Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In order to address all of the biases, distortions and outright lies in this 800-page book, I’d have to write a book. Instead I'm going to focus on one section in the first chapter (about Columbus) and parts of the introduction, and even then my review will be long. Since Columbus is part of the subtitle for this book, I’m surprised that Schweikart gives him only one page. This is all Schweikart says about Columbus: Columbus embodied the best of the new generation of navigators. He was an intrepid voyager with courage and vision who wanted to establish European civilization in the New World. Columbus was earnestly desirous of taking Christianity to heathen lands. Schweikart refers to Columbus’s men as “the courageous band.” Schweikart says that the continents in the Western Hemisphere should by right have been named Columbia. First, Schweikart doesn't seem to understand how odd it is to see a modern, educated historian refer to non-Christian peoples as "heathens." It might make more sense if he had taken a little time to explain the 15th-century mindset, but Schweikart - a devout Christian himself - writes as if it's obvious and natural, and as if "converting" people to Christianity is good (conversion by any means necessary). The bigger problem is that Schweikart doesn't bother to mention that Columbus and his men were far more interested in stealing from the Indians than converting them. Second, regarding "establishing European civilization in the New World," Schweikart could just as well say that Nazi Germany wanted to establish a New Order on the world. Schweikart is clearly sympathetic to the European perspective and again doesn't bother to consider the perspective of the Indians who, in the name of "European civilization," were enslaved, tortured, raped and murdered, from beginning to end. Schweikart clearly favors European civilization over Indian civilization, which is his prerogative, but a historian can't ignore the means just because he thinks the ends justify them. Third, Schweikart waxes romantic when he speaks of Columbus' "vision." It's accurate to say that Columbus was a skilled and courageous navigator and explorer, but his primary "vision" was for personal fame and fortune. He expected to establish a western route to the Indies for commercial purposes and he expected to be amply rewarded for it. Schweikart doesn't bother to mention that Columbus negotiated a BUSINESS contract with the King and Queen of Spain. The "vision" for both Spain and Columbus was PROFITS. Schweikart claims that left-wing historians have unfairly criticized Columbus, and in a boxed side note he promises to debunk those criticisms, beginning with this strawman argument: Schweikart wrote: "Did Columbus Kill Almost All the Indians? A number of recent scholarly studies have dispelled or at least substantially modified many of the numbers generated by the anti-Columbus groups." Do you see what Schweikart is doing here? Instead of addressing Columbus he pivots to a strawman claim. No historian – not even a socialist left-wing historian like Howard Zinn – has claimed that Columbus killed almost all the Indians. Schweikart is lying about two other things. First, it isn’t true that “scholars” have “dispelled” what the “anti-Columbus groups” have written about Columbus. Quite the opposite. Second, it’s a lie to say that historians who accurately describe the atrocities committed by Columbus and his men are “anti-Columbus.” Apparently, Schweikart is anti-fact. Instead of addressing Columbus, as promised, Schweikart proceeds to make five points that have nothing to do with Columbus: First, Schweikart claims that estimates for Pre-Columbian native populations are inaccurate and inflated: Instead of 100 million it’s more like 50 million. Population estimates are just that – estimates. Schweikart rejects the highest estimate as a left-wing distortion and accepts the lowest estimate as fact. In a moment we’ll see why. By the way, in the year 1500 the population of Europe was about 60 million. Second, Schweikart claims that since the total native population was only 50 million, the left-wing revisionist estimate that Europeans caused the death of 56 million Native Americans, over a period of centuries, is impossible. Even if the total population was “only” 50 million and Europeans killed “only” 10 to 40 million, does that mean we should ignore the deliberate and systematic killing of millions of native peoples? Instead of defending Columbus, Schweikart is defending all the European colonizers over a period of centuries. Third, Schweikart points out that native populations suffered from epidemics before the Europeans arrived, and claims that "native health was on a downward trajectory long before Columbus arrived." Schweikart doesn't offer any evidence that native health was on “a downward trajectory.” He seems to be saying, “Sure, smallpox killed lots of Native Americans, but it’s not a big deal because they were dying from their own diseases anyway.” Fourth, regarding Europeans killing native populations in warfare, Schweikart points out that natives were killing vast numbers of natives. Indeed, Schweikart implies that the only reason the natives didn't annihilate each other is because of the "technological backwardness" of their weapons. Schweikart neglects to mention that the “civilized, Christian, morally superior” Europeans were killing each other in vast numbers, even well into the 20th century. It's rather ironic, I think, that the "technological backwardness" Schweikart refers to, which prevented self-annihilation, was one of the reasons that the Europeans were able to annihilate native populations. Schweikart’s insinuations are clear: Native Americans were dying from their own diseases and killing each other in vast numbers. If the Europeans hadn’t wiped them out, they would have wiped themselves out, so what’s the big deal? Fifth, Schweikart notes that a hundred years before Columbus, large areas of Mexico and the Southwest were depopulated as a result of climatic shifts, warfare, resource mismanagement and other causes. This is just a continuation of Schweikart’s third and fourth points: Since Native Americans were getting wiped out by various non-European causes, it doesn’t matter that the Europeans finished the job, deliberately and systematically. There you have it. In a section that promised to debunk what the left-wing historians say about the intrepid, courageous, visionary, evangelistic Columbus, Schweikart tells us that the heathens were already on a trajectory to wipe themselves out. Schweikart does not say one word about any of the atrocities that Columbus and his men committed, which include enslavement, rape, torture and murder. This is a textbook example of lying by omission and distraction. Apparently Schweikart believes that the only way to present “an honest review of America’s past” and “deepen patriotism” is to ignore European atrocities. A true patriot doesn’t fear or ignore the basic history of the country he claims to love. It’s fine to acknowledge that Columbus was a notable explorer, but don’t ignore or deny the atrocities that he and his men committed, and don’t dismiss the notable explorers that came to America 15,000 years ago. As for me, I don’t like distortions of any kind; I want my history books to give me the whole story. I love liberty and the ideals that the United States is supposed to live by. However, I also think that the United States is far from perfect – in some ways we’re not even very good. I take the words of the Preamble seriously: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.” At this point I’ll respond to some quotes from the Introduction, but first let’s look at another part of the book’s subtitle: Schweikart wrote (in the subtitle): “America’s Age of Entitlement” Of course, “Age of Entitlement” is referring to Schweikart’s contempt for government social programs. I’d love to see Schweikart have a discussion with his fellow conservative Christians about eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Speaking of entitlement, Schweikart fails to mention that Columbus and his men felt entitled to enslave, rape, torture and murder Native Americans. That’s a pretty heavy “tax” to put on native people. Schweikart wrote: “In the past 30 years, academics (i.e. left-wing historians) have taken an equally destructive approach: ‘My country, always wrong!’ We reject that.” Schweikart doesn’t – and can’t – offer any citation of a left-wing US history book that claims the US is “always wrong.” What Schweikart means is that he rejects any history book that is more critical than he likes. For example, Schweikart would reject any history book that accurately describes the atrocities that Columbus and his men committed against Native Americans. Schweikart wrote: “Throughout much of the 20th century, there was a subtle, and at times, obvious campaign to separate virtue from talent, to divide character from success. The latest in this line of attack is the emphasis on diversity – that somehow merely having different skin shades or national origins makes America special.” Schweikart has a PhD in history. He’s a highly-educated, intelligent man. So he has no excuse for pretending he doesn’t understand the “campaigns” related to skin color and national origins. The US has a long history of racism against certain “skin shades” and national origins. As for the notion that diversity “somehow makes America special,” that comes from an idealization of America as “a melting pot,” which is a metaphor for the Americanization, assimilation, and acculturation of immigrants. These are not liberal, left-wing ideas. Amazingly, Schweikart has forgotten that conservative, Christian Americans are proud to say that America is a Nation of Immigrants. What’s different about today, compared to, say, 70 years ago, is that most Americans welcome and enjoy – rather than fear and reject – cultural differences. In general, we no longer want immigrants to be cookie-cutter copies of some “standard” of a white American. One of the things that, in fact, makes America special is that we no longer demand and expect immigrants to obliterate their cultures. Schweikart wrote: “In America, when a light is shown on corruption, it is viciously attacked.” While it’s true that the US is less corrupt than most nations, it’s certainly not the least corrupt. Schweikart’s claim is a distortion based on the wishful thinking of an insecure “patriot.” Schweikart wrote: “The Founders – each and every one of them – would have been horrified at such intrusions on liberty (e.g. suing tobacco companies).” Schweikart is one of those “patriots” who suffers from the delusion that he knows what the Founders would think and do in today’s world. Many Christians suffer from this same delusion, believing that they know exactly what God thinks. Schweikart is a conservative Christian who said that people who “want to rely on themselves is the ultimate rebellion against God.” Schweikart says that the Christian God blesses America. But I think what Schweikart means is that the Christian God blessed the white Europeans in America. I'd love to ask Schweikart why God didn't bless Native Americans. Not only does Schweikart claim to know what God and the Founders think, he claims to know what liberals think. Schweikart claims that “liberals hate God-talk” (over half of all liberals are Christians). Schweikart claims that liberals secretly believe in the Christian God and they feel angry because they are not God, which makes Schweikart sound a bit crazy. Schweikart claims that “liberals hate capitalism” (over half of all liberals favor capitalism). If Schweikart is this bad at reading the minds of contemporary liberals, how can we trust him to read the minds of God and the Founders? Schweikart is one of those people who assumes that anything he thinks is a fact. We all know people like that. :-) Schweikart wrote: “The same Founders who owned slaves instituted numerous ways – political and intellectual – to ensure that slavery could not survive.” That’s an odd statement considering that it took “four score and seven years,” and a Civil War, to end slavery, and considering that it took another hundred years to end institutional racism. Of course, some of the Founding Fathers did take various steps – political and intellectual – to reduce the scope of slavery and they certainly hoped it would not survive long into the future. But Schweikart is plagiarizing Lincoln who said that the Founders put slavery on the path to ultimate extinction. Both the North and the South thought they could win the war and both sides underestimated each other. Neither side imagined the war would last four years and kill so many. Moreover, it was far from certain that slavery would end even if the North won. It was possible that another compromise would be negotiated. You’ll recall that there were multiple attempts to compromise before the Civil War. Schweikart is viewing history as if the path it took was inevitable and “ensured.” It wasn’t. This is where I'll stop, but I'll continue this discussion on two fronts in the comments section. Since Schweikart singles out Howard Zinn as a left-wing historian who distorts history, I’ll discuss what Zinn says about Columbus in his People’s History of the United States. We’ve already seen Schweikart’s right-wing distortion of Columbus and we’ll see if Zinn presents a left-wing distortion. I’ll also look at another so-called left-wing history book for young students, A History of US by Joy Hakim. And if anyone wants to discuss or debate Schweikart’s book with me, I have one stipulation: You must address the points in my review first before we discuss any other section of the book. A final clarification: I’m not claiming that Patriot’s History is nothing but distortions and lies. Some sections are decent. However, there are more than enough distortions and lies to make this book unacceptable. I’ve offered a very small sample and you can see now why I’d literally have to write a book to discuss all the distortions and lies.