This was one of the worst history books I’ve ever read. I realize there’s a market for such books, and I see that it gets tons of great reviews, but I really don’t see how this would appeal to anyone who has had more than a couple of high school history classes.
The premise of Davis’ work is that you don’t get a complete history of the early pre-nation days of America in your standard history class. I agree completely. There’s far too much material, and for purposes of giving a basic overview of our nation, the high points—settlers, revolution, constitution—are all you’re going to have time for, or really need. If you took a specialized history class at a college level, visited specific historic sites, or just read some history books, you’ll get a much more complicated and nuanced view of history. The same could be said for just about any subject matter—I had one high school chemistry class. I did some basic experiments and learned my way around the periodic table. I didn’t expect to go home with the ability to synthesize complex drugs and create alloys.
Davis’ book takes a close look at six events, and purports to show you the things you didn’t know. Each event is interesting, and in a general way, the facts are correct, but this is more extended trivia than anything else. Yes, the back and forth of various colonial powers in the early days of the colonies happened and is interesting, but is it relevant? Not to the extent that Davis seems to think it is. Moreover, most of the detail presented is tangential and more likely to be a footnote in a serious history work than the main focus. If this was my only complaint, I’d rate this as a decent, but uninteresting work.
But trivia on its own doesn’t make a book, and Davis never tries to address the complexity and nuance that is actual history, as a serious book on this topic might do. So Davis, to fill space, starts embellishing, something most historians do to some extent. The problem is, he doesn’t know when to stop. He’s constantly telling us how people felt, or how we should feel about things, but this isn’t history, it’s opinion and fiction. Davis then tries to keep things relevant and modern by adding in slang or contemporary phrasing when neutral phrasing would have been more appropriate and accurate. After using the bits of trivia for all it is worth, he begins to ramble, mixing in bits and pieces of standard history, while inserting his own opinions on all of it. The opinions and rather confusing bias he inserts is what truly turned me off, as well as his determination to attack anything seen as ‘history’. Davis seemed to want to go after the establishment or promote the underdog any chance he had. Fine. Some people like that type of history. However, the bias got in the way of his history, and more importantly became confusing. When Catholics were against non-Catholics, we were supposed to side with the non-Catholics. When a man went up against a woman, we were supposed to side with the woman. When the white man was going after the native populations, we were supposed to side with the native population. When a woman and a child were kidnapped by a group of natives, and she scalped all of them in their sleep, we were supposed to side with the woman because…they were men and she was being empowered? They kidnapped her (never mind there was a conflict going on and she had taken her land)? I’m not sure. But at times this work was almost laughable in how it was constantly trying to promote some poor maligned group. If there was a historic event, or more importantly a known historic figure, we were supposed to root against them because they were a known event or figure, and obviously false or they’re terrible, because history only happened as Davis relates it. To give one example, never mind what George Washington did, because shortly after reaching adulthood he massacred enemy troops in what was obviously a war crime, then covered it up (hundreds of miles from civilization, during a conflict, with no communication back home, when he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong). Later on, he wasn’t sympathetic with an insurrection (sorry…maligned poor farmers being screwed over by the man) attempting to seize federal weapons, that I’m sure they were going to display for historical purposes and not turn on and massacre the local citizens (which unlike when George Washington massacred Native Americans, is apparently to be encouraged...I guess because they are European and more wealthy than the ones doing the killing?). He’s obviously a horrible person. How could you think he ever did anything good?
I could go on, but the point is that this isn’t history, this is fantasy, bias and opinion writing. If that’s your thing, fine, but let’s not market it as history. I’m well aware history has bias and things get left out, but generally speaking, history should be…well…actual history, or at least have a hint of it mixed in.