also says that later he learned that the lands were “of a New World.” Not only is the term “New World” incredibly problematic and Eurocentric, but this statement may also not be true. The verdict is still out, but he may have died believing he had landed in the Indies. Regardless, this entire section is pure mythology.

I want to point out that these early Europeans were not “explorers.” They were not motivated by exploration and that’s not what they were actually doing either. In fact, Columbus explicitly states in his own journals that he has no time to explore because he wants gold. So, it needs to be made clear – these people were never “explorers.” Most of the early Europeans that came to the Americas were slave traders and treasure hunters.

Now we get to the “fun” part. This next section is called “The Trail of the Native Americans.” The summary starts off not capitalizing the word “native.” It is important to capitalize words like “Native” and “Indigenous” when referring to people. The section then maintains the claim that Columbus thought it was “India” when no such country existed at the time. It starts a monolithic section called “The Native Americans.” I hate monolithic language like this. There is no such thing as “the Native Americans.” There are thousands of Native nations from North to South America. The word “the” makes it monolithic. And in this section, it perpetuates the Bering Land Bridge mythology (I’ve linked articles in many reviews, but this theory has been disproven repeatedly.) To its credit, it does speculate that “maybe” Natives came by boat and that some historians believe this. But it mainly promotes the land bridge myth and the mythology of all Natives spreading across the Americas by starting in Alaska. The picture that goes with this page shows tipis (from some of the Plains nations) next to a river with boats from Pacific Northwest cultures. THESE DO NOT BELONG TOGETHER. The entire section is a monolith.

Next we have “Native American Groups.” I will harp on this issue until I die…we are NOT GROUPS. Native nations are SOVERIGN NATIONS. Calling our nations “groups” is no different than calling the United States a “group” or France a “group.” 

It then makes absurd statement after statement all the way through this section, starting with “The Native Americans who settled along the Pacific Coast in Canada were called the Northwest Coastal Indians. Those in the west were called the California Group.” And it goes on and on claiming that each region is the actual name of Native peoples/nations. It makes absolutely no sense. No…Native nations along the SOUTHWEST coast of Canada were not and are not called “Northwest Coastal Indians,” especially considering the Pacific Coast of Canada is not their northwest. That is a REGION, a term used to group culturally similar nations together by region, but it is not that they are called. Also note the exclusive use of past tense language here, which is another huge pet peeve of mine. If we are talking exclusively in the past, no one ever called them that historically, that is a modern term. And who has ever referred to Native nations in California as “the California Group”??? No one. That’s literally not a thing. 

It lists “the Great Basin Group,” “the Southwest Indian Group,” “Plains Indians,” “Plateau Indians,” “the Eastern Woodlands Group,” and “the Southeast Group.” This curriculum literally just made up most of these terms and said this is what they “were” called. None of these are actual terms used anywhere academically or culturally in the US or by Native nations. No one ever calls any of the nations these names. This is literally just not a thing.

The next page is a “map study” that perpetuates this absurd, completely made-up list of names, and continues using past tense language exclusively like “where Native Americans lived.” Um…we still live in these places. It then even says to search on the internet using the term “Native American Groups.” Yes, you’ll turn up search results all right. They’ll be horribly inaccurate and not from Natives.

On the next page it says that within these “groups, there were many Native American tribes.” So now they’re at least distinguishing between regional groupings and nations, but still with inaccurate language and seeming to contradict previous statements about what “groups” are (and then it goes back to referring to “tribes” as “groups” instead, so they’re not even being consistent with how they use that term). And then we have a whole page of stereotypes, racism, misinformation, false ideas...the whole thing is horrible. I’ve never seen any curriculum write about Europeans in this same way. Why write so horrible about Natives and then write correctly and specifically about Europeans? White supremacy and eurocentrism, that's why. It makes blanket statements about nations in each region being all the same, calls tipis “tents,” says that Eastern Natives “helped” Europeans (they didn't really) and lumps all southwestern nations into “cliff dwellers.” This unit is full of all the junk I am constantly combatting in every single class I teach to children and adults.

It has an assignment to look up “what Native American tribes lived closest to where you now live” as if we don’t still live here. It says to write a paragraph and it has prompts that are all entirely based on the past. “What kind of home did they live in,” “how did they get their food,” “what kind of clothing did they wear” – all material culture of the past. I’ll help answer those for anyone in north Texas…I live in a one-story brick house, I shop at the grocery store for my food, and I wear mostly jeans and t-shirts. There. See how absurd it is to act like we don’t still exist?

At least they don’t directly claim Columbus was the first European here…they do actually teach about the Norse. They do imply this by claiming Columbus "discovered" the Americas, but then they contradict that when they bring up the Norse. I’d be impressed if the rest of this curriculum wasn’t so horrible. However, what they teach about the Norse isn’t accurate and they continue to perpetuate Eurocentric narratives and terminology. They say they were called “Vikings,” but that’s really just a job title of sorts, not the people as a whole. They repeat the common mythology of “they came for a short time, didn’t stay long, not much is known, we only know because of archaeology.” It says nothing of attempting to conquer, of kidnapping women and bringing them back to Europe, or of the oral histories from the nations who encountered them and can tell us a lot more about that time than archaeology ever has.

“Symbols and Historic Places.” This section is about historic Native use of Alibates Flint and about Mesa Verde. It claims that Natives “before the time of Columbus, used rocks and other natural resources to make their tools.” This primitivizes us and makes it sound like we weren’t advancing like the rest of the world. We were. Metals were extensively used in some places, including the southwest where this is talking about. It claims that “people traveled great distances to gather the flint to make tools.” It then says these have been found from Montana to Mexico. But that’s not how Alibates flint spread from Montana to Mexico…it didn’t spread because people traveled to Texas to get it…it spread due to extensive trade routes and networks, including a highway system in the southwest. This is ridiculous. The Mesa Verde part isn’t as bad, but it’s still quite Eurocentric and over simplified.

UNIT 2 - Settling the New World

“Settling the New World.” This is the introduction to this unit. I’m already incredibly fed up with this curriculum and this is only book 2. This unit perpetuates U.S. founding mythology and Eurocentric views and terminology. “Christopher Columbus’s discovery of the New World made people curious.” Again, “people” here means Europeans, as if they’re the universal default of everything. People around the world were already curious and traveling, but this is never brought up. “New World” is a problematic and inaccurate term. And Columbus didn’t “discover” anything. Then we get the mythology of Europeans seeking freedom of religion…that they “needed” to come here for that. It even says, “They needed a place to freely practice their religion.” They already had that in Europe! They did not need to come here. Their reasons had nothing to do with need and everything to do with greed and fantasies of superiority.

“The First Settlers.” They weren’t really “settlers” though, they were invaders and colonizers. It starts off with information about “charters” saying that it “allowed them to build a town…in the New World.” But who gave the King of England the right to “allow” that in the first place?? Natives certainly did not. This is propaganda and mythology.

“The Story of Jamestown.” Oh good heavens, this whole story is Eurocentric mythology that makes Natives out to be the “bad guys.” “The native people did not welcome them at first.” But did we ever really?? It wouldn’t have mattered; they were hell bent on dominating us and taking our land. “The neighboring Powhatan Indians repeatedly attacked Jamestown.” You mean they defended themselves against an invasion? Because that’s not “attacking,” it’s self-defense. If someone started squatting on your land and claiming it was theirs, you’d do whatever you could to get rid of them. It says nothing of the Jamestown colonists attacking Natives, refusing assistance from Natives, being too lazy to work, or any of the other negative things about the Europeans of Jamestown. It makes them sound good and positive only. Next it perpetuates some of the Pocahontas mythology claiming that her marriage to Rolfe was happy and brought peace…nothing of her being forced to marry him and the “peace” was not really a good arrangement. This is what propaganda looks like, folks.

“Finding Freedom.” Now we get to the mythology about the Mayflower, starting with the “seeking freedom of religion” myth. Here’s the deal…the Mayflower colonists were not seeking freedom of religion. None of the colonies were founded on freedom of religion. That’s just historically false. Their explanation of who the separatists are is fine, and surprisingly they include information about them moving to the Netherlands (Holland) in 1608, which most textbooks and curricula don’t include. It says that the “Pilgrims” (which they were not ever called) began to worry that their children were becoming too much like the Dutch, but then doesn’t expand on that. It states this as if that’s a perfectly normal and acceptable reason to leave and go invade and violently colonize another nation. They continue using the problematic term “New World” as if it’s also perfectly acceptable, when it is not. 

It then turns to mythology. It states that “they hoped to start a colony where they could freely practice their beliefs.” This is not why they came to the Americas or started a colony. The founding of Plymouth colony had little to do with this. They wanted economic opportunities where they could get rich without other cultural influences on their children and they decided the best way to do this was to colonize other people. They set out to establish their own “Holy Kingdom” where only their religion was allowed. They persecuted others who believed differently than them (isn’t that what they were supposedly escaping? They weren’t really, but still…). It continues to say they “had permission to settle in Virginia” – permission from whom? The King of England, yes, but how is that valid when that’s not his land? It ends with “The Pilgrims became the second group of pioneers to arrive in the New World.” Wow, what? They weren’t anywhere close to the second group; they weren’t even the second set of English to show up! They did end up establishing the second successful English colony, but that hardly makes them the second group of people to even arrive in the Americas. There’s over 100 years of European colonization that has been happening in the Americas by 1620. There is no historical accuracy to this statement. 

“The Pilgrims at Plymouth.” They weren’t “pilgrims,” so why are we still calling them that? They were separatists. It states that since they weren’t in Virginia, they weren’t under their laws. But then it states, “In fact, this place had no government.” So the Wampanoag Sachem didn’t exist? The Wampanoag had government, so therefore this place did have government. They didn’t have EUROPEAN government, but it was still government. It then says they found a “deserted Native American village.” They did not. The pillaged and plundered their way through the area, including robbing graves, and took over the town of Patuxet. Patuxet was empty due to a European disease that had swept through a year earlier and killed around 90% of the people so the survivors fled and incorporated into other Wampanoag towns or other nations to the north. The town of Patuxet was not “deserted,” its people had been destroyed. Governor Bradford stated that it was “the good hand of God” that had swept “away multitudes of the natives that He might make room for us.” This is not mentioned anywhere in the curriculum. 

Now the mythology really picks up, complete with patronizing Eurocentric language. It states that they “met some friendly Wampanoag Indians. One of them was Squanto.” No and no. “Friendly” is patronizing. We don’t say “friendly Europeans” and “hostile Europeans.” This was political diplomacy. They were approached, out of pity, by diplomatic Wampanoag (not “Indians”) who were somewhat spying on them. “Squanto” was not his name. A man named Tisquantum was among the Wampanoag who politically approached the colonizers. It then states that “As a boy, Squanto was captured by English sailors. They took him to England. He learned to speak English while he was there. Eventually, Squanto returned home and joined the Wampanoag tribe.” What a ridiculous way to say he was kidnapped and enslaved by the English. He didn’t just get captured and then happily taken to England to learn English. He was sold into slavery. He escaped and made his way home. He didn’t “join” the Wampanoag “tribe,” he reunited with his nation.

It finishes with a “thanksgiving” myth I’ve never seen before and it’s incredibly absurd. It claims that “Every year, the Wampanoag Indians held a Harvest Festival of Thanksgiving. They invited the Pilgrims to celebrate with them. This yearly feast became the Thanksgiving tradition we celebrate today.” The image that accompanies this has a racist cartoony drawing of “pilgrims and Indians” that look absolutely ridiculous. But not only that, the entire story they claim as the history of “thanksgiving” is so not based in reality that it’s not even told anywhere else at all. Not in textbooks, not in other curricula, not in story books…it’s so off base that I’ve never seen it before. Now don’t get me wrong, the typical “thanksgiving” story is historically inaccurate and full of stereotypes, but I’ve never seen it botched this badly. I can’t believe I actually have to break this down, but here we go...

Every year the Wampanoag do celebrate a harvest tradition, now referred to as Cranberry Day. It takes place in October and celebrates the cranberry harvest. It is a time of giving thanks to their Creator and feasting. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the history in 1621 or today’s Thanksgiving holiday. The Wampanoag did not invite the colonizers to this harvest celebration, nor did the events of 1621 take place during that celebration. In actuality, the colonizers were celebrating their own harvest festival based on the English Harvest Home traditions that fall. However they did not invite anyone else. They barely had enough food for themselves, let alone anyone else. While they were celebrating, the Wampanoag nearby heard gunshots and were concerned, so they went to the colony to investigate. This was 90 men, no women or children. They crashed the colonizers party, saw it was a celebration, invited themselves to stay, hunted a bunch of deer to feed themselves and give to the colonizers, and spent 3 days talking politics with the men. That’s it. It was so unimportant that only one English person wrote anything down about it and that wasn’t for years. He only wrote one paragraph with very little detail. Wampanoag oral history is very detailed and we know what happened because of that. This event was not repeated and did not become an annual tradition. Even the modern creation of Thanksgiving in the late 1800s had nothing to do with that event, as the mythologies surrounding the so called “friendly pilgrim and Indian feast” didn’t even exist yet. 

So here we are...this curriculum has yet another absurd myth about "thanksgiving" being taught as fact.

“Settlers and Servants.” This section continues use of “New World" as a valid term. “Farmers came looking for new land to grow crops.” No mention of whose land that is. I always encourage people to teach the original caretakers of the land anywhere in the world. Saying they looked for “new land” perpetuates this idea that the land was just here for the taking and not belonging to people. “Adventurers arrived looking for excitement” – “excitement” in this time consisted of killing Natives and invading Native land. “Still others, like the Pilgrims, wanted the freedom to practice their religion as they wished.” This is a false statement. First of all, “pilgrims” is historically inaccurate. They were not called “pilgrims,” nor did they call themselves that. Secondly, these people knew they were invading someone else’s land and believed they had the divine right to take it for themselves. They also were not seeking freedom of religion. This is a significant US origin myth, but it’s just that…a myth. They wanted to create a “holy kingdom” where only THEY were free to worship as they pleased, but no one else could. They persecuted others. They also had already been living with freedom of religion in Holland before they came here. They had it already, they didn’t need to come seeking it.

One of the self-test questions is “Squanto was a ___ Indian who lived in England for a short time.” Lived in England??? He was kidnapped and enslaved! Another question “The Jamestown settlers had many problems with the ____ Indians.” Really? It’s the other way around, the Powhatan Confederacy had many problems with these foreign invaders. A “yes or no” question states, “the Wampanoag Indians were friendly and helped the Pilgrims grow crops.” No. Native nations have always built political relationships and used diplomacy. These are the words that should be used. Not “friendly.” This is patronizing. I’ve never seen things say “Friendly Europeans” or “hostile Europeans.” And “The Wampanoag Indians invited the Pilgrims to their Harvest Festival of…” (answer is supposed to be "Thanksgiving.") No one invited anyone to their celebrations! This is mythology, not history!

“Colonies of the New World” It mentions that many colonizers were “sent” by the king of England and says that the king “gave these companies land along the eastern coast of North America.” There is no mention of whose land it is, that this is an invasion, or that the king had no rights to give away someone else’s land. These are all concepts that 2nd graders can understand. I teach it to that age all the time. In the vocabulary section it defines “colonize” as “to settle a new place.” That is NOT the definition of colonize, even for 2nd graders. In the part about the Southern Colonies, it mentions that “the colonists grew rice, tobacco, indigo, and cotton…Southern colonists built large farms called plantations and planted huge fields.” There is ZERO mention of slavery or who was actually growing these crops. Same thing with the Middle Colonies section talking about farming and growing wheat and rye. It even goes on to say “Colonists worked together to meet their needs.” You mean they kidnapped people and forced them to work to meet their “needs??” This is a complete erasure of the actual history of these colonies. “The land and weather of each group of colonies supplied many different goods.” – no mention of whose land it was or that those resources were stolen. There is NO mention of slavery anywhere in Unit 2, despite the fact that this topic is entirely inaccurate and incomplete without it. However, it does go into detail about indentured servants that work their ship passage fees off in the colonies. So they’ll mention indentured servants, but not slavery? This is important in the curriculum later.

“Problems with Great Britain” This section is the typical narrative about “no taxation without representation” but for 2nd graders. There is no mention of the Proclamation of 1763 which was a major preceding factor that led to the war. This can absolutely be taught to that age. The British said no more expanding into Native land, that the borders of the colonies were to stay where they are. The colonists didn’t like this. They wanted to keep invading Native lands and taking it for themselves. This was one of the major reasons the Revolutionary War was started.

“The Boston Tea Party” Mentions that they dressed like “Mohawk Indians” to disguise themselves. When teaching about Natives and mentioning specific nations, there is absolutely no need or reason to say “______ Indians.” Just name the nation. Mohawk is fine. Mohawk nation is good. But “Mohawk Indians” is incorrect.

“Symbols and Historic Places” – Among the ones listed Plymouth rock and the Mayflower II is included. This one surprisingly mentions that the whole Plymouth Rock thing is a myth. But then it says “today it reminds Americans of the struggles these people survived to settle the New World.” This is whitewashing and erasure. These people invaded already developed land, killed Native people, and built right on top of it. The reason they struggled is because they had no idea what they were doing and because they kept invading peoples land and killing them, so people fought back. They didn’t have to go through all of that.

“Project” At the end of this unit there is a project to make a timeline. “Draw a timeline showing the following dates” and it lists “Columbus discovered America.” They perpetuate this myth throughout the curriculum and even tie it to the founding of the United States, which is completely bogus. Columbus had nothing to do with the United States.

UNIT 3 – A New Government for a New Country

“What is government?” “The government is made up of leaders that are chosen by the people.” It doesn’t make clear that this is talking about the US government only, it just states that “the government” which can give the wrong idea about various types of governments.

The next part is called “Different kinds of government” where they go into a few different forms of government. But the previous section was confusing without its proper context.

“Creating a Government” Here they talk about the creation of the constitution and all the founding documents and such. But they make no mention of Haudenosaunee influence, which is a major factor in the history of this topic.

The whole book is pretty standard drivel about the US government and how fair and perfect it is.

Unit 4 – Government Under the Constitution

Standard drivel about how the government works and the history of the constitution. I find it odd that not a single book has mentioned slavery yet, but a later section in Unit 4 mentions that the 13th amendment “made slavery against the law, or illegal, in the United States.” It also mentions that the 15th amendment made it against the law to “deny men the right to vote because of race or the color of their skin.” Even though there’s been no mention of slavery or the fact that this never got applied or about civil rights. This would be extremely confusing for students to not have been taught ANYTHING about those issues to this point and then suddenly this is mentioned with no context. “In 1920, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.” But no mention of non-white women not being included in this.

UNIT 5 – Our Government Close to Home

In one section called “Who are Americans?” it states “We are a nation of immigrants. The only people who are truly from this country are Native Americans. Everyone else has an ancestor, or relative, who came from another country. Some Americans came from England, Ireland, France, Germany or Spain. Others came from countries in Asia or the middle East.” There is still literally no mention of Africans, people being brought here from Africa, slavery, African Americans, etc. It ends this paragraph with “Together we are Americans.” Not all of us identify as “Americans.” Many Indigenous people do not. We do not all agree with this statement.

There is a section called “Citizens and Aliens.” This should have used better terminology. “Aliens” is super outdated and harmful. It states “They are called aliens while they live here.” Again, this is harmful and outdated terminology. No, “they” are not called “aliens” while they live here. They are humans. Immigrants maybe, but not “aliens.” Then it goes into “legal” and “illegal” “aliens.” No human beings are illegal! This is yet another harmful term.

“Duties as Citizens” states “You have certain duties as an American citizen.” No, no one is required to do anything. These are rights that people can choose to exercise or not exercise. Stop calling these “duties.”

UNIT 6 – Westward – From the Original Colonies

It blatantly starts with “The history of the United States began with the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus.” Aside from the glaring issue that Columbus didn’t “discover” anything, this literally has NOTHING to do with the history of the United States specifically. 1492 is NOT the start of US history. Then it says, “Over the next three hundred years, explorers from the European countries of England, Spain, Portugal, France and others explored and settled this new land.” None of these people were “explorers.” I’ve addressed that already. “The people now wanted to explore their new country.” Well, no, they didn’t want to “explore.” They wanted to expand. They wanted to take the land. And “their new country” is only the 13 colonies and what the Treaty of Paris illegally “granted” them (I say illegally because the Native nations whose land it was had no say). This is implying that by winning the Revolutionary War that the whole continent is “their new country.” This is ridiculous. It says that reaching the west coast was “a story of courage, bravery, and adventure.” No, it Is a story of invasion, theft, and genocide.

“The United States Grows” It claims that the Treaty of Paris “opened the door for Americans to explore new land.” None of this land is “new” and it all belongs to various Native nations. And again, the colonizers were not setting out to “explore” it, but rather to take it. It then expands and talks about the “new” boundaries of the Mississippi and down to Florida.

“Daniel Boone” This starts with “The land -given- to the United States in the Treaty of Paris was often called the Frontier” This land was not “given” to the US because the British had no right to claim it or “give” it in the first place. The land was stolen and then turned over to other thieves. It calls the land a “wilderness,” which it certainly was not. This land was developed, cultivated, managed and lived in before Europeans. European squatters took over existing infrastructure. If this had actually been a wilderness, none of them would have survived and there would be no U.S. That’s how incorrect this myth is. It then says he led “American explorers” into Kentucky and that they “found” a trail. They did not “find” anything. Natives had been using that trail long before Europeans came. And Bonne was not even the first European to use the Cumberland Gap. This whole story glorifies Boone and erases his actual “Indian” killing history.

“The Northwest Territory” It says “The land was not just empty wilderness. Native Americans had lived there for hundreds of years.” More like thousands, and why not mention this everywhere else? “They did not want settlers moving onto their land. They tried to stop the pioneers. Many small fights and skirmishes took place between settlers and Native Americans.” These were not “small fights” and “skirmishes” nor were they just between Natives and “Settlers.” These were entire wars and they were waged against Native nations by the US itself. It also entirely lumps everything together into the generic “the Native Americans” this entire time. No mention of specific nations. Then it mentions that the US won the Battle of Fallen Timbers and that “the Native Americans gave up much of their land in Ohio.” No, they were forced out.

“The Louisiana Purchase” It claims that “This land belonged to France.” No mention of the Native nations whose land it really was or that France stole it in the first place. It then says “President Jefferson decided to send a group of men to explore this land.” Jefferson did not hire anyone to “explore” anything. He hired military men to go on a reconnaissance mission. The entire Corp of Discovery was a military spy mission.

“The Lewis and Clark Expedition” It just claims that Jefferson “wanted to learn more” about the whole land area, nothing of the fact that it was a military reconnaissance mission. It says they were to “lead a team of explorers.” No, they were a military group. Aaaand then we get to the typical “Along the way, the expedition was helped by Native American tribes.” Not really though. They approached and traded with many Native nations, but it was just that…trade and politics, not “help.” This is patronizing language. It then surprisingly names the Mandan and Hidatsa. They weren’t really “helped” by them so much as the Mandan/Hidatsa took the economic opportunity that presented itself. Amazingly it does say that Sacagawea was “sold to a French fur trader,” but then it wrongfully claims that “she became his wife.” For 2nd graders, of course we can’t mention sexual slavery, but that entire sentence doesn’t need to be there. Just stop at “she was sold” to him. It then claims that Lewis and Clark asked Charbonneau AND Sacagawea to join them. They did no such thing. Lewis and Clark hired Charbonneau, that’s it. Charbonneau convinced them to let him bring his so-called “wife” because of her language skills. It claims that Sacagawea was “very helpful” and repeats the standard story about the boat tipping over. 

While she may have been “very helpful” during the expedition, she was an unwilling participant. She was just a teen, had just given birth with no time to physically recover, and then was forced to trapse across the land to initiate the invasion and genocide of her own people. It’s a horrible story. She didin’t “help” them. It says Lewis and Clark “discovered that the Missouri River did not lead to the Pacific Ocean.” Natives could have told them that (if they didn’t really, because Natives told them many things they’re credited with “discovering”). It mentions that Sacagawea was Shoshone so “She could talk to these natives for them.” This is what she was forced on the expedition for. After crossing the mountains it says that the Nez Perce just “gave” them food. Again, this is economics and politics, not a gift. At least it credits the Nez Perce with telling them where to go and doesn’t say they charted their own way. That’s a common myth I’m surprised they didn’t repeat. 

It ends with how they returned to Missouri. “Lewis had made notes and drawings of about 300 unknown plants and animals.” They were not “unknown” to Natives. It calls our nations “Native American groups” again. “The discoveries of the expedition helped bring settlers to the west” as if that’s a good thing. This completely whitewashes the fact that this was a spy mission to gather information for further invasion. Jefferson saw Natives as “strange curiosities” and political enemies. His purpose for wanting to know what nations were out there was to further his agenda of invasion. Folks need to stop pretending like this is such a positive story in history. It is the beginning of the end for Native nations in the west.

“The Old Southwest” – Referring to Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. “Settlers of the old southwest faced troubles with the Native Americans living there.” Troubles? Like the fact that these nations had the right to stay right where they were and tell Europeans not to live there?? What it should say is that Native nations had troubles with European squatters and invaders. It says many Native “groups” sided with the British, but doesn’t say why. Impressively it mentions the Creek War. But it says “These Native Americans had to desert their homelands. Some native groups moved west. Many Creeks moved into Florida and joined the Seminole Nation.” They didn’t just “have” to, they were forced to. Using the passive voice takes the blame off of the people responsible. And then says Florida “belonged” to Spain, again without recognition of whose land it really was.

“Southern settlers had trouble with the Seminole Native Americans. Again, the native people did not want to give up their land.” How rude of them. *eyeroll*

It says “They also offered to help runaway slaves who had escaped from their American owners. The Seminole gave these slaves freedom and refused to send them back to their owners.” Gross language. But again, how confusing to 2nd graders who literally haven’t been taught anything about slavery yet!! Then it goes into the First Seminole War and says “The fighting took place in Spanish Territory. The United States was treating the territory as if it belonged to them.” So, we can acknowledge this about Florida when it comes to another European country claiming land, but not when it’s Native land? Could this not have been said about the US throughout the whole western expansion section? Could it not have said, for example, “The fighting took place in [insert Native nation here] territory. The United States was treating the territory as if it belonged to them” whenever talking about the takeover of Indigenous lands?

“The Seminole Wars” At least here it very gently talks about removal “They put them on ships and sent them to Arkansas. The Seminole were unhappy there.” But it still makes it sound more passive and like the Seminole had no right to stay in their own land or fight for that right. Oddly, it goes into the fact that the remaining Seminole are still there and recognized as an independent nation. Why not mention this about all the other nations they’ve mentioned so far?? It’s an odd inclusion when the rest has been completely omitted.

“Osceola” Incredibly this section is accurate. It talks about how he believed the Seminole had the right to stay in their homeland, how the US lied to him and tricked him under a banner of truce to arrest him, and that the US did not really want to make peace with the Seminole at all. After all the Eurocentric baloney, they actually told some truth here.

UNIT 7 - Settling the Frontier

The summary for this unit starts with “The people of the United States continued to go west in search of land, adventure and fortune.” And “New land was gained by war, treaties, and purchase.” However, the unit makes zero mention of treaties with Native nations, wars with Native nations, land purchase agreements with Native nations…nothing. Of course, they don’t mention land theft and genocide, but they don’t even mention this list regarding Native nations. This “war, treaties, and purchase” is apparently a reference to Europeans fighting each other over land and selling land that isn’t theirs. Native people are basically non-existent in this unit.

“The Texas Frontier” This entire section 1) does not mention Natives at all and 2) does not mention slavery, slavery being illegal in Mexico, and that being a major reason for the Texas Revolution. It’s a super simplified “Americans wanted to live there, Mexico let them move in, they traded with each other and helped each other, but then too many people loyal to the US were there and they wanted to control Texas” narrative with no mention of the actual factors.

“The Texas Revolution” In this part they at least mention that Mexico made slavery illegal and that “many white settlers used slaves to work their cotton fields.” Aside from the gross way that is worded, this is the FIRST MENTION OF SLAVERY in the entire set of books and it literally makes no mention of them being a different race. Again, coming upon this would be very confusing for a 2nd grader who has been given ZERO context for that.

“The Alamo,” “Independent Texas,” and “Westward Expansion” sections are all standard myths and Eurocentric summaries.

“Oregon Territory” starts with “Lewis and Clark explored parts of Oregon during their expedition.” No, they did not “explore,” they spied. “At that time, mostly Native Americans lived in the area.” Well, of course. This isn’t mentioned anywhere else where it should be though. It then turns it into another story of Europeans arguing with other Europeans about land that isn’t actually theirs. It then calls it the “Oregon wilderness” – again this is NOT a wilderness! They briefly summarize the Oregon Trail with no mention of it being an invasion of sovereign territories. It mentions the Oregon Treaty between Britain and the US, but again no mention of whose land it really is.

“The Oregon Trail” Here’s a chance to mention invasion! But they, of course, do not. No mention of Native Americans here. It says the trail “Stretched across 2,200 miles of unsettled land” as if it’s all just empty?? This was very settled land!! Just not by Europeans.

“US – Mexican War” This section has no mention of Native Americans whose land it is, standard narrative of Europeans fighting each other over land that isn’t really theirs.

“The Gadsden Purchase” This is an oddly specific thing to mention in 2nd grade, but it furthers their propaganda narrative of this land being “purchased” legally and fairly when it was an invasion and genocide of sovereign Indigenous lands and peoples.

“Alaska, Hawaii, and Other Territories” Starts with the US “buying” Alaska from Russia. No mention of whose land it really is. It mentions an Alaska gold rush, but no mention of genocide. Amazingly, it mentions that “American businessmen helped overthrow the queen” of Hawaii. But then it just glosses over this horrible fact and talks about setting up a government and then becoming part of the US in 1959. Interestingly enough, it mentions that the US controls other territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands…which is something that I think most adults in the US don’t even know.

“Meet Americas Pioneers” This gives a summary about Euro invaders such as:

“Fur Traders” “Trappers and traders played an important part in the settlement of the United States.” It says it started in the 1500s with “French explorers” and Natives. This is mostly a positive only spin on the fur trade through a very Eurocentric view.

“Gold Miners” – Absolutely no mention of Native Americans and the genocide that that the California gold rush was (this is focused on California). It also mentions people opening businesses like restaurants and laundromats, but no mention of Asian immigrants and the oppression they faced even though they were the majority of the people opening those businesses. It says “Before the gold rush, only about 1,000 pioneers lived in California. By the end of 1849, the population had grown to around 100,000” as if it was empty. Again, no mention of Natives and genocide. Before the gold rush, there were anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 Natives in CA. By the end of the gold rush in the 1860s, only 15,000-30,000 remained. This is an important, but omitted, fact.

“Ranchers and Cowboys” This is the first mention of African Americans I have even seen anywhere in the curriculum. But there is no context so it might confuse kids. No mention of Native Americans.

“Homesteaders and Sodbusters” It just states that the US “gained a lot of land out west.” With no mention of HOW that happened beyond the few European wars mentioned. It then talks about the Homestead Act that “gave” people land in “unsettled territories” where Natives are, but no mention of that. Makes it sound like empty land that was legally “given” to people when it wasn’t.

“Frontier Women” No mention of Natives and invasion.

UNIT 8 - Exploring America with Maps

Nothing of note until “Symbols and Historic places.” Badlands National Park – it says, “The Native Americans of South Dakota named it “land bad” because this area is not a good place to live.” “The Native Americans of South Dakota?” Which ones?? The LAKOTA, not some generic “the Native Americans,” call it “Mako Sica.” And while it does directly translate to “land bad,” the correct translation is “bad lands.” I don’t see any reason to provide a direct translation like “land bad” except to reenforce the stereotypical “Indian speak” in movies and books. It also says “A large piece of the Badlands is overseen by the Lakota Sioux. This native group helps care for the park. They also explain to the visitors the history of the Lakota Sioux.” They “help?” No, they are one of the original caretakers of this land, not “helpers.” And no, it is not “overseen” by the Lakota, it is literally their land (and even on one of the reservations). And it’s just Lakota, not “Lakota Sioux.” There’s so much wrong with this.

Mount Rushmore National Memorial – there is no mention of this being a sacred mountain to the Lakota and other nations. So, they’ll talk about the Lakota in relation to the Badlands but not to their sacred mountain that was illegally taken and carved into?

UNIT 9 - Past, Present, and Future Maps

Nothing noteworthy until “Early Maps.” “Christopher Columbus brought a map maker along when the sailed to the New World.” And “American colonists also made maps as they explored new lands. They added rivers, lakes, and mountains as they discovered them.” Then it mentions maps missing the western part of North America because “This land had not yet been explored.” This is all Eurocentric baloney, if you haven’t figured that out yet.

“Symbols and Historic Places” This one starts out with Gettysburg National Military Park. It states “On July 1, 1863, one of the most famous battles of the Civil War took place…” but these students literally haven’t been taught anything about the Civil War whatsoever! They haven’t mentioned slavery or what the Civil War was at all so these students have no context for this.

UNIT 10 - Review United States History

Just a review of all of the topics I’ve already covered.

TEACHER GUIDE

Pg 22 – Additional Learning Activities for “Learning about Early Times”

It suggests looking up “Native Americans” or “American Indians,” “Christopher Columbus,” “Explorers of North America,” and “European explorers” on the internet. This is a dangerous suggestion as they will pull up more stereotypes and false information to reenforce the junk they are teaching.

Then it says “Help the students research and find pictures of early Native American dwellings, such as igloos, tepees, longhouses, earth lodges, pueblos, cliff dwellings, etc.” Our homes are not “dwellings!” Stop using this word. Plus “Igloo” is spelled incorrectly and doesn’t mean “ice house” like everyone thinks. Also “tepee” is incorrect, as it should be “tipi.”

It also suggests “Student may find some symbols the North American Plains Indians painted on their tepees. Identify the meaning of these symbols.” Wow, no. First of all, what is a “North American Plains Indian?” Not all Plains nations are the same. They didn’t all live in tipis. They don’t all use the same symbols. They all have different cultures. This makes no sense. Then, “identify the meaning of those symbols?” All they’re going to be able to find is generic fake “Indian symbol” pages that claim to have the meanings of things, but don’t. This will continue to reenforce false ideas.

There’s a whole “Independent study activity” of studying “early explorers.” Another harmful activity to reenforce false ideas.

These types of activities are repeated for each section and unit, including “the true story of Pocahontas” and the “real story of Thanksgiving.” If they search these, like the guide suggests, they’re going to find completely different information than what is taught in these books. Which is good! But it will contradict what they’ve taught their students and they might not use the results then because of that contradiction. It seems like a really odd suggestion for something that will end up proving their texts wrong.

The teacher's guide continues to reenforce false information, stereotypes, racism, etc.

I absolutely do NOT recommend this curriculum. It's horrible! Based on how much mythology and propaganda was found here, I am assuming all of the other grade levels are just as horrible. The person who brought it up in the online homeschool group I mentioned had said it was horrible, but I'm not sure I was prepared for some of the absurdity that I found in it. I don't know if I'll ever take the time to review the other grade levels...I'm not sure I want to. 

Please, if you value honest and accurate history education, please do not use this curriculum or this company.