Core Knowledge social studies fifth grade - part 2

 

Unit 3 “Age of Exploration”

I’ll start with addressing the term of “Age of Exploration.” Naming WORLD HISTORY eras after something exclusive to Europe/Europeans is…*drumroll*…EUROCENTRISM! Unfortunately, this type of Eurocentric naming of time periods is in almost everything. Europeans were actually some of the last people on the planet to “explore” the world. Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and even some Native people of the Americas had already been seafaring and exploring the world for centuries before Europeans stopped being too afraid of leaving site of the shore and going into open ocean (other than the Norse and Danes). And that’s really what it boiled down to…they didn’t sail out of site of the shore for fear of sea monsters until the 1400s while other people had been doing it for hundreds of years or longer. Europeans traveling to parts of the world they hadn’t been to yet, hundreds of years after other people already started doing that, isn’t an “age of exploration.”

Beyond that, Europeans weren’t actually looking to “explore” anything. They had no interest in exploration in and of itself and we can even see this directly in writings of the time including Columbus’s own journal and letters. They were conquerors looking to invade and conquer, they were treasure hunters looking for gold, and they were human traffickers (slave traders) looking to kidnap people to enslave. Those were their motivation. We know this from primary sources. They were never “explorers.”

The non-Eurocentric term for this time period is the Early Modern Era. For Native peoples it is an Age of Invasion. Now that we have that out of the way…

Chapter 1 is about “the spice islands.” It starts by claiming that the US only exists because Europeans liked “spicy food.” They wanted spices yes, but if they were really just interested in trade for spices they would have just sailed here, traded for things, and left and the US wouldn’t exist anyway. Instead, they invaded and committed genocide (which the curriculum calls “settlement”). It wasn’t about spices.

The curriculum calls European travelers “explorers,” “adventurers,” and “dreamers” instead of traders and invaders. There is no need to romanticize travel driven by economics and greed like this. Yet here we are.

Chapter 2 is about “motives and means.” Yet again, we find the false claim that bananas are from the Americas. It seems like a silly detail, but they’ve repeated this inaccuracy multiple times, they obviously didn’t fact check much. This could have been a simple Google search. It then frames the Crusades as simply trying to “capture the holy lands from the Muslims” with absolutely zero discussion about what that actually meant. Yikes. The rest of the chapter is just about Europeans figuring out what the rest of the world already knew and used – navigation. It does at least mention that they were too afraid to leave site of land until this point in time…due to sea monsters.

Chapter 3 is about Portuguese “exploration.” It calls the Portuguese the “pioneers of the sea.” As previously mentioned, they’re the last people on the planet to start doing this, so that doesn’t make them pioneers. It then says they wanted to set up trade routes, spread Christianity, and gain knowledge. They flippantly say “spread Christianity” throughout the curriculum as if that didn’t include extreme violence. Leaving out the violence part is inaccurate (by omission) and Eurocentric bias, another way Eurocentrism shows up in how things are explained. It isn’t incorrect that they, in their minds, wanted to “spread Christianity,” but to accurately tell history you can’t just state someone’s intention without the reality of their actions. You can tell fifth graders that they wanted to spread Christianity, that was one of their motivations, but they did so through violent and deadly means. It makes no sense to leave that out after repeatedly harping in “human sacrifice” in the Americas and describing methods like ripping their hearts out and throwing them down the stairs. If they can tell fifth graders that information, they can tell them the truth about how Christianity was spread.

When talking about the Portuguese in Africa it does acknowledge that they brought back “people, to be sold into slavery,” but then turns around and says those kidnapped people became “servants and laborers.” Again, this may be on its surface true…enslaved people were forced to work as servants and laborers but simply stating that they “became servants and laborers” without including the truth of slavery is an extreme bias and inaccurate telling of history. Again, if they can repeat graphic and racist tropes of “human sacrifice” to this age group, they can tell the truth of slavery in an age-appropriate way as well. It is a deliberate choice not to.

Chapter 4 is about Christopher Columbus…oh boy. Essentially this is an extremely whitewashed version of the story. It largely focuses on the first voyage itself (at sea) and barely says anything at all about interactions with Indigenous peoples. Lies by omission. At the very least, it doesn’t perpetuate the false story about people thinking the world is flat. It acknowledges that “educated” people knew the world was round and that Columbus thought the Earth was smaller than it is (but it says “smaller than people imagined” rather than what scientists had calculated). It does somewhat perpetuate the flat earth story by saying some sailors thought it, but it was a known fact at the time that the world was round. It also says he was Italian, but recent DNA studies have found that he was Spanish. Beyond that, Italy didn’t exist in 1492. People thought he was Genoese, but again, that has been proven incorrect. It is important to update resources as we find out new information.

It does name the Taino by name, which is a good thing. It only mentions that they fished off their coasts. It does nothing to explain who the Taino were, anything about their society, how large their population was, that they were farmers, that they were skilled seafarers. But then it says Columbus “took six Tainos with him” instead of saying “captured” or “enslaved” which would be the truth. Saying “took” makes it sound like they went willingly. It then mentions the islands he went to and renamed and then skips everything and talks about him sailing back to Spain. It says absolutely nothing of his brutality, genocide, destruction, slavery, etc.

The curriculum doesn’t capitalize Indigenous when talking about people. Always capitalize Indigenous and Native when talking about people! It also says the “indigenous” peoples had maintained sophisticated cultures for “hundreds, if not thousands of years.” WOW! The number is TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. Minimizing our civilizations to “hundreds” of years is not only an all-out lie, but a means of discrediting our histories and who we are. This is blatant racism.

It then claims it was Columbus’s brothers, not himself, that “forced the indigenous people” to work in gold mines. The word they’re looking for is “enslaved” and it was Columbus himself. We have significant proof of this through primary sources. Columbus himself was responsible for enslaving people and trafficking people. That’s the only sentence they include about the mistreatment of the Taino. That’s it. The chapter wraps up by saying Columbus had his reputation destroyed with little information about why and then mentions why the Americas are named “America” and not after Columbus. Like I said before, it’s extremely whitewashed and inaccurate.

Chapter 5 is about criticisms of the Spanish as colonizers. It says they Spanish were “ruthless colonists” but then essentially claims Indigenous people died from work in mines and diseases rather than by genocide. This is again, extremely whitewashed and outright false. It says “Indigenous people died in large numbers in gold mines…” This is passive language (they died) that takes the fault off the Spanish who enslaved and killed them. It again does not call it slavery. It does not mention outright slaughter, executions, human sacrifice (Columbus liked to hang 13 men at a time in “honor” of the 12 disciples and Jesus), or genocide. It blames the gold mines and diseases rather than the Spanish themselves, never mind that the Spanish created those conditions. It also says the island of “Hispaniola” (Ayiti) had only hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. It likely had closer to around 1 million. It says by 1531 there were only about 600 “left.” Again, passive language to take the fault off the Spanish. The Taino were murdered. It acknowledges that the people from Africa brought to work on the islands were enslaved, but it makes no such acknowledgement that the Indigenous people were enslaved until a little bit later, and even then, only minimally. They could have called it enslavement from the start; there was no reason not to other than to minimize the evil actions of the colonizers.

It does talk about Bartolome de las Casas and his case against enslavement. It mentions his work against the exploitation of Indigenous peoples. The entire section is about Las Casas, not about Indigenous people where the focus should be. It never mentions genocide. This was a genocide; It should be written as such.

Chapter 6 is about Magellan. In the description of why they went west it says that finding a passage through South America would “make trade and the accumulation of wealth easier for the European explorers, traders, and merchants…” This is framing invasion, conquest, colonization, and genocide as “trade and accumulation of wealth. This is framing the invaders and conquerors who are committing genocide as “explorers, traders, and merchants.” This is Eurocentric and dishonest. This also says he “was killed in a confrontation with local chieftains” in the Philippines. That’s a whitewashed way of saying he was killed when locals rightfully resisted Magellan’s attempt at conquering and forcing Spanish rule…which is, in reality, what happened.

Chapter 7 is about the English. The “big question” of the chapter is “How did European exploration of the Americas lead to settlement and colonization?” The problem is…there was no “European exploration” at all, there was only European invasion and conquest. Early European contact with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas was never about exploration or trade, it was only ever conquest because they believed that they were racially superior and that all non-Christian civilizations were evil and must be destroyed. The more word got back to Europe about the Americas, the more they believed the racist lies, the more they wanted to be part of the conquest. They were mostly slave traders and treasure hunters. This was always an invasion with the intention of full takeover. Eurocentrism in education strikes again.

It says that mapping the east coast of North America set the stage for colonization, but it defines colonization as “the practice of bringing people from a different country to control and settle an area that already has an indigenous population.” This is a whitewashed definition that doesn’t really touch on the violence of colonization. Colonization in and of itself is inherently violent. There is no way around that. A better dictionary definition of colonization is “subjugation of a people or area especially as an extension of state power.” Subjugation is more than just “control,” but the violent act of forcing people to be under one’s control. Also, if they had just asked the Indigenous people along the coast, they would have been able to make much mor accurate maps…because Indigenous people mapped the coast already, just not in the style of European cartography.

In the part about building colonies, they do acknowledge that Spanish colonization was for the purpose of finding gold and silver, but they ignore the violence that requires. They talk about the English wanting to establish permanent settlements where people could hunt, fish, and farm. They make it sound passive and peaceful rather than the violent invasion that it was. They talk about the English monarchs giving land grants to joint-stock companies to colonize, but they leave out the part where the English have absolutely zero rights to grant someone else’s land to these companies. If I were the leader of England, I can’t just grant land in Spain to someone because I have no rights to the land in Spain. They leave out the part where this requires land theft, which requires genocide and dispossession of Indigenous peoples. They leave out the part where Indigenous nations are, in fact, sovereign nations with total legal rights to their own land.

The chapter then barely touches on Roanoke and repeats the mythology that the colony “vanished without a trace” and no one knows what happened to it. We actually do know what happened to it and it’s well established in written English history, oral histories of the Indigenous peoples of the area, and in archaeological records. This was never a “lost colony,” they simply integrated into the Indigenous community on Hatteras Island.

And we see the complete disregard for the sovereignty of Native nations in the next section as they say the Powhatan Confederacy was made up of “Native American groups.” Groups. Not nations, not even “tribes,” but groups. This is like calling England or all of Europe a “group.” Sovereign nations are not “groups,” they are nations. See more thoughts on this here: Native American Curriculum Review: Thoughts on Educational Standards and Textbooks - the word "groups"

The curriculum then states that the Powhatan Confederacy was named for the “chief” who governed it. This is factually incorrect. They called the leader of the Confederacy the Powhatan after the town he was from, not the other way around. Powhatan wasn’t his name and the confederacy wasn’t named after him.

It glosses over the Mayflower, likely because it is taught more in depth in a different grade level. But it claims the Mayflower colonists “wanted religious freedom.” That’s not really why they came to the Americas, as they already had religious freedom in Holland where they had been living for about 11 years prior to 1620. They came to the Americas because they wanted to establish a “holy kingdom” where there was no religious freedom at all, only their religion would be allowed. None of the colonies were established for religious freedom, that is a founding mythology of the US, not a fact.

It then glosses over genocide and dispossession by saying “This land belonged to various Native American groups, who were often forced to find new places to live.” So again, complete disregard for the sovereignty of Native nations as political entities. And a whitewashing of invasion, genocide, and forced removal by saying “often forced to find new places to live.” This was not “often,” it was every single time, and it wasn’t simply finding new places to live, but fleeing for their lives amidst the English attempts at eradication of Native peoples.

Chapter 8 is about the French and fur trade. It says North America was new to Europeans and had not been mapped. It should have said it had not been mapped “by them,” as non-European mapping methods existed in the Americas.

I do find it humorous that they don’t even spell Verrazzano’s name correctly. This curriculum obviously cannot be bothered to be factually accurate.

Moving on…Jacques Cartier. It says he visited a “Native American village” in the so-called “St. Lawerence River” (Kaniatarowanenneh is its original name). They don’t call the place by name; they don’t even name what Native nation this was…just generic “Native American village.” The generic usage of terminology is harmful to education, as I have explained multiple times in reviews. There are hundreds of different Native nations, and we are not all the same. This was specifically a Haudenosaunee town called Oscheaga (the French mispronounced it as Hochelaga). It was not a “village,” but a town of around 3000 people with fortified walls. Curricula like this one always diminish the reality of Native civilizations to inaccurate terms like “village” while never using the same language to describe European towns and cities. They call actual European villages “villages,” but they don’t diminish towns and cities in the same way. They only do that to the Americas. This is racist. In fact, I recently saw a social media post that called a Wichita city of 20,000 people a “village.” This kind of thing is everywhere, and it is a direct result of poor education from curricula like Core Knowledge.

 It then says that Cartier and the “Native Americans” had developed a “friendship.” This word annoys the crap out of me in curricula and other educational materials. “Friendship,” “friendly,” “friendly Indians,” etc. No one was making friends during colonization! These were political relationships, plain and simple. The Europeans didn’t trust the Indigenous peoples because they believed racist lies about them. The Indigenous peoples didn’t trust the Europeans because their arrival always meant death and destruction (disease, genocide, warfare, invasion, land theft, etc.) But sometimes Europeans needed to develop political relationships with Native nations for various reasons, usually because they were weak, sick, running out of supplies, etc. Sometimes Native nations needed to develop political relationships with Europeans due to disease and epidemics, attempts to prevent them from taking over, political diplomacy, etc. But none of these were “friendships.”

It tells a story of Cartier and his men getting sick with scurvy and their generic Native American “friends” helped them and cured their scurvy with a tea. Again, they were not “friends,” but beyond that this happened in a different Haudenosaunee town, Stadacona, not Oscheaga. The story makes it seem like it was in Oscheaga. It then says he and his men simply returned to France. The reality is, he and his men kidnapped the leader of Stadacona, named Donnacona, and 9 others and forced them to come to France with them. Donnacona died in France. This negatively impacted French and Haudenosaunee relationships in further contact, which would be an important detail to mention.

Next, we jump to Champlain. Still with the generic “local Native Americans” rather than naming Native nations. This would be like telling European history by simply referring to them all as Europeans and never naming any nations. “the Europeans…” this and “the local Europeans” that. It’s harmful in that it reinforces the stereotype that we’re all the same. I have to teach adults and teachers that we are not all the same and are unique nations because of this type of “education.” It says “the Native Americans” were “eager” to have metal tools and goods. Some of the oldest (possibly the oldest) metal tools in the world were made in the Great Lakes region out of copper. Natives had metals. It could say they wanted “steel” or “iron” goods and tools, but just “metal” isn’t accurate as it makes it seem like Natives didn’t have metal.

When discussing “New France,” it says the French “dealt with” Native Americans differently than the English. “Dealt with” means to “handle a situation or problem.” Native peoples living in their own homelands that you are invading is not a “situation or problem” to “deal with.” The French were the situation or problem, not the other way around. This could say the French “interacted with” the Natives differently, but “dealt with” is a terrible way to say this. It again states the English colonists “pushed Native Americans off land they had lived on for generations.” The English did a lot more than that and this is dishonest. The English killed, attacked, and destroyed Native peoples and communities. They not only dispossessed Native peoples who had lived there for more than generations but for tens of thousands of years, but they also committed genocide.

Then it says the French were “more peaceful” and says they had not tried to “conquer the Native Americans.” Colonization is inherently violent and a form of conquest. It is not and never can be “peaceful.” This ignores the power imbalance of colonization and the consequences of colonialism. While the French and Native nations did become military allies often and the French did focus on trade, the fur trade was not benevolent either. The fur trade caused the extreme over-hunting of the area which forced the Native nations to become dependent on the French instead of their relationship with the land that had always provided for them. The French greatly benefited from this while Native people suffered.

It incorrectly calls North America a “wilderness.” This is one of the most pervasive US founding mythologies, but what I find ironic is if this had actually been a wilderness – none of the colonies would have survived and the US would not exist. So, the US’s existence relies on this NOT having been a wilderness, yet the origin mythologies of the US always make this false claim. This was not a wilderness. It was cultivated, managed, developed, and cared for over tens of thousands of years. Two-thirds of what is now the US was agricultural. There were cities, roads, farms, towns, extensive trade networks, and civilizations that were advancing just like the rest of the world. The colonists took over existing infrastructure, they would not have survived otherwise. How is “Wilderness” a Colonial Construct? — Organeyez | by Naira de Gracia | Medium

Native American Curriculum Review: Not an Untouched Wilderness

Chapter 9 is about the Dutch. It doesn’t say a whole lot about the Americas, but it does talk about Henry Hudson (whom several places in Canada are named for). It claims Hudson “discovered” what is now called the Hudson Bay in Canada and thought it was the Pacific Ocean. You can’t discover something that has been known to people for thousands of years. Hudson Bay was known to Indigenous peoples and widely used. We also see the repeated mythology of “wilderness” here. It claims the Dutch “acquired” Manhattan Island from generic “Native Americans.” Fortunately, it doesn’t perpetuate the mythology that Manhattan was sold for a few trinkets, but it doesn’t tell the truth either. Manhattan was the land of the Lenape people, not just generic “Native Americans.” The Dutch did not “acquire” Manhattan from the Lenape either, they just claimed that they did. The Lenape accepted trade goods in exchange for letting the Dutch use the land, not to sell it to them. The Lenape did not believe in land ownership or buying/selling land. They agreed to essentially lease it to the Dutch. The Dutch claimed they bought it because they didn’t understand the Lenape’s agreement with them. You can read letters from the Dutch in the later 1600s that express their frustration that the Lenape would not leave the land that they had “purchased.” This is historical record of the misunderstanding by the Dutch. The Lenape were eventually forced out of Manhattan even though they never did actually sell it to the Dutch.

Chapter 10 is about slavery. It starts out by trying to minimize slavery by repeating that people around the world had been practicing slavery for thousands of years. This is only ever used as an excuse for what became one of the worst systems of slavery in history – Chattel slavery.  It goes on to say Africans were already engaged in slavery before Europeans and does little to explain why what the Europeans did was so much worse. Colonization plus slavery and inventing chattel slavery is different than what had already existed. There is no need to introduce this topic the way they did. This is actually a horrible way to introduce this topic.

In their section about slavery in the Americas, it starts with talking about how the Spanish “used” Indigenous people in their mines and “used” local people to “work on the plantations.” If we’re talking about slavery, why not call it slavery? The Spanish enslaved the Native people of the islands. They dance around the fact that Indigenous Americans were, in fact, enslaved. This wasn’t isolated to the Caribbean islands either. Millions of Natives (Americas) were enslaved throughout the history of slavery in the colonies and in the United States. Through this, Native people and trafficked African people developed close bonds and shared relationships that helped both. It is an important part of history that is almost always ignored or overlooked. Core Knowledge not calling this slavery is doing exactly that. Teaching the Hard History of Indigenous Slavery

This sentence really rubs me the wrong way: “As had been the case in the Azores and the Canary Islands, enslaved people from Africa provided a cost-effective answer.” It’s not the enslaved people that “provided” this answer, it was the Europeans who trafficked and enslaved people that did. Their wording puts the burden on the enslaved peoples themselves. It should say “trafficking people from Africa provided…” or “enslaving people from Africa provided….” to put the blame where it belongs: on Europeans. It also says things like “trading” and “importing” when talking about people instead of “trafficking.” The language here is gross.

Then it claims that the humans they trafficked to Virginia in 1619 may not have been enslaved at all but may have just been indentured servants. It says it “remains unclear” if they were “indentured servants” or “enslaved workers.” Abso-f-ing-lutely not. These were human trafficking victims that were, in fact, enslaved.

It also makes it sound like indentured servitude and slavery were “necessary” (they use that word) as if they couldn’t just, you know, hire and pay people fairly to work for them or do the work themselves. Again, the wording in this chapter is gross (except that they do say “enslaved person” instead of “slave.” This is the bare minimum, though, and everything else is not worded well).

The summary of the “Age of Exploration” at the end of this chapter is very whitewashed. It’s “trying” to tell “both sides,” but that’s like trying to tell “both sides” of the Holocaust. You can’t do that without lionizing the perpetrators. It says that Indigenous people died in “battles” and of “diseases” while completely ignoring invasion and genocide. It says of Africans that contact with Europeans “meant a lifetime of slavery,” again passive voice without blaming the perpetrators. It ends with “An understanding of the age must include both the heroism of the explorers and the tragedies that resulted from exploration.” There is no “heroism” here and these people were not “explorers.” This is an actively harmful way to tell history.

The teacher guide is full of the same racist, Eurocentric, and inaccurate drivel as the last and repeats the same BS as the student text itself, but more in depth. The books it recommends are all horrible and none of them are from Indigenous authors. It even recommends a Joy Hakim History of US book, which if you’ve read my other reviews, you’ll know exactly how I feel about that. If you’re new here, check out those reviews. The online resources it links to are more of the same junk.

I will end this review with the exact same conclusion as the last one: Overall, this unit is racist, Eurocentric, and historically inaccurate. I recommend staying away from Core Knowledge entirely (I have looked at and reviewed other levels, I will be posting those and have more to review). Core Knowledge is a conservative organization that was founded by a known racist and pushes American Exceptionalism, Eurocentrism, and nationalism. Being free doesn't make it safe to use. 

Core Knowledge social studies: Fifth Grade - part 1

 Core Knowledge - Fifth Grade social studies - part 1

As the grade levels go up, the amount of material to review also obviously goes up. Therefore, I am splitting the review into parts, focusing on one unit per part. I only reviewed the units that involve Native peoples, though I may do a short review of the other units as well. 

Unit 2: Maya, Aztec, and Inca Civilizations

Student reader: Chapter 1 is about the Maya and starts with the mythology of the “vanishing civilization” and calling it a mystery. This only serves to perpetuate stereotypes and is a completely inaccurate telling of history. There is no mystery, there was no “vanishing.” The curriculum claims that most of their culture “disappeared,” that they mysteriously “abandoned” their cities, and “mysteriously” transformed. It says it sounds like a “science fiction” movie. This is not only false but harmful to education about Native cultures and civilizations. It also claims they only thrived until 900 CE and every mention of dates simply claims it ended in 900 CE. This is false. It also calls the Maya “one of the first great civilizations of the Americas.” This completely ignores thousands of years of history and peoples. The Maya are not one of the first, they’re just one of the most well known.

The Maya simply reorganized politically and culturally. We can call these time periods the Classic period up from 200 CE to around 900 CE and the Post-Classic period from 900 CE up until Spanish invasion. The civilization simply hit its peak around 900 CE. Maya civilization continued to thrive in the Post-Classic period. Just because they moved, dispersed, reorganized, and changed doesn’t mean they “vanished.” There was a major drought, one that hadn’t been seen for thousands of years, that caused the dispersal of people from some of the major cities. However, other Maya cities like Tulum and Chichen Itza, grew and thrived in the Post-Classic period. Environmental, cultural, and political changes happened around the 900-1000 CE time period that led to the reorganization of peoples. No one vanished, nor did their civilization.

This curriculum claims that they vanished after 900 CE but then says that there are still Mayan speaking people in the area today. If they vanished, there wouldn’t still be Maya people today. Not only are the Mayan languages still spoken today by over 7 million people today, but their cultures also still exist. There are intact Maya communities all over Central America today.  They never “vanished.”

The curriculum claims “American explorers” in the 1800s had heard stories about “mysterious” ruins in the rainforest. These were never “mysterious” as the living Maya people always knew they were there and what the history was. Turning common knowledge of a people into something “mysterious” for another culture only exotifies and others the people. It is part of harmful stereotyping.

It claims their pyramids were simply religious rather than also acknowledging the political aspects of these buildings. It calls Mayan writing “mysterious” and a “code” rather than a complex writing system. It calls Maya homes “huts” despite the fact that they built great cities. It says their calendar was “almost as accurate” as modern calendars, but in reality they made calendars that are more accurate. It says that archaeologist “think” the Maya played a ball game. This isn’t something that anyone “thinks,” it is known in history and in the cultural revival of the Mesoamerican Ball Game among Maya, Mexica, and others today. The only sources cited here are western archeologists instead of actually getting information from Maya people themselves. It just keeps saying archaeologists and “experts” THINK things instead of stating the information as known facts. It makes no mention that this game is played today.

Then is the issue of “human sacrifice.” The curriculum brings up human sacrifice as a result of losing the ball game. The problem is – this terminology is used to demonize certain cultures and justify brutal conquest and genocide which killed millions more people than human sacrifice in Mesoamerica. It makes no mention of the idea that it wasn’t common or a large number of people, the people were usually criminals and enemies (death penalty, anyone? executions were common in Medieval Europe), and many religious ceremonies involved only animal sacrifice and ritual bloodletting (consensual) that did not kill the person. Human sacrifice was practiced all over the world but is only ever mentioned in curricula about the Americas at these grade levels and sometimes even at all. It also never mentions human sacrifice when talking about European civilizations or by Euro-Americans despite the fact that it was quite common – just under different names and terms. Is it not human sacrifice to hang, burn, or crucify people in the name of religion? Did the Europeans not carry out brutal executions in the name of their god regularly? Did they not come up with dozens of ways to torture people for entertainment? Is that not "blood thirsty" and "savage?" Only using the term “human sacrifice” when talking about cultures like the Maya and Mexica (Aztec) serves to further the demonization and stereotyping of these cultures as being “uncivilized” and “evil.” It is Eurocentric and harmful. There is no reason to mention this in fifth grade or without careful analysis. Maya Religion, Gods, Cosmos and religious rituals (scroll to the section on human sacrifice.) It's also important to note that almost all information we have about "human sacrifice" in these civilizations comes from the Spanish who had ulterior motives to justify their genocide. Very little comes from these civilizations themselves, and what does come from their art was generally used to intimidate opponents rather than tell history, and from their writing in the 1500s which was heavily influenced by the Spanish. Most resources on this topic are unreliable. 

Another issue here is that they use words like “groups” instead of tribes or nations. You can read more about the issue with that word here: Native American Curriculum Review: Thoughts on Educational Standards and Textbooks - the word "groups"

They also do not capitalize the word “Native” when talking about people. Always capitalize words like Native and Indigenous when talking about people. Another important note – Maya refers to people, civilization, culture, etc. Mayan refers to language. The curriculum does mostly get this correct.

Chapter 2 is supposed to be about scientific achievements but starts with stating that their religious beliefs gave them an “unclear view” of the world. Do all religious beliefs not do that? Core Knowledge doesn’t claim this about Christianity or Europeans. Why say that at all? Again, this just continues to make them appear “uncivilized” and perpetuates stereotypes. It also states “they didn’t even have the wheel.” We need to stop teaching children that the wheel is a measure of advancement in history. It’s not. Different cultures advance in different areas depending on multiple factors including geography, resources, politics, religion, cultural values and concepts, etc. There was no need for wheels in the ancient Maya environment and society, that doesn’t mean they were not advanced. There is absolutely no reason to point out that they didn’t use wheels other than to again make them look “uncivilized.” This is a great example of racism and Eurocentrism – using European metrics of development to evaluate and judge other cultures and civilizations.

It claims they didn’t use “scientific tools” to calculate how many days are in a year. This is false. They used their own scientific tools to do so. It again calls Maya homes “huts” instead of houses. It calls their cultural customs “odd” which is insulting.

Then it goes back to the false claim of “vanishing” or disappearing. It claims the civilization ended in 900 CE, which it did not. It claims Mayan writing “mysteriously stopped” in that time period, which it did not. It says they “left their cities” instead of saying they moved to and built new cities. It claims the Maya had “been gone for years” by the time the Spanish invaded, but that’s actually what caused the decline of the Maya civilization in the first place. It then says no one actually knows what happened, but again…we do know. We do know factors that caused the shift between the Classical and Post-Classical periods, we do know what caused further decline in the 1500s (Spanish invasion), we do know what happened to them since then and that they still exist.

What if British history was told the same way Maya history is told? - Maya Archaeologist - Dr Diane Davies

What if people told European history like they told Native American history? | An Indigenous History of North America

Moving on to the “Aztecs.”

“Aztec” is a term that was popularized by European scholars in the 1800s and has no real meaning. It can refer to the triple alliance (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan), the people (Mexica), or a language group (Nahuatl). In general it encompasses the Nahuatl speaking peoples of central Mexico and the Mexica people. I will use Mexica when referring to the people rather than “Aztec.”

Chapter 3 refers to the people exclusively as Aztec rather than using historically accurate names. This chapter almost entirely focuses on the mythology of human sacrifice again. Read above for some of my thoughts on “human sacrifice.” This chapter claims sacrifices were “regular and generous.” The population of the cities and the Triple Alliance would not have been able to grow to such significant numbers if sacrifices were “regular and generous.” The only real records about Mexica sacrifices come from the Spanish, who lied and exaggerated to justify invasion and genocide. They even claimed the Mexica sacrificed 1000 people a day and in one ceremony killed 80,000 people in 4 days. Both of these claims are mathematically impossible. The reality is that only relatively few human remains in central Mexico have been identified as having been sacrificed (only 126 in Templo Mayor) which is much lower than numbers sacrificed by Europeans in their own religious rituals. Another perspective is that most sacrifices should considered casualties of war since it was culturally more important to capture an enemy in battle than to kill them. “There is no such thing as ‘Human Sacrifice’” The actual regular and generous offerings to the gods were gifts of jewelry, sacred plants, foods, and the like as well as animal sacrifices and ritual consensual bloodletting, not "human sacrifice."

"Although Aztec political life has been assumed to revolve around...human sacrifice...the annals indicate that this notion was never paramount for them." - Camila Townsend (I know she is not Indigenous, but her work is respected.)

This chapter portrays Mexica society as literally revolving around human sacrifice, warfare, and violence and that's about it. This portrayal is not only completely mythological, but actively harmful. 

Chapter 4 the description of how large the city of Tenochtitlan was isn’t bad here, but the images make it look like the city was small. Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world in the 1400s. It also doesn’t do justice to the description of the city at all in the “city tour.” It minimizes the chinampas (gardens) despite them being one of the most sophisticated forms of agriculture in history. It makes the education system sound scary and entirely about warfare and even says something about you having “tough teachers” over the years but you’ve "never had one that practices human sacrifices." I rolled my eyes hard here. It minimizes the writing system to “pictographs.” It says the sound of the marketplace is a “ruckus,” but they don’t describe European marketplaces the same way. It inaccurately lists bananas as being a food in Mesoamerica when it’s from Asia and was not in the Americas for hundreds more years. The city tour continues to harp on the mythology of widespread human sacrifice; every section mentions it. It makes no mention of sophisticated water systems and aqueducts, indoor bath houses and toilets, hygiene practices and cleanliness, libraries, medical knowledge and care, scientific knowledge and invention, etc. It makes no mention of how the Spanish marveled at how immaculately clean the city was. In contract, similarly sized cities in Europe, like Paris, were disgusting - raw sewage throw into the streets, animal blood from slaughterhouses mixed in with mud, streets made of literally just mud, sewage, and blood that they had to walk through, and stench so bad it could be smelled for miles...no wonder diseases were rampant in Europe and not in the Americas. It almost entirely focuses on violence, weapons, “fierce warriors,” and human sacrifice as if that’s all that the Mexica ever cared about. It reduces an amazing civilization to a trope of violence.

A note on houses vs huts – houses in the Americas are called "huts" throughout this curriculum, described as being made of mud and straw, or stone "huts" with thatch roofs, etc. In the SAME TIME PERIOD, houses in Europe are called houses and cottages, described as being made with mud and straw, thatched roofs, etc. This is a great illustration of how racism and Eurocentrism show up in this curriculum in an almost “hidden” way if you don’t know what you’re looking for.

Chapter 5 is about the Inca. It starts with a story of violence yet again. There are so many things you could focus on when learning about the Maya, the Mexica, or the Inca, yet this curriculum almost always focuses on violence. This is another example of racism and Eurocentrism.

When talking about daily Incan life it again calls their homes, which were well built and made of stone, “huts” while never describing stone homes in Europe as “huts.” Then for absolutely no reason it says that their homes smelled bad. This reminds me of reading Joy Hakim’s horribly racist opinions in the History of Us curriculum, but I digress.

Chapter 6 focuses on Incan engineering and their amazing road system. However, it commits the typical Eurocentric sin of comparing the development of non-European cultures to European metrics of development. It again points out how the Incans didn’t have wheels or animals to pull carts, despite already mentioning that llamas were used as pack animals. Wheeled carts would made absolutely no sense in the environment of the Andes mountains. They didn’t make wheeled carts because it wouldn’t have worked there, not because they weren’t advanced. They did, in fact, invent the wheel but it was largely used on children’s toys. It then talks about the Incan suspension bridges, which were an engineering marvel and also explain why wheeled carts made no sense in their environment. It does call the bridges engineering marvels, which is nice. But then it claims the suspension bridge over the Apurimac was no longer used by the Inca past 1890. This is incorrect. It is still rebuilt every year by the Quechua people of the region and used to this day. They did not disappear either. They’re not just “the people of Peru” as this curriculum states. I have been to the Andes, I have been in these communities…they’re Indigenous and they still carry their ancestor’s knowledge and pass it down through the generations.

Chapter 7 is the final chapter in this unit and is about the Spanish invasion in the 1500s. It starts with a racist story about the “Aztec” being amazed by Spanish ships sailing in on the coast and calling them “floating mountains.” It also says they “knew nothing of sailing ships.” This makes no sense. The Caribbean and Mesoamerica were one of the most densely populated places on Earth in the 1400s. The Caribbean, the Gulf coast, and the coast of Central America were full of Indigenous port towns and cities, seafaring cultures, and had a vast economic trade network throughout the ocean. Boats were coming and going from the coast constantly. These boats were not “canoes.” They were ocean going vessels. Some Indigenous peoples of the coastal regions made sails even. The Maya had boats as large as Viking long ships. Spanish described these ships as holding around 50 people, because yes, the Maya still existed when the Spanish came, unlike what this curriculum says. The Spanish encountered the Maya. Tulum and other Maya port cities continued to exist throughout the 1500s. Boats of various sizes, including large boats, were common in the region. The Mexica knew what large boats looked like. The Mexica described the Spanish ships as “floating houses” (not “mountains”) because they were a different kind of ship than they were familiar with, not because they didn't know what a sailing ship was. 

The curriculum then also repeats the completely debunked racist story that the Mexica thought the Spanish were gods and that they brought gifts to the Spanish to please them and worship them. This has been disproven multiple times over. Repeating this in history texts is not only historically inaccurate, it’s racist. It is used to make the Mexica look ignorant and backwards. The Mexica Didn't Believe the Conquistadors Were Gods - JSTOR Daily

The story at the beginning of this chapter is just racist, plain and simple.

It calls Cortes a Spanish “explorer,” but as I have discussed in blog posts previously, the early Europeans that came to the Americas were not “explorers” at all, but slave traders and treasure hunters. They came to conquer, not explore. The curriculum uses terms like “conquistador,” “conquest,” and “conqueror” without ever explaining that this means to invade, kill, and destroy. They use those words as if they’re just normal nice sailors. It says he wanted to spread Catholicism and get rich. That may be true, but this is an extremely whitewashed way of saying invade, commit genocide, and take over. It then says Cortes “found” a Native woman to serve as a translator. He did not “find her,” she was enslaved along with multiple other women.

The story claims the Spanish had superior weapons and that's why they won. Guns in that time were not superior by any means. The Mexica had obsidian swords (obsidian blades embedded into wood) that could cut the head off a horse. The were experts with atlatl (throwing spears). They used bows and arrows. Spanish guns were quite ineffective – they didn’t shoot straight, they were heavy and slow to load, and difficult to fire (and could only fire once at a time). The Spanish mostly used swords and lances. The Mexica used atlatl, macuahuitl (obsidian swords), and arrows. Ultimately it was the fact that the Spanish wore extreme armor and rode horses that gave them some advantage, not their weapons. The curriculum makes no mention of the Spanish having to fight their way out of Tenochtitlan because the Mexica were formidable opponents. It makes the Mexica sound completely weak and ineffective against the Spanish when they weren’t.

It also says that the disease smallpox swept through the city which is ultimately why the Spanish were able to conquer it (that and using Indigenous enemies of the Mexica to help them, which of course they then betrayed and violently conquered as well). This may be true, but it’s also possible that the Spanish intentionally poisoned the people of Tenochtitlan which lead to this downfall. 

The reality is there were only about 1,000 Spanish against a city of 200,000 people. The reason they won is because they had around 200,000 INDIGENOUS warriors from other Native nations around them that fought alongside the Spanish to conquer their enemies, the Mexica. The Native nations that did this essentially thought they would use the Spanish for their political gain and then give them the boot. The whole idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept. The Spanish could not have ever conquered the Mexica, even with disease (or food poisoning) on their side, by themselves. The Spanish saw the political gain of allying with enemies of the Mexica. This was all politics. Once they did that, they then stabbed their allies in the back by violently conquering them as well (with diseases on their side, which they fully recognized). This is not a story of how great the Spanish were, rather a story of how untrustworthy, greedy, and blood thirsty they were. 

The chapter then basically says the same racist story about the Inca…they didn’t know what ships were, they were scared of the Spanish, etc. It does mention disease spreading through the Incan empire ahead of the Spanish, which is true. And it at least calls Pizzaro’s massacre of the Inca a massacre and not a battle.

To end the chapter it talks about invasion and genocide as if it’s positive because they “ended human sacrifice” and “brought Christianity.” They didn’t end human sacrifice as the Spanish were well known to routinely sacrifice Indigenous people in the name of their god. There is no positive way to spin genocide as this tries to do.

The teacher guide is largely full of the same issues as the student text. When it comes to recommended additional resources, they do not recommend any Own Voices resources or resources by any experts on the subject. All of the recommended books are problematic in the same ways as this curriculum. It does, however, suggest some online resources from the National Museum of the American Indian which is a great resource. They offer some good online resources for the Maya calendar and math. However, they didn’t suggest the NMAI resources on the Inca, which exist and are just as good as the Maya resources.

It also claims that everything we know about these civilizations comes from archaeologists and by studying ancient ruins. This is false. There are Maya, Mexica and other Nahuatl speaking peoples (Aztec), and Quechua (Inca) people that still live today all over Mexico, Central, and South America. They not only maintain languages, but also the rich cultures, traditions, religions, and values of their ancestors. These people are not extinct, as this curriculum and teacher guide claims. We know a lot about their ancestors from THEM. They are the experts on their cultures and peoples, not archaeologists.

Another major issue I want to highlight in the teacher guide – it directly states that ONLY three great civilizations existed in the Americas before European invasion (which they Eurocentrically call the “Age of Exploration,”) and these are the three. There were many great civilizations before these three and at the same time, and not just in Mesoamerica and South America. There were great civilizations in both places BEFORE the Maya, “Aztec,” and Inca, including Caral, Moche, Olmec, Zapotec, and many more. There were great civilizations in various places north of modern-day Mexico, including the Mississippian, Haudenosaunee, Ancestral Puebloan, and many others. To reduce the Americas to only three great civilizations is racist and inaccurate.

Overall, this unit is racist, Eurocentric, and historically inaccurate. I recommend staying away from Core Knowledge entirely (I have looked at and reviewed other levels, I will be posting those and have more to review). Core Knowledge is a conservative organization that was founded by a known racist and pushes American Exceptionalism, Eurocentrism, and nationalism. It being free doesn't make it safe to use. 

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.

Thoughts on Educational Standards and Textbooks - the word "groups"

I just returned from several days of working with my state's educational agency on state standard updates. I have a lot of thoughts and feelings, but I want to start with the word "groups" and the heavy focus on physical culture. 

Imagine if your textbooks and learning standards in school said things like:

"European groups"
"The southern European groups ate fish and lived in dwellings made of rocks."
"The France Europeans grew grains and ate cheese"
"The Atlantic island European groups lived in dwellings made of sticks and tough grasses"
"A central European group known as Jermens made sausage and lived in farming communities."

This is what it sounds like when people write about Native nations and civilizations.

 
Native nations are nations, not "groups." The word "groups" makes no more sense than calling England and France and Germany "groups" instead of countries. Or even calling the United States a "group."

Lumping all Native nations in a region into a monolith and describing a basic aspect of physical culture for all of them is just as ridiculous as saying what I said above.

 
Not learning about social, religious, and political life of specific Native nations and only learning simplistic physical culture (houses, food, clothing) is just as ridiculous.

 
Misspelling or misnaming Native nations is as absurd as me spelling German as "Jermen." I didn't even get anywhere close to some of the ridiculous names and spellings I see people write of Native nations.

 
Not having actual subject matter experts write your standards and textbooks is an educational failure. And no, social studies teachers and non-Native historians are not subject matter experts on Natives. Natives are.

When state standards are written by non-Natives and say things like "Plains Indians..." and "Native American groups," only look at physical cultures, and lump everyone into a monolith....the above is what it sounds like to a Native person.

This blog is along the same line of thought:
What if people told European history like they told Native American history? | An Indigenous History of North America (wordpress.com)

Book Review - The Usborne Encyclopedia of World History

 

This is an immensely popular book that is used by homeschoolers and teachers. It is also used by many curriculum companies as a companion book to go with their books and materials. I have heard of it over the years, but never looked at it. I have heard from some that it is wonderful and from others that it is Eurocentric and racist. I finally picked up a copy and read it for myself.

There are multiple versions of this book. There are non-secular versions used by some Christian curriculum companies and in certain circles. There are versions that are outdated floating around, although no longer printed because it has been updated. The version that I read and reviewed is the most recently updated secular Usborne Encyclopedia of World History. It has a knight on the front with flames in the background.

Overall, I am almost shocked at how many people rave about how great this book is. I have seen plenty of people claim that it is not Eurocentric or that it is accurate and inclusive. It most certainly is not accurate or inclusive. It is extremely Eurocentric. It is quite racist in many parts. It felt like reading a world history book from the 1980s or before. It felt like the education I got growing up. I am not shocked, however, at how popular it is or how horrible it is. It is very heavy on Eurasian content, largely focused on Europe and the Middle East. While it does include other parts of the world, that content is quite minimal compared to the Eurasian content. The way non-European/Euro-American cultures are written about is also Eurocentric. I feel like this aspect of Eurocentrism is often overlooked. As long as it contains other parts of the world, it’s fine, right? Not quite. The way in which those peoples and cultures are written about matters as well. The way non-European cultures in this book are written about is atrocious. The way European and Western civilizations are written about is heavily skewed in favor of European/Western cultures. It is biased in a positive way toward them. 

The book is heavily biased overall. It is racist at times. It also contains many inaccuracies and things that have been historically disproven. This book paints an extremely biased and inaccurate picture of the world. Any company that cares about an accurate and non-biased portrayal of the world should not use or promote this book. If you are a teacher or homeschool parent, please consider avoiding it or using it as an example of bias.

My review is focused on how it addresses Native Americans and the Americas overall. I do mention a few other issues regarding other parts of the world.

I’ll start with numbers. It is divided into 4 sections by time period. Each section is broken up into individual topics. The sections are as follows:

Prehistoric World – 46 topics, 5 about modern humans, 1 that briefly mentions the Americas

Ancient World – 52 topics, 17 are Europe, only 10 are outside of Eurasia, 5 of those are Egypt, 1 is “Ancient Africa,” and 4 are the Americas. None are Australia/Oceana.

Medieval World – 54 topics, 34 are Europe, only 8 are outside of Eurasia, 3 are Africa, 1 Pacific Islands, 4 are the Americas.

The Last 500 Years – 52 topics, almost all of them are focused on Western nations (Europe/Eurasia, United States) or interactions with Western nations. While global interaction is vital in the past few hundred years, there is a Western bias to how it is addressed in this book. No modern mention of Native Americans past 1890.

Prehistoric World

 “New Worlds” – This topic uses the term “the first Americans” which is problematic. We predate “America.” The term “the first Americans” is not well liked among many Native peoples. We are not the “first Americans.” It teaches the land bridge theory exclusively. It states this was 30,000-13,000 years ago. These dates are off based on current science. It also indicates this is the origin of all Indigenous peoples in the Americas. There is no mention of other theories, new scientific findings, or multiple origins (not one migration/one ancestral population). There is no mention of the “Ice Free Corridor” – the fact that the land route into the Americas was blocked by ice until 10,000 to 13,000 years ago so that humans could not pass. We have sites in the Americas that greatly pre-date this time period, which means humans were here long before that corridor opened up to human migration. There is a statement that people may have “followed the coast,” but it is not clear if that means by land or water. It is still only teaching one origin of all people in the Americas. We need to change how this is taught. Teachers, homeschoolers, curriculum, textbooks – all need to update what is taught about this and how. Traditional Indigenous stories and understandings also need to be acknowledged and incorporated. No one actually knows when or how the Americas were populated. Scientific findings and conclusions are constantly being updated. It is irresponsible to teach this one theory as a known fact. Continuing this myth is harmful.

Ancient World

“The First Farmers” – This is about the Fertile Crescent/Mesopotamia. It claims it is the first farming in the world. To be fair, new information has been found about this topic since this book was last updated, however it was known then that agriculture independently started in multiple places around the world at about the same time, including in South America and Southwest Asia. There is no one origin of agriculture. This could have focused on multiple locations outside of, and including, Mesopotamia.

“The First Towns” – If agriculture independently started in different parts of the world around the same time, it would stand to reason that the first towns, or early urban development, also happened independently around the world around the same time. This topic is focused on Mesopotamia, but no one can really agree on the “oldest town” in the world. There are urban centers that developed around the world at similar times. This could have focused on multiple locations outside of, and including, Mesopotamia.

“The First Cities” – Same issues as above. This could have focused on multiple locations outside of, and including, Mesopotamia. “The invention of writing” – could have focused on multiple locations, as writing developed independently in different parts of the world at different times, but not directly related to one single oldest form. This indirectly implies it is the origin of all writing.

“Crafts and Trade” – This is focused on Sumerians, but all of these things – pottery, stone carving, metalwork, etc. - developed in many parts of the world. Native Americans in the Great Lakes are among the world’s earliest creators of metal tools. This could have focused on many places alongside Sumer.

“Cities of the Indus Valley” – This claims that farmers in the Indus Valley were the first people to grow cotton and weave it into cloth. The oldest cotton cloth in the world found so far is from Peru. The cultivation of cotton occurred independently in the Americas and the Indus Valley around the same time, possibly in the Americas first.

“The Hebrew Kingdoms” – This topic is not secular. It states “you can read about the Hebrews in the Old Testament of the Bible” as a historic resource and goes on to describe several stories from the Bible. It does not indicate that these are beliefs or religious stories, they’re just told as history (and I am not talking about things that are historically known that are also written in the Bible).  

“The Frist North Americans” – There are only two pages for hundreds of cultures and civilizations here, compared to page after page after page about European cultures, Middle Eastern cultures, etc. There are whole topics about daily life, wars, kings, amazing buildings in Eurasia….and two pages for all of North America. For example – there are multi-page topics that cover “The Greeks a War,” “Life in Ancient Greece,” “The City of Athens,” and “Alexander the Great,” or “The Rise of Rome,” “The Roman Army,” “Life in a Roman Town,” “Fun and Games,” “The Spread of Christianity,” and “The Fall of Rome.” And then two pages to cover all of North America over thousands of years. This is an example of hidden Eurocentrism. The same time and effort is not given to non-Western cultures. Again, it claims the Bering Strait theory and presents no other theories. It claims dates that are way too recent as the origins of all people in the Americas. It uses words like “roamed around” to describe ancient Natives, but does not use this to describe early cultures in Europe. This descriptor makes it sound random and less developed than other parts of the world. This is Eurocentric language used to make other cultures/civilizations look less advanced. All of the descriptions are extremely simplistic, again to make these cultures look more primitive than European cultures in the same time period. The drawings also do this. They are stereotypes and drawn to look less advanced than Eurasian cultures. They say a “shelter” made of ice blocks in the artic is called an “igloo.” This is incorrect. Iglu means house…any kind of house. An ice house is an igluvijaq. This calls Native homes “tents” and “shelters,” and European homes “houses” and “homes.” It states that “some tribes learned to grow corn, beans, and squashes” – in Europe and Asia the development of farming is described in great detail and states they “started farming.” The word “farming” is not used on these two pages nor are there any descriptions of early development of advanced farming and irrigation techniques, or the cultivation of edible food forests. It makes farming and food science sound like an afterthought. Around 2/3rds of the world’s produce was originally cultivated in the Americas.

“The People of Ancient Peru” – This is only one page. It opens with “By 2000 BC, the people of ancient Peru had settled down to farm, and were growing corn, tomatoes, peppers, chili peppers, squashes and potatoes.” – Potatoes were being cultivated as early as 8 - 10,000 years ago. Corn was being cultivated about 10,000 years ago. Other crops were being cultivated much earlier than 2000 BC. “Around 1200 BC the Chavin people created the first civilization in South America.” Again, this is false. The Norte Chico civilization predates the Chavin by hundreds of years and is considered a contemporary with urbanism in Mesopotamia. It is one of the early independent developments of civilization of the world. This is where the book first mentions human sacrifice in the Americas, regarding the Moche people. Of 11 mentions of human sacrifice in the entire book, 7 of them are about people in the Americas despite the fact that human sacrifice (sometimes called other things) occurred around the world. This is the beginning of an odd and Eurocentric focus on Natives and human sacrifice in each subsequent section about Natives. This is not focused on in any of the other cultures in the book or even mentioned for most. This is harmful.

“The Olmecs” -  This is only one page. It starts by claiming they had “no farm animals” despite the fact that the Olmec did in fact domesticate several animals, like dogs and turkeys. Like the previous sections, the lists of foods cultivated in the Americas are kept short even though the majority of the world’s food today was originally cultivated by farmers and scientists in the Americas. A sidebar with a list of foods from the Americas would be nice, just to show the massive amount. Again, the book mentions human sacrifice, but makes no mention of the fact that the ball game played with rubber balls was the first use of rubber in the world. This idea of “firsts” is very common with Eurasian civilizations, but not ever used for civilizations in the Americas. It claims the Olmecs “died out” rather than stating their civilization declined. The people remained, they didn’t just “die out” and disappear. Other world civilizations are described as having been invaded, splitting up, declining, collapsing, but not “dying out.” This is reserved for the Americas, which is a problem because it leads to false ideas and myths that these civilizations just “disappeared” and it’s a “mystery” what happened to them. This is a common myth that textbooks, history museums, websites, TV shows, and other media perpetuate.

“Ancient Cities of the Americas” – This is only two pages. It states that Teotihuacan was the largest ancient city in the Americas. It depends on what they mean by “ancient.” Tenochtitlan was the largest pre-European Contact city in the Americas, larger than Teotihuacan. It does correctly indicate that Teotihuacan was the sixth largest city in the world during its time. It calls their art “crafts.” While “crafts” is used early on to describe arts in ancient Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, it switches to “art” right after that. The book continues to call arts in the Americas “crafts” throughout. European art is not called “crafts.” This is Eurocentrism. It mentions stone, clay, and obsidian tools, but not metal use. Metal use was extensive in some parts of the Americas, as well as some of the oldest in the world. It moves on to the Maya, but uses “Mayan” incorrectly. Mayan should be used to describe the language only, whereas Maya should be used for everything else. It should say “Maya cities” and “Maya gods and kings” rather than “Mayan.” It then immediately leaps to human sacrifice. They do at least credit the Maya with the invention of zero (New evidence suggests the Olmec may have invented zero first). It mentions that “experts” are just now learning what their writing means, but makes no mention of the Spanish destruction of their written records. This is a key reason why not much of it is understood.

This is all that is mentioned of the Americas for the “Ancient World.” Other than Egypt, Africa only gets two pages. The few descriptions of the ancient Americas are very simplistic and Eurocentric. The cultures and civilizations are described from a Western worldview/perspective. They are written in a way that implies inferiority to European civilizations. The drawings of people are mostly stereotypes with not a lot of attention to accuracy or diversity. This is basically how it feels to read this part of the book: https://indigenoushistory.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/what-if-people-told-european-history-like-they-told-native-american-history/

Medieval World

The terms “Medieval” or “Middle Ages” are Eurocentric terms based on European metrics of development over time. They do not appropriately apply to the whole world during the same time period. Post-antiquity Era, Pre-modern Era, and Post-ancient Era are all terms that encompass the whole world rather than just the Western world.

“Looking at the Medieval World” – The summaries on these two pages are highly Eurocentric. They are entirely framed around Europe and their contact (or lack thereof) with the rest of the world and their major events.

“Vikings Abroad” – While this calls them “ferocious warriors” on one page, the next calls them “daring adventurers and traders.” It states “Others went to live in Vinland (America), but Native Americans attacked their homes…” instead of saying they invaded and attacked Native homes, so Natives defended themselves. This type of wording and phrasing is difficult to notice when read from a Western perspective. It is the way things have always been taught in the US. But when reading with a non-Western lens, these phrases jump out as being biased and skewed.  The “Vikings” (an occupation, not a people group) did not simply go and settle empty lands. They invaded. Natives did not simply attack them. They defended themselves against an invasion.

“Mongol Invaders” – Though I am not an expert on Asian histories and cultures, this section sticks out to me as biased and Eurocentric. It uses expressions like “cruel and bloodthirsty,” “invaded” and “killing thousands of people” to describe the Mongols, but not European people groups and nations. While these may or may not be true about the Mongols, they can easily be used to describe what Europeans were doing to each other and around the world. The book uses terms like “gained control,” “great sailors and warriors,” “settled,” “conquered,” “winning land,” and “skilled soldiers” for Europeans and makes no mention of how many people they killed. Europeans are never called “cruel and bloodthirsty.”

There is a focus on “becoming Christian,” Christian kingdoms,” and church history over other religions.

“Explorers and Sailors” – This lesson is highly Eurocentric. It opens with “Travel in the Middle Ages was very difficult and dangerous, but a few brave explorers set out on amazing journeys.” Difficult and dangerous for who? The lesson only focuses on Eurasian travel and one African traveler. There is no mention of Indigenous “great explorers” in the Americas or travel between Pacific Islands and the Americas. There is no mention of the possibility of intercontinental travel that included the Americas. Then it states, “Although traders had reached Africa, India, and China, these countries were almost completely unexplored.” Okay, wow. “Traders” should say Europeans, but again this is a Eurocentric focus. Why the focus on European “traders” here? Why not talk about intercontinental travel from multiple perspectives? This also calls Africa a country. Let that sink in. It lists Africa, a continent, and then says "these countries..." And then saying that Africa, India, and China were “almost completely unexplored” is absurd. Millions of people lived in those places and I guarantee they thoroughly explored them.

“The People of the Pacific” – Aside from the Eurocentric descriptions here, this claims the Sweet Potato comes from the Pacific Islands. This is a crop from the Americas that they got from contact with the Americas before European contact.

“Native North Americans” – This is two pages for the entirety of Natives north of Mexico. Lessons about Europe get page after page after page. They don’t attempt to sum up a thousand years (“middle ages”) of European history in two pages, yet they do this to North America. Again, with the “igloos” thing. Iglu means house. It is not specific to an ice house. The descriptions are again simplistic and from a Western slant/bias. They’re so overly simplistic they’re wrong. Their description of “Mississippi towns” is horribly false. These were cities, not “towns.” They were larger than most European cities at the time. The mounds were not just in the “center” of the “towns” and they were not just used to bury “chiefs” as the book claims. The drawings are largely stereotypes. It uses European terms like “priests” instead of “religious leaders” or cultural terminology. “Chief” is also a European term (and I don’t mean English. it is in the English language, but there are better English terms for Native leaders in various nations as well as cultural terms). When describing the development of Europe, they move from the term “tribes” to “kingdoms,” “nations,” and “city-states.” When describing Native nations, they only use “tribes.” When describing the development of Europe, they move from the term “villiages” to “towns” and “cities.” When describing Native nations, they use only “villages” (with the exception of Mississippian and Pueblo “towns” that should be called cities). “Villages built like this were called pueblos, and the people who lived in them became known as the Pueblos.” No. The SPANISH later called these towns and cities, “pueblos.” The SPANISH called the people “the Pueblos.” And “were,” past tense? These Pueblos still exist. The people who live there have their own names for themselves in their own languages. There’s an entire lesson on European art during this time period, but here they have a tiny section (one sentence) in which they call Pueblo art, “crafts.” These descriptions annoy me a great deal.

“The Aztec Empire” – Two pages. “The Aztecs were a wandering, warlike people…” The word “warlike” is used to describe the Assyrians, “tribes of warriors from Asia” that eventually created Eastern European kingdoms, the Maori of New Zealand, and now the Aztec, but never Western Europeans…. who were certainly “warlike.” And nomadic peoples did not “wander,” they traveled intentionally. The “Aztec” were a triple alliance of three city-states made up of the Mexica, Acolhua, Tepaneca, as well as others. It claims they, “Aztec” people, settled at Lake Texcoco and then built up an empire around their city of Tenochtitlan. This really isn’t how it happened. It states they built temples, but not pyramids. The images show pyramids, but there is no mention of this. The oldest and largest pyramids in the world are in the Americas. It makes no mention that Tenochtitlan was one of the largest and most advanced cities in the world. The rest of the pages focus mostly on human sacrifice. There is little focus on their technologies, arts, or sciences, and no focus on their culture, daily lives, or anything else like what is found in the sections about Europe. The Spanish exaggeration of human sacrifice combined with cultural misunderstandings led to this hyper focus on human sacrifice in Central America. The numbers were greatly inflated to make the Spanish look justified in their “conquest.” Many Europeans were cruel, bloodthirsty, warlike people. Aside from a very real history of human sacrifice in Europe, they killed millions of people in invasions, conquests, and massacres. Why is there not a hyper focus on this? A lot of that was done in the name of religion/their god. And let’s not forget “burn the witch” in the name of their god. If the Aztec believed in capturing people instead of killing them in battle and then killing them later, how is that much different than the Roman prisoners turned gladiators being forced to kill each other? Ritualistic human sacrifice has been practiced all over the world, including in Europe. The hyper focus on human sacrifice in the Americas while not mentioning it in regard to anywhere else in the world is Eurocentrism. There is so much more you can teach about the Aztec – exceptionally clean cities, paved roads, aqueducts, math, science, astronomy, government, economy, architecture, writing system, books, libraries – and yet all these books ever focus on is human sacrifice and war. At least this mentions chinampas, not by name and inaccurately described, but okay cool. There is also no mention of chocolate, which was hugely important. They only name three crops out of dozens. It claims they fought “constant wars,” but never makes this claim of Europe in the Middle Ages. It was basically constant wars there, too. Again, with calling art, “crafts.” While Eurasian civilizations are described as “skilled” when they make things and work metal, the Aztec are called “craftworkers” and not described as “skilled.” There is no mention of sophisticated Aztec weaponry or the fact that obsidian is sharper than steel. Then the book claims Cortes was simply a “soldier” and that the Aztec thought he was a “god.” Let’s kill this myth already, folks. It is known to be false multiple times over. The Mexica Didn't Believe the Conquistadors Were Gods | JSTOR Daily It says he did not attack the Aztec, but invaded and conquered them….what’s the difference? And it says their way of life disappeared. Their language and aspects of their culture remain in Mexico today. They never “disappeared.”

“The Maya and the Toltecs” – two pages. The images of the city and pyramids are labeled with information about human sacrifice. Why? Why not information about how they’re built or regular daily life? They don’t use the word “pyramid” at all and there’s hardly anything about their cities and architecture. The pages are full of incorrect use of the word “Mayan” where it should say “Maya.” “Mayan” refers to the language, “Maya” refers to everything else. In the Ancient World section, there are two whole pages dedicated to explaining Christianity, beliefs, and early history in a way that sounds respectful. In this one topic there are three sentences that poorly attempt to sum up Maya beliefs. That’s it. Theirs a brief mention of their accurate calendars, but not much detail. There are about three small paragraphs about the Toltecs with little information about them as a people. Again, the images are labeled with information about human sacrifice instead of details of what the little paragraph talked about. Amazingly enough, they use the word “kingdoms” to describe the Maya civilization.

“Empires of the Andes” – Two pages. They start by calling the Chimu a “group.” Native nations are not “groups.” It does mention quipu, but not the extent of what they actually are. It states they were used to keep official records, but they were also used to communicate various information beyond numbers and official records. They’re extremely unique in human history and beginning to be recognized as a form of “writing” in a sense. It claims the Inca did not use metal tools. This is patently false. They developed metallurgy and made tools of copper and bronze. This is on top of decorative use of metals like silver and gold. There is no discussion whatsoever of Inca metallurgy. There is one image of a gold knife (while stating there were no metal tools) and that is it. That’s the last we see of the Americas until European invasion. The book then moves on back to detailed information about Europe and their arts, specific countries, education, science, etc. It uses the word “people” in place of “Europeans,” as Eurocentric texts tend to do. It makes false claims to bolster European invention – like claiming the printing press was invented there. The next lesson is called “Artists of Italy” (Natives are never called artists), then “Ideas and Inventions” which is entirely about Europeans. It could easily highlight inventions around the world, but does not.

“Voyages of Discovery” – Now we get standard false narratives about Europeans “discovering” the rest of the world. It talks about trying to reach India, but India was not called India in the 1400s. Europeans were trying to get to the Indies, which is what south Asia and the islands of Southeast Asia were called at the time. The section about Columbus leads with the myth that “people” (Europeans) thought the world was flat, but Columbus and some others believed it was round. This myth was disproven a long time ago, yet it persists. Many cultures around the world knew the Earth was round by the 1400s. This also claims Columbus was trying to reach China, instead of the Indies. It states he “had discovered an exciting new land.” The rest of his story is very basic and Eurocentric, as to be expected. The images are stereotypes. There is no mention of genocide, torture, invasion, enslavement, etc. The rest of these two pages are about Henry the Navigator, John Cabot, and Amerigo Vespucci. It is categorized as “the world” instead of a specific continent as the rest are, but is entirely about Europeans and their lack of knowledge about the world.

The Last 500 Years

“Looking at the Last 500 Years” – Among many issues in the summary, it states “During the 16^th century, a few powerful rulers governed large areas of the world, and ordinary people had little say in how their countries were run.” Which people? Which cultures? Because this is not true all over the world. It is a broad generalization that is mostly accurate in Eurasia, but not everywhere else. It repeats the whole – people thought the Earth was flat – myth. This summary is focused entirely on the Western world.

“Exploring the World” – “The 16^th century was a very exciting time for explorers. After Christopher Columbus arrived in America in 1492, people dreamed of finding treasure in the exotic New World. They also hoped they would find new routes to the rich trading countries of China and India.” – As per usual, they use “people” to mean “European.” New world to who? New routes to who? This is entirely about Europeans, but it makes it sound like the world in general. The whole topic is about “exploring” places in the world that Europeans hadn’t been yet. But people lived in all of those places and had already explored them. This topic is even labeled under “the world” rather than “Europe” even though it is entirely about European “explorers.” Never mind that most of these Europeans (if not all) were not actually explorers either. They were slave traders, treasure hunters, and conquerors. They wanted land, fame, and riches.  They were not motivated by exploration and they were not exploring. Yet this is all about Europeans “exploring.”

“Early Settlers in the Americas” – They continue the use of the term “New World” here instead of using less Eurocentric language. It states that the Spanish “forced the Native Americans to work in their mines” which is slavery, but doesn’t call it slavery. Eurocentric materials like to avoid the subject of enslavement of Indigenous peoples in the Americas by Europeans. On the very next page they state the Portuguese “brought slaves from Africa.” The part about the French and the British talks about claiming land and fighting over land with absolutely zero discussion on whose land that really was and that the Native nations did not consent to this. The only mention of Native Americans here is that the Spanish “forced the Native Americans to work.” We are absent from every other part of it. The map key states: “This map shows land owned by European countries in 1750.” Emphasis mine.

“Settlers in North America” – Same as the previous section. All about Europeans “successfully” colonizing someone else’s land with little mention of those people. It perpetuates the “pilgrim” mythology of seeking freedom of religion (hint – they weren’t really). It claims the Mayflower landed in Plymouth, but it didn’t initially in real life. It claims they survived with the “help of the local Native Americans.” It doesn’t even bother to name the Wampanoag. Fortunately, the thanksgiving myth here is very minimal. It mentions that some Europeans came “in search of land and adventure.” The land part is right, but I wouldn’t call invading and committing genocide “adventure.” It perpetuates US founding mythology that “at first, the settlers from Europe lived peacefully with the Native Americans.” This has never been true, but it is commonly taught as fact. “By the 1720s, most of the native tribes on the east coast of America had been wiped out or had been driven west.” Not really accurate. Most had been enslaved and pushed around in the east, but not “wiped out.” Genocide was certainly happening, which is glossed over by saying “wiped out,” but it is not accurate to say that “most” had been completely eliminated. And of course, they use “America” to mean the United States. America is two whole continents, not the US. No mention of genocide, enslavement of Natives, land theft and invasion, forced assimilation, etc.

“The Slave Trade” – This topic does not acknowledge the enslavement of Indigenous peoples as the beginning of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (Columbus) or the continued enslavement of Indigenous peoples throughout North America during the same time period as the enslavement of Africans in North America. It briefly mentions the enslavement of Indigenous peoples in the early 1500s in the West Indies, but not beyond that. There are a lot of other issues I see in this section, but that is beyond the scope of this review and my expertise.

“Exploring the South Seas” – This topic is Eurocentric drivel about “exploring” the Pacific Islands, making heroes out of people like Captain Cook, claims he made friends with the Indigenous peoples, etc. It even claims the Maori “agreed to let” the British have “control” over their land in the 1800s. It completely ignores genocide except in Australia, which is oddly sympathetic for such a Eurocentric text.

As this “last 500 years” theme continues, almost every section for nearly every part of the world focuses on Europeans in those places.

“The American Revolution” – This topic makes no mention of Native American nations who did, in fact, play important roles in this history.  It makes no mention of the fact that the British had made laws that there was to be no more land theft or expansion, and that Native nations were to be left alone, as a major cause of the war. It does not mention the influence of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy on the Constitution or structure of the new US government.

“Changes in Farming” – This is only about Europe. I only mention it because it states “But in the 18^th century, some farmers discovered that they could stop the soil from wearing out by planting a different crop in each field every year. This new system was called crop rotation.” Emphasis mine. This is false. European farmers in the 1700s did not “discover” this and it was not “new.” Crop rotation has been utilized around the world for thousands of years. In the Americas, Native farmers utilized crop rotation as well as other advanced farming techniques.

“The Growth of the USA” – This topic starts out by stating that the US “won” land. The first page is extreme erasure and pro-western expansion drivel. The next page is appalling. It only mentions generic “Native Americans” on the plains as if the rest of the land wasn’t ours and we weren’t anywhere else but the plains. It says there were “clashes” between the Natives and cowboys. That’s it. No mention of genocide, invasion, land-theft, corrupt laws, coerced treaties, etc. The “Struggling to Survive” section is a poor description of Native resistance to westward expansion. It doesn’t even try very hard. It says “many tribes were completely wiped out” which is not accurate. Some were. Not “many.” “A New World Power” perpetuates US exceptionalism quite strongly. It includes a picture of Sitting Bull with no information about him or context for who he is. It simply states “Sitting Bull, a Native American chief who fought the US army.” It doesn’t even identify his nation. We’re all just generic, monolithic “Native Americans” at this point. The “important dates” at the bottom is horrendous. “1890 – The Native Americans are finally defeated at the Battle of Wounded Knee.” Emphasis mine. This made me angry the first time I read it. It is absolutely atrocious that they wrote this. This is racist. There is no excuse. Wounded Knee was not a “battle,” it was a massacre. Calling it a "battle" is disgusting. And "the Native Americans?" Which ones?? This sounds as if all Native Americans in existence were "defeated" here in this one single incident. The Apache Wars went until 1924, are we not Native Americans? And "finally?" We were "finally" massacred and genocided? As if that was the desired outcome? The only possible outcome?? The word "finally" here is really gross. And then "defeated." This is the "vanishing Indian" mythology. We were all just "defeated" and gone, as if it was our own fault we ended up in that position. 

Sections labeled “The United States” past the 1800s make zero mention of Native Americans. There isn’t even mention of us in the “Rights for All” section under “Human Rights.” We do not exist past the 1800s in this book. There are a total of three topics that do not mention European or Western countries. All of the topics labeled “The World” are focused entirely on European and Western countries, or interactions with said countries.