To stick with the theme of my review of the first book in the History of Us series by Joy Hakim –
this book is also one of the worst history books I have read. I suspect that
will be the case for the whole series. This book is also full of incorrect
information, baseless opinions, and contains a significant amount of bias. It
is from a Eurocentric/Euro-American viewpoint. She uses the word “Indian”
throughout this book, the same as the first, instead of using correct or more
acceptable terminology. Here is a chapter by chapter breakdown:
The dedication page at the beginning has a poem by Stephen
Vincent Benet titled “Indian.” It is racist. It is supposed to be sympathetic
to Native peoples and how colonization happened to us, but it just perpetuates
stereotypes and falsities instead. It ends with “The Indians were here.” We are
still here. Why not pick a poem by a Native poet? Or a poem that doesn’t have
anything to do with us?
Page 8 has a large quote from John Smith. It is there
without explanation or context. It contains a racial slur, but has no
discussion around it about that slur or why it is harmful.
The books are supposedly secular and are used in public
schools and online public schools, however the Preface opens with a Bible story
as if it is commonly accepted history. It is full of religious, incorrect, and
biased terminology, and possibly offensive terminology. It states the US was
founded on Greek democracy and makes no mention of the Haudenosaunee
(Iroquois) Confederacy’s influence on the founding of the US. Her discussion on
the Middle Ages only includes Europe, not the whole world. There was much going
on in the world during that time period outside of Europe. Apparently, that
doesn’t matter. She claims that “seagoing explorers” proved the world was
round. It was already known for centuries before this period that the world is
round. She then perpetuates the “melting pot” ideology in several problematic
ways. She continues the idea that the US was a grand experiment, and no one had
ever done anything like it before, as she did in the first book. Invasion,
colonization, conquest, slavery, exploitation, and democracies had all been
done before. “Can people who don’t look alike build a free and equal society
together?” – the colonists did not do this, but this series continues to push
this notion that they did.
Chapter 1 – A Sign in the Sky - Here we find the idea that “modern science” is
from Europeans. This chapter is mostly about Europe. It claims that the colonists
were coming up with a “new way of governing, a new way of looking at the
world.” Colonization, forming colonial governments, and democratic governments
had all been done before, none of these things were new. It says that the
changes for the “Indians” were tragic, but then praises the colonists for their
“brave men” and calls it “awesome.” The idea of this being tragic to Native
peoples is basically a side note as if we don’t matter at all. Genocide is
never awesome, no matter who “benefits” from it.
Chapter 2 – Across the Ocean - There is frequent use of
words like “brave,” “adventure,” and “new world.” It says the 1607 colony of
Jamestown was the first attempt and an English colony, which is false. “They
were going to a New World, where there were strange animals, deep forests, and
people said to be wild.” This is not an okay way to describe Native peoples at
all. Her attempt at making it sound mysterious and adventurous just turns out
to be racist. She completely undoes what she previously described in the preface
as “Indian civilizations” by using the term “wild.” She calls the Americas an
“untouched garden of Eden.” Again, you can’t mention civilizations already here
and then call the place “untouched.” It’s nonsense.
Chapter 3 – The First Virginians - This chapter is about the
Powhatan (which was actually a confederacy of nations, but “wild Indians”
didn’t have politics like that of course). They were not the “first Virginians”
because they were not Virginians. They have their own names for themselves. She
uses the word “s*v*ge” here regularly in an attempt to make the word sound
acceptable when describing people. She says, after repeatedly using the word to
describe things like stories and life, “They called the natives ‘s*v*ges,’ but
meant the word kindly.” No. Just no. That word was never meant kindly toward Indigenous
peoples of the world. She then goes on to use the word herself to describe us
in a completely serious, non-ironic, way. “But, later, when others met those
great s*v*ges…” This is disgusting. She describes the area now known as
Virginia as a paradise but does not explain that it was a carefully cultivated
food forest. The Native peoples had practiced sustainable land management
techniques that encouraged healthy and abundant growth of foods around them for
an exceptionally long time by this point. They were master stewards of the
land. This was not an “untouched wilderness” as it is commonly described in
this book. This context is vital to understanding a whole lot about early
colonization and its impacts, but it is completely ignored. These books go into
so much detail about what was happening in Europe that led to the colonizing of
the Americas, but hardly gives any details about the Indigenous peoples leading
up to the same events and the impacts it had on us. This chapter also has
multiple contradictions. It talks about the abundant foods, big farms and
gardens, storehouses of corn, all the animals anyone could ever hunt, etc. It
then claims the Powhatan sometimes went hungry, which doesn’t make sense based
on the way she describes the food sources in the area. She also claims that they
overhunted deer so that deer became scarce. Natives, in general, hunted
sustainably. It was not until the English interrupted Indigenous food systems
and trade networks, and created a system of dependency on them, that
overhunting became an issue. This didn’t happen until much later, not in 1607. When
she describes European children later in the book, she indicates they learn and
get education. When she describes the Native children in the area around
Jamestown, she says they “helped their parents” and “played.” She does not
acknowledge Indigenous forms of education as education. Instead she diminishes
it to play and “helping.”
Chapter 4 – English Settlers Come to Stay - On the first
page of this chapter we find the sentence “…the Englishmen were attacked by
Indians, who came ‘creeping upon all fours…like bears, with their bows in their
mouths.” Real historical quote or not, the way she uses it is to add
description to the story instead of addressing the issues with the quote. She
uses a racist description, supposedly from primary sources, but does not
address it as such. She repeats herself in this book often, using the slur “s*v*ges”
to describe Natives. Not as quotes from primary sources, but just uses it
herself. She often states the same thing she states here: “They thought of the
Indians as s*v*ges.” She says this so often it feels like she agrees. This sentence
again contradicts her earlier claims in chapter three that the slur was used
“kindly.” We find the term “Indian prince” used here, which isn’t seen very
often. Usually it is used for women only as “Indian princess.” Regardless,
princes and princesses didn’t exist in Indigenous societies. This was a
European concept misapplied to other cultures that they didn’t understand. It
is inaccurate to use it in a history text to describe real people. She
describes the abundance of food that the colonists “found” without describing
or explaining the careful land management and cultivation it took to make it so
abundant. This entire curriculum is
Eurocentric, but I want to point out an example as a matter of perspective. “Jamestown
was almost an island, with a narrow sandbar link to the mainland. It would be
easy to defend against Indian raids or against ships…” The word defend
here is interesting to me, because from my perspective as a Native person, the
Native nations were the ones doing the defending. From our perspective, the
description about the chosen location for Jamestown would read something like
this: “The place they called Jamestown was almost an island, with a narrow
sandbar link to the mainland. It would be difficult to defend ourselves from
this invasion due to their location.” This is supposing it would actually be
difficult. The word defend depends on what perspective you’re telling it from.
Why were Native peoples “raiding” Jamestown? This curriculum does not attempt
to explain this, or any Native perspectives at all. It is written as if the
Euro-American perspective is true history.
Chapter 5 – John Smith -This chapter starts with glowing
praises of John Smith. It immediately tells the false story of Matoaka (Pocahontas)
that many people think is the true story. It’s a myth, but it is presented here
as if it is true. I wonder if the author even knows it is false? I would expect
that someone writing a history curriculum would do enough research to find out
that it is not accurate. She uses the incorrect term “Indian princess” as well,
which is typical in the false Pocahontas narrative. She states that Smith
“might have exaggerated a bit” but that the stories are essentially true. This
isn’t the case about all of Smith’s writing. She doesn’t use the names of
specific Native nations typically, just “Indians” and “Native Americans.”
Native Americans are not a monolith. Every nation is different and has
different histories. We are often written about, not just in these books, in
the generic terms of “Native Americans” rather than specific language that
indicates who exactly the story is about. This perpetuates the idea that we’re
all the same. We get “English” and “French” and “Spanish,” but we can’t be
bothered with the actual names of the Native nations involved. This would be
like writing a European history book and just saying “Europeans” throughout no
matter which people group or country is being talked about.
Chapter 6 – The Starving Time - She really likes to quote
people calling us “s*v*ges.” It gets old quickly. It really shouldn’t be in the
books at all except to explain that it is a racial slur and harmful but was
used in primary resources that students may read. There is absolutely no reason
to repeat it throughout the book, especially when not quoting a primary source.
She does this anyway. This chapter really doesn’t mention Natives much except to
speculate if the Starving Time was an “Indian war” against the colony (and to
call us a racial slur). There is documented cannibalism of Europeans eating a
Native person, but it is a footnote as if it isn’t significant. In her books,
she mentions Natives supposedly being cannibals multiple times, not as
footnotes, even with little to no evidence of such. Europeans though? She
doesn’t call them cannibals even when they were.
Chapter 7 – A Lord, A Hurricane, A Wedding - This chapter
states that the colonists “fought back” against the Natives. Again, this is an
example of Eurocentrism. Native nations were defending themselves against
invasion. They were the ones “fighting back” against the colonists who insisted
on claiming land that wasn’t theirs and taking whatever they wanted. To write
about it more objectively, one could simply state that the colonists and
Natives fought, but saying the colonists “fought back” is disingenuous at best.
The chapter states that the new settlement of Henrico had a “visitor” when
referring to Pocahontas being kidnapped and brought there. It flippantly states
“unfortunately she was dragged there.” Doesn’t that mean she wasn’t a
“visitor”? That is not how visiting people works. It describes Pocahontas being
kidnapped but then quickly shifts to a nice, happy, positive sounding story
about how they “taught her the Christian religion.” I’m not sure I call it
“teaching” when you kidnap someone and force them to live how you want. The
story goes on to say how she fell in love with John Rolfe, how wonderfully she
was treated, and how great her life was. It heavily praises the forced assimilation
and removal of Matoaka (Pocahontas) from her home and people. It is gross. It
says she was treated as a celebrity in Europe but describes how they pointed at
her in public as if it is a good thing. It’s an odd description. The end of the
chapter is also quite gross. “The Indians will attack. They will kill settlers,
burn their homes, and try to drive them from the land.” Where is this kind of
description for how the Europeans treated Native peoples? How they invaded,
killed, mutilated, enslaved, and raped them? Any time Europeans did something
awful, she either doesn’t write about it, glosses over it, just says they were
“arrogant” or claims “there’s some good and bad people in every group” and
calls Natives bad again, too.
Chapter 8 – A Share in America - Settlers and colonizing is
written about in a positive way and is called an “adventure” at the start of
this chapter. It claims that some English wanted to save Natives from the
Spaniards. “In England, people have read stories about the way some Spaniards
treat the Indians; how they make them dig gold, how they starve them, how they
make slaves of them. Good people are horrified.” This is simply not accurate. The
English were extremely cruel and brutal to Natives like the Spanish were. The
English enslaved, murdered, starved, and exploited Native peoples. The colonies
would not have existed without that exploitation. Religion was used to justify
their actions, like it was by the Spanish. They celebrated days of feasting and
thanksgiving after slaughtering whole Native towns – men, women, and children. Some
English may have felt differently, maybe saw Native peoples as needing
religious salvation instead, but that doesn’t make the English any better than
the Spanish because some Spanish did the same as well. This comparison of the
English being better is false. She then goes on to use the word “powwow” in a
stereotypical way. “An Englishman named William Tucker arranges a powwow with
the Pamunkey Indians.” This is not what powwow means nor is it how the word
should be used. This is typical US language that relies on stereotypes like
“sitting Indian style” or “like a wild Indian.” She then talks about “English
schools” verses being “trained in the Indian way.” Aside from the fact that
there is no such thing as “the Indian way” (we are not a monolith), the idea
that the English method of learning is education while the Native method isn’t
acknowledged as such is an issue. Native education is not seen as education
here. She calls it a “strange land” and “wilderness” again and then starts
using stereotypical descriptions of Native people based on nature themes.
Chapter 9 – Jamestown Makes It - “At last the settlers found
gold. Gold in the form of a leaf.” This is the opening of chapter 9. “Found”
being the key word here. Tobacco, which is what is being referenced, is a
sacred plant to many Indigenous peoples and was cultivated for thousands of
years around the Americas. It was and still is used in ceremony and prayer. To
say that the colonists “found” tobacco is absurd. The plant had already been
brought to Europe by the Spanish a hundred years earlier so Europeans were
already familiar with it. The colonists in Jamestown exploited the land and the
Indigenous peoples, from which it came, to make tobacco into a cash crop. They
did not “find” it. She goes into the
topic of labor in the colonies. The author completely skips over the
enslavement of Indigenous peoples. She then downplays slavery in the colonies
with a discussion on indentured servitude. While indentured servants were a
real part of this history, the way she writes about it completely glosses over
actual slavery. She says Africans were kidnapped, shipped, and sold, but then
says they were indentured servants. The fact that they were kidnapped, sold,
and forced to work against their will makes this slavery. She starts to touch
on slavery, but then says it seemed like a “good idea to people who were
desperate for workers.” This isn’t anywhere close to the horrible way she
writes about slavery later in the book.
Chapter 10 – 1619 – A Big Year - The start of this chapter
is all about praising the English for not “giving up” and being hardworking,
determined people. Not only is this curriculum extremely Eurocentric, she
clearly thinks more highly of the English than anyone else. This is evident in
the way she writes about other Europeans throughout the series, especially in
the first few books. She praises the year 1619 as a great year of “firsts”
including the ‘first boatload of Africans” as if it is a good thing. She states
that the English made the first representative government in North America. She
then contradicts herself and says “Whoops! Hold on, that isn’t quite right” and
goes on to say that some Native nations has representative governments. (This
is briefly covered in the preface, which she contradicts several times throughout
the book as well). Then why write it that way? Why say something false first?
This odd writing style is found throughout the series. She makes false claims,
contradicts herself with a “whoops,” and then goes on to affirm the false claim
in some way. This entire chapter is just about how amazing and awesome and
smart the English were.
Chapter 11 – Indians vs Colonists - Yet again, this chapter
starts out with a false claim. The claim is that since Columbus, the Europeans
and Natives meet as friends at first. Colonizers never came as friends. Colonizing
isn’t a friendly act. Colonizing is in opposition to friendliness. They came,
since the time of Columbus, to take over and impose their own wills wherever
they went. They came to claim the land as their own and kill anyone in the way.
They did not come as friends. She talks about how the relationships would
change and “something would happen” so that the Natives would “strike back.”
She writes about this idea very nonchalantly, as if what happened to Natives
was no big deal. She then says that there were basically good and bad people
“on both sides” and they all “went too far” with how they treated each other. She
essentially makes the claim that Native people defending their own nations,
peoples, and lands is a bad thing to do. It is heavily implied in the way she
writes. She states “Indians were hunters” as a blanket statement with no
mention of agriculture that the English have been enjoying so much. The topic
of racism comes up and she states, “Some of them [whites] wanted to kill all
the Indians.” But then it turns around and equates this to Native self-defense as
if it is also racism. The chapter ends with the idea that sharing stolen land
was the fair thing to do. If you invade my home and say the fair thing to do is
that I need to share it with you, it isn’t going to end with me sharing my home
with you. That isn’t what “fair” means. I’m guessing she wouldn’t make the same
suggestion if someone invaded England.
Chapter 12 – Massacre in Virginia, Poverty in England - We
get the term “Indian prince” here again, which does not exist. She then
indicates this “prince” had been taken to Span and “educated” there. She uses
educated in a way that implies Native people are not “educated.” Just because
traditional forms of education look different than European education, does not
make it not education. Then we get to a story about a “massacre” that Natives
committed against the English. This is the first time the word “massacre” shows
up in the book and only one of two times it shows up at all in the book. This
word was never used in the first book either. Instead of mentioning all the
ways Europeans have massacred Native peoples up to this point, she uses the
word for the first time to talk about the Powhatan defending themselves from
invasion. She uses patronizing language like “pretended to be friendly” and
says they murdered the English. The type of language used here is never used to
describe all the ways the Europeans slaughtered Native peoples from 1492 to
this point. When speaking of more colonists coming, she says “Heat and germs
and Indians will kill most of them, yet they keep coming.” The way she writes
about Natives killing Europeans is very biased and she never discusses the
genocide that the Europeans brought here. She then praises the “American dream”
and says this is the “land of opportunity.” These are terms of propaganda that
ignore the violence of colonization and the exploitation that the US is based
upon and would not exist without. On the last page of the chapter is a
description of slavery. It’s gross, but her methods of discussing the topic get
worse throughout the book. Here she explains why viewing Africans as inferior
was wrong, but she does it based on Eurocentric standards rather than because
they are human. She compares drug abuse to chattel slavery and then claims that
the US is superior to the world. She says US slavery was horrible, and then
uses the word “but” to follow. There is no “but” that should ever follow that
statement. She says, “but the American system of government lets us correct
mistakes…of that we can be proud.” She can’t stand to say anything bad about
the US to the point that she’s dishonest about its history.
Chapter 13 – The Mayflower: Saints and Strangers - Even
though the colonists on the Mayflower were called Separatists and Saints, she
says they “had a new name: Pilgrims.” This term wasn’t used to describe the
colonists until 200 years later, so they did not have a “new name” when they
came here. They also did not take the trip as a pilgrimage as she claims. They
knew the land was inhabited and they knew it wasn’t theirs, but they believed
that God said they could kill and invade any land that wasn’t controlled by
“Christians.” This wasn’t about religious freedom for anyone but themselves and
it wasn’t a pilgrimage. She says “they believe that God has made the land
theirs for the taking” but does not make any attempt to mention that this is
wrong or why. She states it as if it is just fine.
Chapter 14 – Pilgrims, Indians, and Puritans - This chapter
has the familiar Thanksgiving story. She presents it as fact. The problem is
that it is a myth. Before we get to that story, she calls the colonists
“industrious” even though they had no idea how to survive and would have all
died without help. She even states this fact immediately after calling them
industrious. She tells a false story of Thanksgiving as if it is true history.
Her explanation “thanksgiving” celebrations in the Americas does not include
traditional harvest feasts by many Native nations, it is only about Europeans.
She gives a simplistic description of the Wampanoag, but never calls them
Wampanoag…only Indians. She includes a historic painting of this so called
“first thanksgiving” that portrays the myth and has many stereotypes and
inaccuracies. There is no discussion on the problems in the painting, which
would be a responsible thing to do when including such an image.
Chapter 15 – Puritans, Puritans and More Puritans - This
chapter doesn’t mention Native Americans; however it still has issues. In yet
another example of eurocentrism she says “But don’t be too hard on them. Almost
no one else believed in it either.” The word “them” is the colonists and “it”
is a reference to religious freedom. She says “no one else” believed in
religious freedom at the time. Who is “no one”? This is clearly a reference to
Europeans, but she doesn’t say that. The default of people here is European.
This does not acknowledge places in the world that have had these ideas at
various times in history. This is typical of her writing. When she says
“people” she means Europeans and when she says “no one” she means not Europeans.
Chapter 16 – Of Towns and Schools and Sermons - She lumps “Indians”
in with animals again at the beginning of this chapter. She says the colonists
used “abandoned Indian fields” that the “English settlers found and took.”
These fields were not “abandoned,” the people were killed or died of European
diseases. This is not an honest way to explain what happened. The colonists did
not “find” the fields, they knew they were there at this point. The rest of the
chapter doesn’t mention Natives, it’s mostly praise for the puritans and how
they could “think well.”
Chapter 17 – Roger Williams - Native people start to slowly
disappear from her narrative here. They no longer have much of any part in her “American”
story. I can’t wait to find out how little she mentions us in books three
through ten. She mentions something about Roger Williams and a Narragansett
leader (Canonicus) not judging people by their skin color as if skin color is
the problem that Native people had with the colonists. Skin color had nothing
to do with this for Native peoples.
Chapter 18 and 19 – There is no mention of Natives in these
chapters. This is the time where the Pequot Massacre of 1637 took place, but it
is not mentioned at all.
Chapter 20 – Of Witches and Dinosaurs - “If you are an
American, you are a descendant of the Puritans.” It goes on to explain she
means laws, not blood, and that these are some of the best laws “we” have. “You
see, the Puritans hoped to build a place on earth where people could live as
the Bible says they should, a place where people would be truly good.” This is extreme
bias and isn’t accurate. Regardless if she meant law or heritage, everyone in
the US is not “descended” from the Puritans. The remaining Puritan influence on
laws are “blue laws” like the ones that prohibit alcohol sales on Sunday or
shopping on certain holidays. And to say they were trying to build a place based
on the Bible as a reason for why their laws were the best laws is absurd. Many
of their laws and actions were harmful. Never mind that the past few chapters
have been explaining awful things they did and believed, she’s now praising
their laws? The rest of the chapter explains how their beliefs and practices
had massive flaws and how bad they were at following their own beliefs in the
Bible. It’s completely contradictory. Before going into the Salem Witch Trials
on the next page, she says “…they thought they should act like God’s elect and
lead good lives. And that’s why we can be happy they were among the first
colonists. They really tried their best to be good. They worked hard, they
believed in learning, and they did what they thought was right.” Her warped personal
opinions do not belong in a history book, but here we are. She inserts opinions
into every chapter. The opinions here are particularly egregious. So despite
all the horrible things they had done and that she continues to describe, we
should be “happy” they were the “first” colonists? Because they “tried?” Doing
what they “thought was right” led to massive amounts of destruction and damage
for centuries. If their actions were attempts at being Biblical, they failed
miserably. As she then describes the Salem Witch Trials, she says “everyone” in
reference to Puritan beliefs about witches. She is using the word “everyone” to
refer to only a small group of European people. There are no Natives in this
chapter.
Chapter 21 – Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine - After spending half a chapter describing how
awful the witch trials were, she says of the Puritans: “mostly these were good,
strong, intelligent people.” She continuously contradicts herself in this way.
She can’t stand to say anything bad about the English without following it up with
something like this. She indicates how great it was that the English came to
the Americas and that if they disagreed with each other there was “plenty of
room in America” to just start a new settlement. There was not “plenty of room”
for them to invade and claim as their own. It was not theirs. The only reason
they thought there was “plenty of room” was because of the genocide they
committed and the diseases they spread. She essentially says that land theft
(claiming land) was a contest. “The biggest losers in this contest were the
Indians.” Calling genocide and invasion a “contest” is gross. In a section
titled “land greed” she explains that Europeans “couldn’t believe their good
fortune” in regard to the land here. That wasn’t “good fortune,” it was theft.
We get the wilderness myth again when she says almost all the land was “tamed.”
There is no acknowledgment of Indigenous land management, it simply says that
Natives lived with nature. There is a lot of false information about Native
religious beliefs and views of land. She perpetuates the “harmony with nature”
mythology that pervades US ideas about Natives. The way she writes about cities
and suburbs requiring the forests to be cut down completely ignores the many
cities Native civilizations built. “Can we have cities and also sheltering
woodlands and clean rivers and abundant wildlife? Yes, but it isn’t easy.” Easy
or not, Natives had done this already, but there is no acknowledgement of this.
Other than this faulty discussion on “land greed” and an indication that
Natives had to be “pushed off” the land for colonization to take place
(while talking about how great colonization is) without mentioning killing them
for it, there is no mention of Natives.
Chapter 22 – King Philip’s War - This chapter again mentions
“pushing the natives off the land,” but not the atrocities done to do this, like
massacres and deception. It completely ignores the 1637 Pequot Massacre (later
mentions it as the “Pequot War” while blaming the Natives for it). It says
there were 50 years of peace in Massachusetts while Massasoit was alive. While
there may have been some peace, any peace was uneasy at best. She writes about
it as though they lived in harmony and friendship. They did not. The Wampanoag
didn’t trust the English and vice versa. While Plymouth Colony wasn’t directly
involved in the Pequot Massacre, other English colonies were. She doesn’t
specify any colonies here, she just says the English when talking about the supposed
peace. There was not complete peace with all of the English/colonies and the
various Native nations in the area. She indicates that Massasoit and other
Wampanoag were “awed” by the English, which is not true. Perhaps the English
thought this, but if they did it was due to arrogance or cultural
misunderstandings. While describing Metacom’s unification of Native nations and
leaders in the area against the English, she says “There was no history of
Indian unity.” So the Haudenosaunee Confederacy didn’t exist? None of the other
many Native confederacies didn’t exist either? Even the Wampanoag were a confederacy.
She claims that this is because Natives
were too different from each other to unify. According to her, it is because
our different nations were descended from “different waves” of people over the
Bering Strait. She calls us “immigrants,” which is used to deny our claims of
being Indigenous. While it is true that
Native nations are all different, many have quite a bit in common and have
histories of allyship and unification, and none of this has anything to do with
how the Americas were populated in the first place (which wasn’t by the Bering
Strait). Clearly, she has no understanding of Indigenous political history in
the Americas. When talking about wars, she says, “If you have read about Indian
wars – with scalpings, torched villages, tomahawks, and war whoops…” Stereotype
much? These are harmful stereotypes. Stereotypes do not belong in history
books. History books are quite full of them, but they still don’t belong there.
She blames Natives for the Pequot massacre and King Phillip’s War. She blames
Natives for the colonists “fearing all Indians” and for the colonists attacking
the Narragansett. She plays the “both sides” trope here calling them all
“brutal.” She calls the fights of the English “battles,” but calls the battles
of the Natives against them “Indian raids of revenge.” She says many colonists
were “innocent.” She says that Natives weren’t used to “long wars” (after
saying they fought over land in the last chapter), but only “quick raids.” She says
the got tired of war, so their unity ended. She claims that guns “seemed scary”
to the Natives…in the 1670s when Natives had been using guns for quite some
time.
Chapter 23 – The Indians Win This One – The title of this
chapter bothers me. It isn’t because the statement isn’t true, but because it’s
patronizing. Beyond the title, the chapter is unsurprisingly full of issues. The
description of Spanish missions is extremely sanitized and comes off as if they
were benevolent in some parts. “Indians lived in the missions and did most of
the farming and building. The priests taught them to read and write and to
become Christians.” Except not. Missions were a violent system of slavery and
forced conversion. The Spanish were cruel, and the missions were extremely
harmful. She admits that the Pueblo peoples essentially believe in freedom of
religion or religious tolerance, contradicting her earlier claims that Natives
did not (never mind that was a generalization in the first place). It is odd
how she spends so much time praising the English and excusing their horrific behavior
but writes about the Spanish as if they were some of the worst people in the
world, just above Natives. She did this in book one as well. “Popé
talks to leaders in all the pueblos. He even meets with his people’s ancient
enemy, the Apache.” The Apache cannot be an “ancient enemy” of the Pueblo
people because they did not move into the region until around 1100-1400 AD.
They were enemies typically, but not “ancient enemies.” (The word Apache means comes
from a Zuni word for “enemy.” We call ourselves Ndé.) The chapter ends with the statement
“If there is a way for them to live in harmony, no one seems wise enough to
have found it.” This has nothing to do with wisdom, it has to do with Native
nations defending themselves from invasion, like any country would do. The way
to live in harmony is to not invade and colonize other people through genocide,
enslavement, starvation, and forced conversion. No, there is not a way to live
in harmony when someone is violently invading your nation and colonizing it,
and that is entirely the fault of the colonizers. It is not the responsibility
of oppressed peoples that are defending themselves and their homelands to live
in “harmony” with their invaders.
Chapter 24 – What’s a colony? – To give context to the next
quote, this chapter makes a comparison between a colony’s relationship to the
home country and the relationship between renters and landlords. “Neither the
landlords (Europeans) nor the renters (colonists) ever considered the Indians,
who thought the land was theirs.” Not only does this comparison make no sense because
the colonists were, in fact, also Europeans, but notice the word “thought.” She
says we “thought” the land was ours. This is a not so subtle method of undermining
Indigenous land claims in the minds of young children. It’s propaganda. This
land was and is Indigenous land. It is ours. She continues by talking about how
the colonists had to “start from scratch.” They had to, she says. The
didn’t have to colonize and end up in that position, but they did. They
chose to. Then she says they sometimes lived in “Indian wigwams” while talking
about “starting from scratch.” Living in the stolen house of someone who died
as a direct result of your being there is not “starting from scratch.” This
makes it seem like Native homes, which were engineered specifically for their
environments, are no better than crappy shelters and caves, which are also
described. It describes it as if these homes are not fit to be homes. The
implication is that they’re uncivilized (I hate that word). This chapter also
repeats the myth that the Natives thought the Europeans were “gods.” This is a
myth, as pointed out in the review of book one. They did not think this.
Chapter 25 – Silvernails and Big Tub – There is very little
mention of Natives in this chapter. She belittles the Dutch, like she does the
Spanish. Only the English are worthy of admiration, and excuses for their
behavior, according to the way she writes. The chapter repeats another myth
that is taught to children all over the US and most adults still believe it
today. This myth is that Manhattan was sold for $24 worth of beads (and goods).
It was not. Some simple online searching can turn up multiple reliable resources
that explain why this is not true. But the way she writes about it makes the
Natives sound naïve and unintelligent. She severely downplays slavery and
essentially says that it made economic “good sense.”
Chapter 26 – West to Jersey – There are no Natives mentioned
in this chapter. She continues her pattern of belittling everyone else except
the English as well as praising the English.
Chapter 27 – Cromwell and Charles – There are no Natives in
this chapter. It is odd how she describes English people and excuses their
actions. She calls Cromwell a tyrant while also saying he was great. The chapter
discusses dividing up the land as “gifts” without any mention of the Native
nations already there.
Chapter 28 – William the Wise – She spends this chapter
talking about how great William Penn was and about his good treatment of
Natives, while completely ignoring the fact that he took their land and claimed
it as his own. There are otherwise no mentions of Natives in this chapter. She
uses the word “Negro” not as a quote, but her own description as if it is acceptable.
Chapter 29 and 30 – There are no Natives mentioned in these
chapters.
Chapter 31 – Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny – I normally try
not to stray from my areas of expertise and stick to the topic of Native
representation. The next few chapters, however, are so bad that I feel the need
to make some comments. If I get anything wrong here or if I’m out of my lane,
please correct me. This entire chapter downplays chattel slavery in the US. She
calls plantations “large farms” and that’s it. No discussion on what
plantations were in this time and place. She says that slavery “ruined many
white farmers” as if this was just as terrible as slavery was for enslaved
people. She makes the situation out to be competition between farms that
enslaved Africans and other farms that did not. She uses the word “compete”
even. She makes it out to be a better decision to become enslavers than to become
“poor whites” with no discussion on how morally depraved that is. The white
people’s other options would be to “move” west and “perhaps fight the Indians
for that land” as if there is nothing wrong with this option either. It is all
very flippant. She says that these white farmers recognized that slavery was wrong
but were “trapped” in a “bad system” and essentially had to keep
enslaving people. She also says “every ancient society had included slaves” as
a justification of this. This is not even an accurate statement. It is a broad generalization
that is incorrect. She explains that some enslavers were “protecting” the
people they kept enslaved from starving due to lack of jobs or from being
kidnapped again, as if they were doing them a favor and being kind. She asks the readers what they would do if
they had to choose between being an enslaver or being poor. This is a disgusting
question to ask students. As if it couldn’t get worse, she tells students to “Imagine
that you are a slave owner” and says “you can” do all sorts of horrible things
to humans like beating them. After that, she talks about enslavers feeling “great
responsibility” for the people they’ve enslaved. She ends the chapter with
praising enslavers in Virginia for thinking of and writing the most about
freedom (never mind that they took most of their ideas from the Haudenosaunee).
Chapter 32 – The Good Life – The chapter is about plantation
owners, so this title is especially gross. Apparently being an enslaver isn’t “easy”
and you had to be “industrious and intelligent” to do so. She spends much of
the chapter describing how nice and wonderful plantations were. She praises enslavers
and says “Can you see why it is hard work to run a plantation well?” I’m pretty
sure being an enslaver is the epitome of laziness. She calls the enslaved
people “workers” and mentions nothing of the horrific conditions they were
forced into. She says being a plantation owner’s daughter was “fun.” This whole
chapter is about how wonderful plantation life was and says “life is good to
you.” Who is “you?” She is all about “imagining” things, so imagine Black children
reading this. It’s appalling.
Chapter 33 – Virginia’s Capital – The way she writes about
the Indian Act of 1714 makes it sound like it was benevolent. As if it was such
a wonderful thing to set up schools to brainwash and colonize Native children. Other
than mentioning that colonists wanted to fight “Indains,” there are no Natives mentioned
in this chapter.
Chapter 34 – Pretend Some More – Here we are back to “imagining”
what life was like. Along with telling kids to pretend that they’re “slaves,”
she says that enslaved Africans lived better than peasants in Europe.
Chapter 35 – Carolina: Riches, Rice, Slaves – She calls South
Carolina, which was made wealthy entirely off of the exploitation of stolen
Indigenous lands and the enslavement of Africans (and Native Americans), “the
most elegant society in the colonies.”
Chapter 36 – Carolina: Dissenters and Pirates – there are no
Natives mentioned in this chapter.
Chapter 37 – Royal Colonies and a No-Blood Revolution –
There are no Natives mentioned in this chapter. Here she really starts to call
the colonies “America” and the colonists “Americans.” In reality, “America” is what
people in the rest of the world call two continents, not the United States.
Chapter 38 – A Nasty Triangle – In this chapter we come back
to more gross descriptions of slavery. She talks about kidnapping and enslaving
people as if it was simply economic trade along with goods like sugar and
tobacco. “Then onto Africa where they exchanged guns and cloth for men, women,
and children.” Olaudah Equiano’s time as an enslaved person is referred to as “adventures.”
On the last few pages there is a long, strange description of why the Europeans
didn’t “discover” interior Africa and colonize the continent in the same way as
the Americas. It is made up nonsense and extremely racist. She indicates that
the Europeans didn’t do this because the African warriors were “too strong” and
implies that they were able to colonize the Americas because we, Natives, were
weak or not strong enough to stop them. By saying that the Africans were not “anxious”
to have “outsiders come and explore or settle” she is implying that Natives in
the Americas were. None of this is remotely true. The real reasons have to do
with the environment, fear of “African diseases,” and their motivations.
Chapter 39 – Four and Nine Make Thirteen – There is little
mention of Natives here. It says that the colonizers “discovered” that Georgia
was full of “Indian villages” and “Indian mounds.” It ends with a discussion about
the “frontier” beyond the colonies that is all about owning land and claiming
land and being “really free” out west with no mention of the Native nations
there.
Chapter 40 – Over the Mountains – Of log cabins, she says “they
were just right for places that had a lot of trees and not much else.” Not much
else? This is perpetuating the “wilderness” mythology. There were Native
nations and civilizations and infrastructure that the Europeans were too ignorant
to recognize. People going west are described as “trailblazers,” rather than
invaders that used Native made routes and trails. “They had to fight Indians
and other settlers for their land. They were a tough breed…” The had to
invade and commit genocide for their land. Clearly this is a super non-biased
way to write about this part of history. Can you imagine my eye roll?
Chapter 41 – This opens with a lot of “had to” regarding
invading the rest of the continent instead of acknowledging the racist and entitled
choice to do so. Europeans didn’t have to do any of these things. It
calls self-defense on the part of Natives, “Indian attacks,” yet again. After
writing an entire paragraph about “Indian attacks” and “Indian territory,” she contradicts
herself with “some people want to go where no one has gone before.” So…no one has gone there before, but it’s full
of “Indians” ready to “attack.” Hmm. They are “brave” and want to “explore” and
have “adventures.” It’s all praise of this invasion. This chapter is loaded with
biased terminology like “unknown wilds,” “Indian hunting grounds,” “attack,” and
stories of Natives “capturing” people that then need “rescued.” “Indian hunting
grounds” is yet another way to deny the Indigenous people claim of land and
territory. These were not “hunting grounds,” they were homelands where people
lived. Then we get the Daniel Boone mythology and it ends with “Daniel Boone
was a real American hero.”
Chapter 42 – The End – and the Beginning – The conclusion of
the book is building up to book three with enticing phrases like “…this vast,
inviting land promises hope…” and says that the land and resources here are for
“everyone.” More propaganda. It is a good conclusion for a book full of propaganda
and racism.
I want to explain why I point out “there is no mention of
Natives in this chapter” instead of just skipping it. Excluding Natives from
history is as “American as apple pie.” We disappear from the textbooks and
stories and are said to have disappeared ourselves. We become so insignificant in
the mentality of modern Euro-Americans that we aren’t included in history as books
move through time. We become invisible. 87% of textbooks don’t mention us past
1890. We are still invisible today and this has a massive impact on us and our
continued oppression. Erasing us from history is an intentional and vital piece
of US propaganda. The reality is that we should be included in every aspect of
US history, because we have been part of it since its beginning, willingly or not. I have
taught thousands of US school children about Native peoples over the years. I
am regularly confronted with questions of my existence. “Are you a real Indian?”
even though I introduce myself as a Native woman. “Are you from India?” because
they don’t understand that Natives didn’t all disappear. I have been told by
children and adults that they thought we didn’t exist anymore. Reclaiming
Native Truth is a project that found that 40% of adults in the US don’t know
that we still exist. Hakim actively participates in this propaganda in the way
she writes this series. My reviews will most likely get shorter and shorter as
I move through the books because we will disappear from them completely. I
always point it out because I want you to notice.
I continue to recommend staying far, far away from these
books and telling others to do the same. They are absolute trash.
