This may be a somewhat lesser-known secular homeschool curriculum, but it seems to have gained popularity in recent years. I was graciously sent (by a friend) the 2nd grade curriculum to review. The 2nd grade curriculum was chosen because it came up in a homeschool group I am in online.
It comes in a box of 10 booklets, each one being a whole unit, and a teacher guide. Each booklet/unit is divided into sections. In the review, I will name the section that I am referencing.
UNIT 1 - Looking Back
About ¼ way through the book is a section titled “Studying about History and Geography.” It states that “Christopher Columbus discovered North America.” It is stated that this was learned in 1st grade, so I guess I need to get a look at the 1st grade curriculum as well. It goes on to say “we love our country because we know how hard the early pioneers worked and how brave they were.” So this is already setting up to be some strong propaganda.
It says the country is the United States of America, but then goes on to call it “America.” If you’ve read any of my reviews, you know this is a big pet peeve of mine. America is two whole continents (or 1 depending on what continent model you’re taught), not a country. The United States is NOT “America” and United Statesians (what I call people of the US) are not "Americans" (or at least not the only Americans). This incorrect terminology is used throughout the books, so I will not address it again, but I notice it every time I see it.
The next section is called “Learning about Early Times” and goes on to say that there were no houses or buildings here and all you could hear were birds and animals. It is unclear what time period this is referring to, but it seems to imply that before Europeans came that there were no people or civilizations here. In between this section and “the Native Americans” section there is information about planets, Earth, land and water, and European “explorers.” So my interpretation seems to be pretty accurate, that they are saying before Europeans came that there were no civilizations or towns or any development. Of course, this is extremely inaccurate.
In “Ideas That Changed the World” it talks about inventions and developing methods of travel for long distance. It is very Eurocentric. Even though it is written in a more generic “people” kind of way, it is pretty clear by the end of the section that “people” means Europeans. “Using these new ways of travel, explorers met new groups of people. Now, they could trade with people from faraway places.” This is clearly an introduction to European “explorers,” not the history of Asian, African, Native, or Pacific Islander seafaring and traveling, or explorers, if you will. This section implies that those “new groups of people” (ie non-Europeans) were not trading and traveling. Except they were long before Europeans stopped being afraid of traveling out of sight of land.
And sure enough, the next two sections are about European “explorers,” Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus. The way both are written about are extremely Eurocentric, but I am going to focus on the Columbus part. “A Journey by Ocean” is what the Columbus section is titled. It starts out with the myth that Europeans believed the world was flat and that the were afraid to sail of the edge of the Earth. I can’t for the life of me figure out why this myth is still being taught in 2022. It’s been known to be false for decades at this point. “Christopher Columbus was the first man brave enough to make this journey into unknown waters.” Hmm, no, he was not. He wasn't even the first European to do it. In reality, he was motivated by finding gold and finding people to enslave. He was known to be not brave, but arrogant. It misnames two of his ships (La Nina and La Pinta are not the actual names) instead of saying we don't actually know their names. It claims he thought he landed in India, however there was no country or area known as “India” in 1492, so he couldn’t possibly think that. What he really believed was that he was in what Europeans called the Indies. These are two very different things, yet it continues to be taught that he thought he was in “India.” It maintains the claim that he was “discovering” land. It also says that later he learned that the lands were “of a New World.” Not only is the term “New World” incredibly problematic and Eurocentric, but this statement may also not be true. The verdict is still out, but he may have died believing he had landed in the Indies. Regardless, this entire section is pure mythology.
I want to point out that these early Europeans were not “explorers.” They were not motivated by exploration and that’s not what they were actually doing either. In fact, Columbus explicitly states in his own journals that he has no time to explore because he wants gold. So, it needs to be made clear – these people were never “explorers.” Most of the early Europeans that came to the Americas were slave traders and treasure hunters.
Now we get to the “fun” part. This next section is called “The Trail of the Native Americans.” The summary starts off not capitalizing the word “native.” It is important to capitalize words like “Native” and “Indigenous” when referring to people. The section then maintains the claim that Columbus thought it was “India” when no such country existed at the time. It starts a monolithic section called “The Native Americans.” I hate monolithic language like this. There is no such thing as “the Native Americans.” There are thousands of Native nations from North to South America. The word “the” makes it monolithic. And in this section, it perpetuates the Bering Land Bridge mythology (I’ve linked articles in many reviews, but this theory has been disproven repeatedly.) To its credit, it does speculate that “maybe” Natives came by boat and that some historians believe this. But it mainly promotes the land bridge myth and the mythology of all Natives spreading across the Americas by starting in Alaska. The picture that goes with this page shows tipis (from some of the Plains nations) next to a river with boats from Pacific Northwest cultures. THESE DO NOT BELONG TOGETHER. The entire section is a monolith.
Next we have “Native American Groups.” I will harp on this issue until I die…we are NOT GROUPS. Native nations are SOVERIGN NATIONS. Calling our nations “groups” is no different than calling the United States a “group” or France a “group.”
It then makes absurd statement after statement all the way through this section, starting with “The Native Americans who settled along the Pacific Coast in Canada were called the Northwest Coastal Indians. Those in the west were called the California Group.” And it goes on and on claiming that each region is the actual name of Native peoples/nations. It makes absolutely no sense. No…Native nations along the SOUTHWEST coast of Canada were not and are not called “Northwest Coastal Indians,” especially considering the Pacific Coast of Canada is not their northwest. That is a REGION, a term used to group culturally similar nations together by region, but it is not that they are called. Also note the exclusive use of past tense language here, which is another huge pet peeve of mine. If we are talking exclusively in the past, no one ever called them that historically, that is a modern term. And who has ever referred to Native nations in California as “the California Group”??? No one. That’s literally not a thing.
It lists “the Great Basin Group,” “the Southwest Indian Group,” “Plains Indians,” “Plateau Indians,” “the Eastern Woodlands Group,” and “the Southeast Group.” This curriculum literally just made up most of these terms and said this is what they “were” called. None of these are actual terms used anywhere academically or culturally in the US or by Native nations. No one ever calls any of the nations these names. This is literally just not a thing.
The next page is a “map study” that perpetuates this absurd, completely made-up list of names, and continues using past tense language exclusively like “where Native Americans lived.” Um…we still live in these places. It then even says to search on the internet using the term “Native American Groups.” Yes, you’ll turn up search results all right. They’ll be horribly inaccurate and not from Natives.
On the next page it says that within these “groups, there were many Native American tribes.” So now they’re at least distinguishing between regional groupings and nations, but still with inaccurate language and seeming to contradict previous statements about what “groups” are (and then it goes back to referring to “tribes” as “groups” instead, so they’re not even being consistent with how they use that term). And then we have a whole page of stereotypes, racism, misinformation, false ideas...the whole thing is horrible. I’ve never seen any curriculum write about Europeans in this same way. Why write so horrible about Natives and then write correctly and specifically about Europeans? White supremacy and eurocentrism, that's why. It makes blanket statements about nations in each region being all the same, calls tipis “tents,” says that Eastern Natives “helped” Europeans (they didn't really) and lumps all southwestern nations into “cliff dwellers.” This unit is full of all the junk I am constantly combatting in every single class I teach to children and adults.
It has an assignment to look up “what Native American tribes lived closest to where you now live” as if we don’t still live here. It says to write a paragraph and it has prompts that are all entirely based on the past. “What kind of home did they live in,” “how did they get their food,” “what kind of clothing did they wear” – all material culture of the past. I’ll help answer those for anyone in north Texas…I live in a one-story brick house, I shop at the grocery store for my food, and I wear mostly jeans and t-shirts. There. See how absurd it is to act like we don’t still exist?
At least they don’t directly claim Columbus was the first European here…they do actually teach about the Norse. They do imply this by claiming Columbus "discovered" the Americas, but then they contradict that when they bring up the Norse. I’d be impressed if the rest of this curriculum wasn’t so horrible. However, what they teach about the Norse isn’t accurate and they continue to perpetuate Eurocentric narratives and terminology. They say they were called “Vikings,” but that’s really just a job title of sorts, not the people as a whole. They repeat the common mythology of “they came for a short time, didn’t stay long, not much is known, we only know because of archaeology.” It says nothing of attempting to conquer, of kidnapping women and bringing them back to Europe, or of the oral histories from the nations who encountered them and can tell us a lot more about that time than archaeology ever has.
“Symbols and Historic Places.” This section is about historic Native use of Alibates Flint and about Mesa Verde. It claims that Natives “before the time of Columbus, used rocks and other natural resources to make their tools.” This primitivizes us and makes it sound like we weren’t advancing like the rest of the world. We were. Metals were extensively used in some places, including the southwest where this is talking about. It claims that “people traveled great distances to gather the flint to make tools.” It then says these have been found from Montana to Mexico. But that’s not how Alibates flint spread from Montana to Mexico…it didn’t spread because people traveled to Texas to get it…it spread due to extensive trade routes and networks, including a highway system in the southwest. This is ridiculous. The Mesa Verde part isn’t as bad, but it’s still quite Eurocentric and over simplified.
UNIT 2 - Settling the New World
“Settling the New World.” This is the introduction to this unit. I’m already incredibly fed up with this curriculum and this is only book 2. This unit perpetuates U.S. founding mythology and Eurocentric views and terminology. “Christopher Columbus’s discovery of the New World made people curious.” Again, “people” here means Europeans, as if they’re the universal default of everything. People around the world were already curious and traveling, but this is never brought up. “New World” is a problematic and inaccurate term. And Columbus didn’t “discover” anything. Then we get the mythology of Europeans seeking freedom of religion…that they “needed” to come here for that. It even says, “They needed a place to freely practice their religion.” They already had that in Europe! They did not need to come here. Their reasons had nothing to do with need and everything to do with greed and fantasies of superiority.
“The First Settlers.” They weren’t really “settlers” though, they were invaders and colonizers. It starts off with information about “charters” saying that it “allowed them to build a town…in the New World.” But who gave the King of England the right to “allow” that in the first place?? Natives certainly did not. This is propaganda and mythology.
“The Story of Jamestown.” Oh good heavens, this whole story is Eurocentric mythology that makes Natives out to be the “bad guys.” “The native people did not welcome them at first.” But did we ever really?? It wouldn’t have mattered; they were hell bent on dominating us and taking our land. “The neighboring Powhatan Indians repeatedly attacked Jamestown.” You mean they defended themselves against an invasion? Because that’s not “attacking,” it’s self-defense. If someone started squatting on your land and claiming it was theirs, you’d do whatever you could to get rid of them. It says nothing of the Jamestown colonists attacking Natives, refusing assistance from Natives, being too lazy to work, or any of the other negative things about the Europeans of Jamestown. It makes them sound good and positive only. Next it perpetuates some of the Pocahontas mythology claiming that her marriage to Rolfe was happy and brought peace…nothing of her being forced to marry him and the “peace” was not really a good arrangement. This is what propaganda looks like, folks.
“Finding Freedom.” Now we get to the mythology about the Mayflower, starting with the “seeking freedom of religion” myth. Here’s the deal…the Mayflower colonists were not seeking freedom of religion. None of the colonies were founded on freedom of religion. That’s just historically false. Their explanation of who the separatists are is fine, and surprisingly they include information about them moving to the Netherlands (Holland) in 1608, which most textbooks and curricula don’t include. It says that the “Pilgrims” (which they were not ever called) began to worry that their children were becoming too much like the Dutch, but then doesn’t expand on that. It states this as if that’s a perfectly normal and acceptable reason to leave and go invade and violently colonize another nation. They continue using the problematic term “New World” as if it’s also perfectly acceptable, when it is not.
It then turns to mythology. It states that “they hoped to start a colony where they could freely practice their beliefs.” This is not why they came to the Americas or started a colony. The founding of Plymouth colony had little to do with this. They wanted economic opportunities where they could get rich without other cultural influences on their children and they decided the best way to do this was to colonize other people. They set out to establish their own “Holy Kingdom” where only their religion was allowed. They persecuted others who believed differently than them (isn’t that what they were supposedly escaping? They weren’t really, but still…). It continues to say they “had permission to settle in Virginia” – permission from whom? The King of England, yes, but how is that valid when that’s not his land? It ends with “The Pilgrims became the second group of pioneers to arrive in the New World.” Wow, what? They weren’t anywhere close to the second group; they weren’t even the second set of English to show up! They did end up establishing the second successful English colony, but that hardly makes them the second group of people to even arrive in the Americas. There’s over 100 years of European colonization that has been happening in the Americas by 1620. There is no historical accuracy to this statement.
“The Pilgrims at Plymouth.” They weren’t “pilgrims,” so why are we still calling them that? They were separatists. It states that since they weren’t in Virginia, they weren’t under their laws. But then it states, “In fact, this place had no government.” So the Wampanoag Sachem didn’t exist? The Wampanoag had government, so therefore this place did have government. They didn’t have EUROPEAN government, but it was still government. It then says they found a “deserted Native American village.” They did not. The pillaged and plundered their way through the area, including robbing graves, and took over the town of Patuxet. Patuxet was empty due to a European disease that had swept through a year earlier and killed around 90% of the people so the survivors fled and incorporated into other Wampanoag towns or other nations to the north. The town of Patuxet was not “deserted,” its people had been destroyed. Governor Bradford stated that it was “the good hand of God” that had swept “away multitudes of the natives that He might make room for us.” This is not mentioned anywhere in the curriculum.
Now the mythology really picks up, complete with patronizing Eurocentric language. It states that they “met some friendly Wampanoag Indians. One of them was Squanto.” No and no. “Friendly” is patronizing. We don’t say “friendly Europeans” and “hostile Europeans.” This was political diplomacy. They were approached, out of pity, by diplomatic Wampanoag (not “Indians”) who were somewhat spying on them. “Squanto” was not his name. A man named Tisquantum was among the Wampanoag who politically approached the colonizers. It then states that “As a boy, Squanto was captured by English sailors. They took him to England. He learned to speak English while he was there. Eventually, Squanto returned home and joined the Wampanoag tribe.” What a ridiculous way to say he was kidnapped and enslaved by the English. He didn’t just get captured and then happily taken to England to learn English. He was sold into slavery. He escaped and made his way home. He didn’t “join” the Wampanoag “tribe,” he reunited with his nation.
It finishes with a “thanksgiving” myth I’ve never seen before and it’s incredibly absurd. It claims that “Every year, the Wampanoag Indians held a Harvest Festival of Thanksgiving. They invited the Pilgrims to celebrate with them. This yearly feast became the Thanksgiving tradition we celebrate today.” The image that accompanies this has a racist cartoony drawing of “pilgrims and Indians” that look absolutely ridiculous. But not only that, the entire story they claim as the history of “thanksgiving” is so not based in reality that it’s not even told anywhere else at all. Not in textbooks, not in other curricula, not in story books…it’s so off base that I’ve never seen it before. Now don’t get me wrong, the typical “thanksgiving” story is historically inaccurate and full of stereotypes, but I’ve never seen it botched this badly. I can’t believe I actually have to break this down, but here we go...
Every year the Wampanoag do celebrate a harvest tradition, now referred to as Cranberry Day. It takes place in October and celebrates the cranberry harvest. It is a time of giving thanks to their Creator and feasting. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the history in 1621 or today’s Thanksgiving holiday. The Wampanoag did not invite the colonizers to this harvest celebration, nor did the events of 1621 take place during that celebration. In actuality, the colonizers were celebrating their own harvest festival based on the English Harvest Home traditions that fall. However they did not invite anyone else. They barely had enough food for themselves, let alone anyone else. While they were celebrating, the Wampanoag nearby heard gunshots and were concerned, so they went to the colony to investigate. This was 90 men, no women or children. They crashed the colonizers party, saw it was a celebration, invited themselves to stay, hunted a bunch of deer to feed themselves and give to the colonizers, and spent 3 days talking politics with the men. That’s it. It was so unimportant that only one English person wrote anything down about it and that wasn’t for years. He only wrote one paragraph with very little detail. Wampanoag oral history is very detailed and we know what happened because of that. This event was not repeated and did not become an annual tradition. Even the modern creation of Thanksgiving in the late 1800s had nothing to do with that event, as the mythologies surrounding the so called “friendly pilgrim and Indian feast” didn’t even exist yet.
So here we are...this curriculum has yet another absurd myth about "thanksgiving" being taught as fact.
“Settlers and Servants.” This section continues use of “New World" as a valid term. “Farmers came looking for new land to grow crops.” No mention of whose land that is. I always encourage people to teach the original caretakers of the land anywhere in the world. Saying they looked for “new land” perpetuates this idea that the land was just here for the taking and not belonging to people. “Adventurers arrived looking for excitement” – “excitement” in this time consisted of killing Natives and invading Native land. “Still others, like the Pilgrims, wanted the freedom to practice their religion as they wished.” This is a false statement. First of all, “pilgrims” is historically inaccurate. They were not called “pilgrims,” nor did they call themselves that. Secondly, these people knew they were invading someone else’s land and believed they had the divine right to take it for themselves. They also were not seeking freedom of religion. This is a significant US origin myth, but it’s just that…a myth. They wanted to create a “holy kingdom” where only THEY were free to worship as they pleased, but no one else could. They persecuted others. They also had already been living with freedom of religion in Holland before they came here. They had it already, they didn’t need to come seeking it.
One of the self-test questions is “Squanto was a ___ Indian who lived in England for a short time.” Lived in England??? He was kidnapped and enslaved! Another question “The Jamestown settlers had many problems with the ____ Indians.” Really? It’s the other way around, the Powhatan Confederacy had many problems with these foreign invaders. A “yes or no” question states, “the Wampanoag Indians were friendly and helped the Pilgrims grow crops.” No. Native nations have always built political relationships and used diplomacy. These are the words that should be used. Not “friendly.” This is patronizing. I’ve never seen things say “Friendly Europeans” or “hostile Europeans.” And “The Wampanoag Indians invited the Pilgrims to their Harvest Festival of…” (answer is supposed to be "Thanksgiving.") No one invited anyone to their celebrations! This is mythology, not history!
“Colonies of the New World” It mentions that many colonizers were “sent” by the king of England and says that the king “gave these companies land along the eastern coast of North America.” There is no mention of whose land it is, that this is an invasion, or that the king had no rights to give away someone else’s land. These are all concepts that 2nd graders can understand. I teach it to that age all the time. In the vocabulary section it defines “colonize” as “to settle a new place.” That is NOT the definition of colonize, even for 2nd graders. In the part about the Southern Colonies, it mentions that “the colonists grew rice, tobacco, indigo, and cotton…Southern colonists built large farms called plantations and planted huge fields.” There is ZERO mention of slavery or who was actually growing these crops. Same thing with the Middle Colonies section talking about farming and growing wheat and rye. It even goes on to say “Colonists worked together to meet their needs.” You mean they kidnapped people and forced them to work to meet their “needs??” This is a complete erasure of the actual history of these colonies. “The land and weather of each group of colonies supplied many different goods.” – no mention of whose land it was or that those resources were stolen. There is NO mention of slavery anywhere in Unit 2, despite the fact that this topic is entirely inaccurate and incomplete without it. However, it does go into detail about indentured servants that work their ship passage fees off in the colonies. So they’ll mention indentured servants, but not slavery? This is important in the curriculum later.
“Problems with Great Britain” This section is the typical narrative about “no taxation without representation” but for 2nd graders. There is no mention of the Proclamation of 1763 which was a major preceding factor that led to the war. This can absolutely be taught to that age. The British said no more expanding into Native land, that the borders of the colonies were to stay where they are. The colonists didn’t like this. They wanted to keep invading Native lands and taking it for themselves. This was one of the major reasons the Revolutionary War was started.
“The Boston Tea Party” Mentions that they dressed like “Mohawk Indians” to disguise themselves. When teaching about Natives and mentioning specific nations, there is absolutely no need or reason to say “______ Indians.” Just name the nation. Mohawk is fine. Mohawk nation is good. But “Mohawk Indians” is incorrect.
“Symbols and Historic Places” – Among the ones listed Plymouth rock and the Mayflower II is included. This one surprisingly mentions that the whole Plymouth Rock thing is a myth. But then it says “today it reminds Americans of the struggles these people survived to settle the New World.” This is whitewashing and erasure. These people invaded already developed land, killed Native people, and built right on top of it. The reason they struggled is because they had no idea what they were doing and because they kept invading peoples land and killing them, so people fought back. They didn’t have to go through all of that.
“Project” At the end of this unit there is a project to make a timeline. “Draw a timeline showing the following dates” and it lists “Columbus discovered America.” They perpetuate this myth throughout the curriculum and even tie it to the founding of the United States, which is completely bogus. Columbus had nothing to do with the United States.
UNIT 3 – A New Government for a New Country
“What is government?” “The government is made up of leaders that are chosen by the people.” It doesn’t make clear that this is talking about the US government only, it just states that “the government” which can give the wrong idea about various types of governments.
The next part is called “Different kinds of government” where they go into a few different forms of government. But the previous section was confusing without its proper context.
“Creating a Government” Here they talk about the creation of the constitution and all the founding documents and such. But they make no mention of Haudenosaunee influence, which is a major factor in the history of this topic.
The whole book is pretty standard drivel about the US government and how fair and perfect it is.
Unit 4 – Government Under the Constitution
Standard drivel about how the government works and the history of the constitution. I find it odd that not a single book has mentioned slavery yet, but a later section in Unit 4 mentions that the 13th amendment “made slavery against the law, or illegal, in the United States.” It also mentions that the 15th amendment made it against the law to “deny men the right to vote because of race or the color of their skin.” Even though there’s been no mention of slavery or the fact that this never got applied or about civil rights. This would be extremely confusing for students to not have been taught ANYTHING about those issues to this point and then suddenly this is mentioned with no context. “In 1920, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.” But no mention of non-white women not being included in this.
UNIT 5 – Our Government Close to Home
In one section called “Who are Americans?” it states “We are a nation of immigrants. The only people who are truly from this country are Native Americans. Everyone else has an ancestor, or relative, who came from another country. Some Americans came from England, Ireland, France, Germany or Spain. Others came from countries in Asia or the middle East.” There is still literally no mention of Africans, people being brought here from Africa, slavery, African Americans, etc. It ends this paragraph with “Together we are Americans.” Not all of us identify as “Americans.” Many Indigenous people do not. We do not all agree with this statement.
There is a section called “Citizens and Aliens.” This should have used better terminology. “Aliens” is super outdated and harmful. It states “They are called aliens while they live here.” Again, this is harmful and outdated terminology. No, “they” are not called “aliens” while they live here. They are humans. Immigrants maybe, but not “aliens.” Then it goes into “legal” and “illegal” “aliens.” No human beings are illegal! This is yet another harmful term.
“Duties as Citizens” states “You have certain duties as an American citizen.” No, no one is required to do anything. These are rights that people can choose to exercise or not exercise. Stop calling these “duties.”
UNIT 6 – Westward – From the Original Colonies
It blatantly starts with “The history of the United States began with the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus.” Aside from the glaring issue that Columbus didn’t “discover” anything, this literally has NOTHING to do with the history of the United States specifically. 1492 is NOT the start of US history. Then it says, “Over the next three hundred years, explorers from the European countries of England, Spain, Portugal, France and others explored and settled this new land.” None of these people were “explorers.” I’ve addressed that already. “The people now wanted to explore their new country.” Well, no, they didn’t want to “explore.” They wanted to expand. They wanted to take the land. And “their new country” is only the 13 colonies and what the Treaty of Paris illegally “granted” them (I say illegally because the Native nations whose land it was had no say). This is implying that by winning the Revolutionary War that the whole continent is “their new country.” This is ridiculous. It says that reaching the west coast was “a story of courage, bravery, and adventure.” No, it Is a story of invasion, theft, and genocide.
“The United States Grows” It claims that the Treaty of Paris “opened the door for Americans to explore new land.” None of this land is “new” and it all belongs to various Native nations. And again, the colonizers were not setting out to “explore” it, but rather to take it. It then expands and talks about the “new” boundaries of the Mississippi and down to Florida.
“Daniel Boone” This starts with “The land -given- to the United States in the Treaty of Paris was often called the Frontier” This land was not “given” to the US because the British had no right to claim it or “give” it in the first place. The land was stolen and then turned over to other thieves. It calls the land a “wilderness,” which it certainly was not. This land was developed, cultivated, managed and lived in before Europeans. European squatters took over existing infrastructure. If this had actually been a wilderness, none of them would have survived and there would be no U.S. That’s how incorrect this myth is. It then says he led “American explorers” into Kentucky and that they “found” a trail. They did not “find” anything. Natives had been using that trail long before Europeans came. And Bonne was not even the first European to use the Cumberland Gap. This whole story glorifies Boone and erases his actual “Indian” killing history.
“The Northwest Territory” It says “The land was not just empty wilderness. Native Americans had lived there for hundreds of years.” More like thousands, and why not mention this everywhere else? “They did not want settlers moving onto their land. They tried to stop the pioneers. Many small fights and skirmishes took place between settlers and Native Americans.” These were not “small fights” and “skirmishes” nor were they just between Natives and “Settlers.” These were entire wars and they were waged against Native nations by the US itself. It also entirely lumps everything together into the generic “the Native Americans” this entire time. No mention of specific nations. Then it mentions that the US won the Battle of Fallen Timbers and that “the Native Americans gave up much of their land in Ohio.” No, they were forced out.
“The Louisiana Purchase” It claims that “This land belonged to France.” No mention of the Native nations whose land it really was or that France stole it in the first place. It then says “President Jefferson decided to send a group of men to explore this land.” Jefferson did not hire anyone to “explore” anything. He hired military men to go on a reconnaissance mission. The entire Corp of Discovery was a military spy mission.
“The Lewis and Clark Expedition” It just claims that Jefferson “wanted to learn more” about the whole land area, nothing of the fact that it was a military reconnaissance mission. It says they were to “lead a team of explorers.” No, they were a military group. Aaaand then we get to the typical “Along the way, the expedition was helped by Native American tribes.” Not really though. They approached and traded with many Native nations, but it was just that…trade and politics, not “help.” This is patronizing language. It then surprisingly names the Mandan and Hidatsa. They weren’t really “helped” by them so much as the Mandan/Hidatsa took the economic opportunity that presented itself. Amazingly it does say that Sacagawea was “sold to a French fur trader,” but then it wrongfully claims that “she became his wife.” For 2nd graders, of course we can’t mention sexual slavery, but that entire sentence doesn’t need to be there. Just stop at “she was sold” to him. It then claims that Lewis and Clark asked Charbonneau AND Sacagawea to join them. They did no such thing. Lewis and Clark hired Charbonneau, that’s it. Charbonneau convinced them to let him bring his so-called “wife” because of her language skills. It claims that Sacagawea was “very helpful” and repeats the standard story about the boat tipping over.
While she may have been “very helpful” during the expedition, she was an unwilling participant. She was just a teen, had just given birth with no time to physically recover, and then was forced to trapse across the land to initiate the invasion and genocide of her own people. It’s a horrible story. She didin’t “help” them. It says Lewis and Clark “discovered that the Missouri River did not lead to the Pacific Ocean.” Natives could have told them that (if they didn’t really, because Natives told them many things they’re credited with “discovering”). It mentions that Sacagawea was Shoshone so “She could talk to these natives for them.” This is what she was forced on the expedition for. After crossing the mountains it says that the Nez Perce just “gave” them food. Again, this is economics and politics, not a gift. At least it credits the Nez Perce with telling them where to go and doesn’t say they charted their own way. That’s a common myth I’m surprised they didn’t repeat.
It ends with how they returned to Missouri. “Lewis had made notes and drawings of about 300 unknown plants and animals.” They were not “unknown” to Natives. It calls our nations “Native American groups” again. “The discoveries of the expedition helped bring settlers to the west” as if that’s a good thing. This completely whitewashes the fact that this was a spy mission to gather information for further invasion. Jefferson saw Natives as “strange curiosities” and political enemies. His purpose for wanting to know what nations were out there was to further his agenda of invasion. Folks need to stop pretending like this is such a positive story in history. It is the beginning of the end for Native nations in the west.
“The Old Southwest” – Referring to Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. “Settlers of the old southwest faced troubles with the Native Americans living there.” Troubles? Like the fact that these nations had the right to stay right where they were and tell Europeans not to live there?? What it should say is that Native nations had troubles with European squatters and invaders. It says many Native “groups” sided with the British, but doesn’t say why. Impressively it mentions the Creek War. But it says “These Native Americans had to desert their homelands. Some native groups moved west. Many Creeks moved into Florida and joined the Seminole Nation.” They didn’t just “have” to, they were forced to. Using the passive voice takes the blame off of the people responsible. And then says Florida “belonged” to Spain, again without recognition of whose land it really was.
“Southern settlers had trouble with the Seminole Native Americans. Again, the native people did not want to give up their land.” How rude of them. *eyeroll*
It says “They also offered to help runaway slaves who had escaped from their American owners. The Seminole gave these slaves freedom and refused to send them back to their owners.” Gross language. But again, how confusing to 2nd graders who literally haven’t been taught anything about slavery yet!! Then it goes into the First Seminole War and says “The fighting took place in Spanish Territory. The United States was treating the territory as if it belonged to them.” So, we can acknowledge this about Florida when it comes to another European country claiming land, but not when it’s Native land? Could this not have been said about the US throughout the whole western expansion section? Could it not have said, for example, “The fighting took place in [insert Native nation here] territory. The United States was treating the territory as if it belonged to them” whenever talking about the takeover of Indigenous lands?
“The Seminole Wars” At least here it very gently talks about removal “They put them on ships and sent them to Arkansas. The Seminole were unhappy there.” But it still makes it sound more passive and like the Seminole had no right to stay in their own land or fight for that right. Oddly, it goes into the fact that the remaining Seminole are still there and recognized as an independent nation. Why not mention this about all the other nations they’ve mentioned so far?? It’s an odd inclusion when the rest has been completely omitted.
“Osceola” Incredibly this section is accurate. It talks about how he believed the Seminole had the right to stay in their homeland, how the US lied to him and tricked him under a banner of truce to arrest him, and that the US did not really want to make peace with the Seminole at all. After all the Eurocentric baloney, they actually told some truth here.
UNIT 7 - Settling the Frontier
The summary for this unit starts with “The people of the United States continued to go west in search of land, adventure and fortune.” And “New land was gained by war, treaties, and purchase.” However, the unit makes zero mention of treaties with Native nations, wars with Native nations, land purchase agreements with Native nations…nothing. Of course, they don’t mention land theft and genocide, but they don’t even mention this list regarding Native nations. This “war, treaties, and purchase” is apparently a reference to Europeans fighting each other over land and selling land that isn’t theirs. Native people are basically non-existent in this unit.
“The Texas Frontier” This entire section 1) does not mention Natives at all and 2) does not mention slavery, slavery being illegal in Mexico, and that being a major reason for the Texas Revolution. It’s a super simplified “Americans wanted to live there, Mexico let them move in, they traded with each other and helped each other, but then too many people loyal to the US were there and they wanted to control Texas” narrative with no mention of the actual factors.
“The Texas Revolution” In this part they at least mention that Mexico made slavery illegal and that “many white settlers used slaves to work their cotton fields.” Aside from the gross way that is worded, this is the FIRST MENTION OF SLAVERY in the entire set of books and it literally makes no mention of them being a different race. Again, coming upon this would be very confusing for a 2nd grader who has been given ZERO context for that.
“The Alamo,” “Independent Texas,” and “Westward Expansion” sections are all standard myths and Eurocentric summaries.
“Oregon Territory” starts with “Lewis and Clark explored parts of Oregon during their expedition.” No, they did not “explore,” they spied. “At that time, mostly Native Americans lived in the area.” Well, of course. This isn’t mentioned anywhere else where it should be though. It then turns it into another story of Europeans arguing with other Europeans about land that isn’t actually theirs. It then calls it the “Oregon wilderness” – again this is NOT a wilderness! They briefly summarize the Oregon Trail with no mention of it being an invasion of sovereign territories. It mentions the Oregon Treaty between Britain and the US, but again no mention of whose land it really is.
“The Oregon Trail” Here’s a chance to mention invasion! But they, of course, do not. No mention of Native Americans here. It says the trail “Stretched across 2,200 miles of unsettled land” as if it’s all just empty?? This was very settled land!! Just not by Europeans.
“US – Mexican War” This section has no mention of Native Americans whose land it is, standard narrative of Europeans fighting each other over land that isn’t really theirs.
“The Gadsden Purchase” This is an oddly specific thing to mention in 2nd grade, but it furthers their propaganda narrative of this land being “purchased” legally and fairly when it was an invasion and genocide of sovereign Indigenous lands and peoples.
“Alaska, Hawaii, and Other Territories” Starts with the US “buying” Alaska from Russia. No mention of whose land it really is. It mentions an Alaska gold rush, but no mention of genocide. Amazingly, it mentions that “American businessmen helped overthrow the queen” of Hawaii. But then it just glosses over this horrible fact and talks about setting up a government and then becoming part of the US in 1959. Interestingly enough, it mentions that the US controls other territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands…which is something that I think most adults in the US don’t even know.
“Meet Americas Pioneers” This gives a summary about Euro invaders such as:
“Fur Traders” “Trappers and traders played an important part in the settlement of the United States.” It says it started in the 1500s with “French explorers” and Natives. This is mostly a positive only spin on the fur trade through a very Eurocentric view.
“Gold Miners” – Absolutely no mention of Native Americans and the genocide that that the California gold rush was (this is focused on California). It also mentions people opening businesses like restaurants and laundromats, but no mention of Asian immigrants and the oppression they faced even though they were the majority of the people opening those businesses. It says “Before the gold rush, only about 1,000 pioneers lived in California. By the end of 1849, the population had grown to around 100,000” as if it was empty. Again, no mention of Natives and genocide. Before the gold rush, there were anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 Natives in CA. By the end of the gold rush in the 1860s, only 15,000-30,000 remained. This is an important, but omitted, fact.
“Ranchers and Cowboys” This is the first mention of African Americans I have even seen anywhere in the curriculum. But there is no context so it might confuse kids. No mention of Native Americans.
“Homesteaders and Sodbusters” It just states that the US “gained a lot of land out west.” With no mention of HOW that happened beyond the few European wars mentioned. It then talks about the Homestead Act that “gave” people land in “unsettled territories” where Natives are, but no mention of that. Makes it sound like empty land that was legally “given” to people when it wasn’t.
“Frontier Women” No mention of Natives and invasion.
UNIT 8 - Exploring America with Maps
Nothing of note until “Symbols and Historic places.” Badlands National Park – it says, “The Native Americans of South Dakota named it “land bad” because this area is not a good place to live.” “The Native Americans of South Dakota?” Which ones?? The LAKOTA, not some generic “the Native Americans,” call it “Mako Sica.” And while it does directly translate to “land bad,” the correct translation is “bad lands.” I don’t see any reason to provide a direct translation like “land bad” except to reenforce the stereotypical “Indian speak” in movies and books. It also says “A large piece of the Badlands is overseen by the Lakota Sioux. This native group helps care for the park. They also explain to the visitors the history of the Lakota Sioux.” They “help?” No, they are one of the original caretakers of this land, not “helpers.” And no, it is not “overseen” by the Lakota, it is literally their land (and even on one of the reservations). And it’s just Lakota, not “Lakota Sioux.” There’s so much wrong with this.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial – there is no mention of this being a sacred mountain to the Lakota and other nations. So, they’ll talk about the Lakota in relation to the Badlands but not to their sacred mountain that was illegally taken and carved into?
UNIT 9 - Past, Present, and Future Maps
Nothing noteworthy until “Early Maps.” “Christopher Columbus brought a map maker along when the sailed to the New World.” And “American colonists also made maps as they explored new lands. They added rivers, lakes, and mountains as they discovered them.” Then it mentions maps missing the western part of North America because “This land had not yet been explored.” This is all Eurocentric baloney, if you haven’t figured that out yet.
“Symbols and Historic Places” This one starts out with Gettysburg National Military Park. It states “On July 1, 1863, one of the most famous battles of the Civil War took place…” but these students literally haven’t been taught anything about the Civil War whatsoever! They haven’t mentioned slavery or what the Civil War was at all so these students have no context for this.
UNIT 10 - Review United States History
Just a review of all of the topics I’ve already covered.
TEACHER GUIDE
Pg 22 – Additional Learning Activities for “Learning about Early Times”
It suggests looking up “Native Americans” or “American Indians,” “Christopher Columbus,” “Explorers of North America,” and “European explorers” on the internet. This is a dangerous suggestion as they will pull up more stereotypes and false information to reenforce the junk they are teaching.
Then it says “Help the students research and find pictures of early Native American dwellings, such as igloos, tepees, longhouses, earth lodges, pueblos, cliff dwellings, etc.” Our homes are not “dwellings!” Stop using this word. Plus “Igloo” is spelled incorrectly and doesn’t mean “ice house” like everyone thinks. Also “tepee” is incorrect, as it should be “tipi.”
It also suggests “Student may find some symbols the North American Plains Indians painted on their tepees. Identify the meaning of these symbols.” Wow, no. First of all, what is a “North American Plains Indian?” Not all Plains nations are the same. They didn’t all live in tipis. They don’t all use the same symbols. They all have different cultures. This makes no sense. Then, “identify the meaning of those symbols?” All they’re going to be able to find is generic fake “Indian symbol” pages that claim to have the meanings of things, but don’t. This will continue to reenforce false ideas.
There’s a whole “Independent study activity” of studying “early explorers.” Another harmful activity to reenforce false ideas.
These types of activities are repeated for each section and unit, including “the true story of Pocahontas” and the “real story of Thanksgiving.” If they search these, like the guide suggests, they’re going to find completely different information than what is taught in these books. Which is good! But it will contradict what they’ve taught their students and they might not use the results then because of that contradiction. It seems like a really odd suggestion for something that will end up proving their texts wrong.
The teacher's guide continues to reenforce false information, stereotypes, racism, etc.
I absolutely do NOT recommend this curriculum. It's horrible! Based on how much mythology and propaganda was found here, I am assuming all of the other grade levels are just as horrible. The person who brought it up in the online homeschool group I mentioned had said it was horrible, but I'm not sure I was prepared for some of the absurdity that I found in it. I don't know if I'll ever take the time to review the other grade levels...I'm not sure I want to.
Please, if you value honest and accurate history education, please do not use this curriculum or this company.
