Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World

by Jeff Fynn-Paul

A renowned historian debunks current distortion and myths about European colonialism in the New World and restores much needed balance to our understanding of the past.

Was America really “stolen” from the Indians? Was Columbus a racist? Were Indians really peace-loving, communistic environmentalists? Did Europeans commit “genocide” in the New World?

It seems that almost everyone—from CNN to the New York Times to angry students pulling down statues of our founders—believes that America’s history is a shameful tale of racism, exploitation, and cruelty.

In Not Stolen , renowned historian Jeff Fynn-Paul systematically dismantles this relentlessly negative view of U.S. history, arguing that it is based on shoddy methods, misinformation, and outright lies about the past.

America was not “stolen” from the Indians but fairly purchased piece by piece in a thriving land market. Nor did European settlers cheat, steal, murder, rape or purposely infect them with smallpox to the extent that most people believe. No genocide occurred—either literal or cultural—and the decline of Native populations over time is not due to violence but to assimilation and natural demographic processes.

Fynn Paul not only debunks these toxic myths, but provides a balanced portrait of this complex historical process over 500 years. The real history of Native and European relations will surprise you. Not only is this not a tale of shameful sins and crimes against humanity—it is more inspiring than you ever dared to imagine.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook, American, Race

434 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 18, 2023

About the author

Jeff Fynn-Paul is an economic historian with an interest in the history of democracy. He lives in The Hague.

Reviews

[Erin · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a person who has a Masters in American History and has an MLS and is a Librarian,this book is so misleading and unresearched. You cannot use Wikipedia many times in your book and expect to be taken seriously. Hardly any of the sources the author uses are primary sources. There are outdated sources by 60 years at times. It's also nice to know that the author thinks that Pre Civil War South was NOT fueled and prosperous by slaves. He says it was the North who was prosperous by slaves. Yeah ok.

By all means, this is a book if you enjoy being completely lied to. Or if you watch Faux News or other fake news outlets.

Other REAL historians I am sure are shaking their heads. As a librarian, I want to pull this book from the shelf. I mainly picked it up to see what points the author based his evidence on. It appears to be no real evidence. Just pundits.

If you value intellectual content, don't bother with this highly fictional account of how the Native Americans were treated.

[Asderathos]

This book isn't even out yet, & two people 1 starred it, it's safe to assume without reading it.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World by Jeff Fynn-Paul.

The Woke distortion of history has provoked a hopeful reaction, a new crop of books looking at the basics of American history. The most recent entry in the field is “Not Stolen” by Professor Jeff Flynn-Paul. Flynn-Paul is a professor of Global History and Economics at the University of Leiden. If you are expecting this book to have been written by a Dutchman, guess again — Flynn-Paul was born in America, educated in Canada, and merely works in Europe. I’ve seen some of the videos featuring Flynn-Paul’s discussion of his works, and he is as American as a homeless vagrant in the streets of San Francisco.


This book is a survey of American history — the American history you were supposed to learn in grade school but never learned because they were too busy teaching you to hate America. This book is in the same genre as “War on History” by Jarrett Stepman, which I reviewed last month. However, where Stepman’s survey goes from the Era of Discovery to World War II, Flynn-Paul’s interest is the transition of the New World from terra incognita to part of the Western World. As a result, he covers topics like Columbus, Thanksgiving, and the Trail of Tears.

The advantage that Woke History has is that it is so easy to learn and remember. In Woke History, there are good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are always Western oppressors who are motivated by evil impulses unique to Westerners because of Capitalism or Christianity. The good guys are the natives, who are victims who lived in peaceful harmony until the Oppressors shattered their world with a multi-century rampage of persecution and slaughter.

If you have that paradigm in mind, you can quickly backfill the details.

The problem is that history is complicated. People are remarkably like people. In any group, there are some good, many bad, and most moving from side to side. Oppressors are often Victims, and Victims can be Oppressors in their turn. The Woke Narrative ignores facts that contradict the Woke Narrative. For example, if Americans wanted to exterminate the Indians, why did Thomas Jefferson make an effort to distribute the Smallpox vaccine to the Indians? Jefferson sent the smallpox vaccine with the Williams and Clark expedition. In 1832, the Secretary of War was charged with the responsibility of distributing the smallpox vaccine to the Indians. (American efforts in this regard look a lot like the efforts of the German colonial administration to distribute Rinderpest vaccine to African cattle to save the African population from starvation. [See The Case for German Colonialism.])

Did you know that? I didn’t know that.

On the other hand, you’ve probably heard that the American military gave blankets from smallpox wards to Indians to start plagues when, in fact, there is no evidence that any such thing ever occurred. There is a single written document of such a strategy. It occurred During the French and Indian Wars at Fort Pitt, which was under siege by the Indians. The commander expressed reluctance to try it because it could have sparked an outbreak among his forces, some already suffering from smallpox. On the other hand, the Indians in the area were also dealing with their smallpox outbreak. Hence, the significance of this effort at primitive biological warfare — not the first time such a thing was tried in sieges — is doubtful.

History is complicated. You have to know it empirically, not infer it based on the Narrative.

I want to hit some of the points that stood out for me.

Flynn-Paul addresses the issue of genocide. Determining the population of pre-Columbian America involves extrapolation and inference verging on speculation. In recent years, the Narrative has been pushing an extremely high population figure for America. For example, the Narrative claims that 7 million people died on the island of Hispaniola as a result of Columbus. But this population figure is absurd:

“Our best guess is that England in 1500 had only 2.1 million people, living on double the area of Hispaniola. (England’s maximum capacity before the agricultural revolution of the seventeenth century was probably less than five million.) If Hispaniola really had seven million people in 1491, that would make its population roughly triple that of England at the time, and its population density about six times higher.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 55–56). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

This is unlikely: the natives of Hispaniola had a stone-age technology and no draft animals.

The more likely figure is in the tens of thousands:

“This is why archaeologists and other specialists believe that the real population of Hispaniola in 1491 was about two hundred thousand people while even the “maximalists” in this subfield argue for only three hundred thousand.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (p. 56). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Of this lower number, were most killed?

Not at all. Genetic evidence shows that the populations of Hispaniola were not replaced; they were incorporated into subsequent populations.

In places with a heavier population density, the survival of the native population is more noticeable:

“Just as in the former Aztec lands, today we find that “white” Europeans make up a tiny minority of the population in former Incan territory, at between about 10 and 15 percent. The rest are either mestizo or Amerindian. In all three of these countries about half the population is “pure” Amerindian. Since these two population nuclei accounted for perhaps 80 percent of all New World people in 1491, the obvious conclusion is that Europeans did not slaughter or displace the great majority of Indigenous people in the New World.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (p. 66). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

In North America, population densities were far lower:

“The only reason parts of the New World, such as the present-day US and Canada and also Australia and New Zealand, are majority non-Indigenous is because the Indigenous population of these lands was so truly sparse — 1 percent or less as dense as most of Europe at the time.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (p. 128). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

And:

“For the first two and a half centuries after Columbus, Europeans remained confined to limited enclaves in the New World. Large parts of Mexico and Latin America remained in the hands of Indigenous people throughout the colonial period and beyond. As recently chronicled by Pekka Hämäläinen, most of the actual “dispossession” of Indigenous people in North America occurred quite rapidly, during the nineteenth century, due to a combination of natural population increase and European immigration.65 This land grab happened only after the Indigenous population was outnumbered by a factor approaching one hundred to one.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 129–130). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.


I’ve played war games where one side starts at a lower level but has a greater production capacity over the long run. Things are nip and tuck until the last few turns, when the production capacity overwhelms the other side. That was the situation the American Indians faced. Approximately 10,000 Commanches controlled all of North Texas — slave raiding into northern Mexico — until the mid-19th century when the far larger American population swamped them.

North American population densities were extremely low, which influenced the way that a farming culture moving into industrialization was going to interact with them:

In hunter-gatherer societies, which ranged over at least three-fourths of New World land north of Panama, property ownership was always tenuous in the extreme. Property in these vast empty regions was claimed by small bands, who might visit it only every few years. Population density was well below one person per ten acres; often, it was much lower than this.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (p. 213). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

And:

The Indians’ seminomadic lifestyle made it relatively easy for them sell their lands and retreat farther into New York State and the Green Mountains in the hope of avoiding contact with whites — as long as this could be negotiated with other Indian tribes along the way. Population densities in the region began low — highball estimates suggest that about ten thousand Indians were living in all of Vermont in 1500 — so this meant that by 1680, there was space for Indians to migrate through the region after disease, migration, and assimilation had reduced their numbers.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 272–273). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

This data corroborates the historical presentation in “How the Indians Lost their Land” by Stuart Banner.

Migration was endemic in North America. Populations were constantly displacing prior populations, often through genocide. The Commanches waged wars of genocide against the Apaches. The Navaho were in the process of exterminating the Hopi until the Americans put a lid on that process. The idea of land acknowledgments is silly since it merely acknowledges the last group of colonizers before the Americans took over.

Likewise, Indians were quite capable of managing empires with brutal effectiveness. Native populations sided with the Spanish against Aztecs, for example. And, again, as explained in “The Comanche Empire” by Pekka Hämäläinen , ten thousand Commanches ran a military empire that took slaves and property from as far away as northern Mexico and kept Europeans tied up for over 100 years.


Flynn-Paul adds another spike to the argument that Europeans were inherently racist when he points out that Spaniards treated Indian nobility as nobility. They would seek to ennoble themselves by marrying local nobility. This does not speak to any form of White Supremacy argued by the Woke Narrative.

Flynn-Paul has an interesting discussion that gauges Indian technological developments. Most were at a stone-age level. The Aztecs and Incas might have approached the same level as ancient Mesopotamia. Factor in low population density, and the population replacement was inevitable.

Warfare and massacre were not the cause:

“Despite the relative rarity of such massacres in New England history, they feature prominently in popular articles on Thanksgiving. Such portrayals are distorted from multiple angles. First, they are spun to represent one-sided instances of colonist-on-Indian aggression. Secondly, they are spun to appear unprovoked. Third, they are spun as though they were motivated by racial hatred and a desire for ethnic cleansing above all else, based on an underlying greed for land. And finally, they are spun as though this sort of thing was happening all the time — as though they were typical of and “stand for” early New England history. All four of these interpretations are false, or at least misleading. The charge of continuous warfare is a highly embellished view of colonial New England history. According to William M. Osborn, who incidentally is cited on the “Indian Massacres” page referenced above, the total casualties of Indian-settler massacres between 1511 and 1890 were about 7,193 Natives who died at the hands of Europeans, and about 9,156 Europeans who died at the hands of Native Americans.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 240–241). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Massacres may have been more common in California, but that was at the end of the process when population density and technological differentials were at a maximum. From an ecological/environmental perspective, groups that evolve with each other learn to adapt. When a new apex predator is introduced to the ecology, the effects can lead to extinction, such as when the Indians destroyed North American megafaunas while African megafaunas continued to survive.

Flynn-Paul observes:

“According to our best guess, before the arrival of the Spanish in the 1760s, there were perhaps three hundred thousand Indians living in California. The great majority of these lived in the fertile central valley and certain coastal regions, since this provided the Natives with an abundance of food. Early observers noticed that while California itself provided some of the most bountiful sustenance anywhere in North America, the California Indians were among the most “primitive” of all North American people. The going theory is that the abundance of food, in this case, made life so easy that the Indigenous people of California did not bother to innovate. Instead, they took advantage of the Eden-like conditions to live relatively simple lives.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 362–363). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

However, even California raises questions.

One question is raised by the fact that the massacre rate doesn’t account for population collapse:

Herein lies the crux: Madley’s book gives the impression that in 1849, there were some one hundred and fifty thousand Indians living peaceably in California — but that twenty-odd years later, most of these had been hunted to near extinction for sport by gleefully genocidal white hunting parties, including those organized by Serranus Hastings. This is certainly the impression that the law professor Paul Caron got from Madley’s book, and the figure of “100,000 killed” can be found splashed liberally across less-cautious corners of the internet. The problem is, the number of Indians who were killed outside of active warfare during the entire course of the “genocide” was in reality less than five thousand — meaning that some 97 percent of California Indians were not massacred during this time period. A 3 percent slaughter rate is horrendous enough — but it’s a far cry from the 88 percent slaughter rate that Paul Caron claims in his blog post.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (p. 360). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

The explanation is complex:

According to the sources we have, it seems that a major downturn in the California Indian population occurred during and after the Wars of Mexican Independence, which broke out in 1810 and carried on until 1821. Soon after independence, the Mexican governors then proclaimed the “secularization” of the mission system in California, although this proved a decidedly mixed bag for the California Indians. Under the Mexican system, California Indians remained subject to forced labor by secular landowners who rapidly purchased the old mission lands. It was the Mexican government, then, that created the custom whereby Indians could be indentured and “sold” for their labor. Under this system, Indian children were often sold outright as slaves. The Mexican custom was carried over into the American period, and it became the grounds for much abuse. What few writers wish to emphasize is that this indentured servitude was outlawed by the California legislature as a follow up to the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 — less than fifteen years after the Americans took over in California. It took another decade, partly due to the lack of resources brought about by the Civil War, for this emancipation to be effectively enforced however. In the chaos created by the harsh and anarchic situation left by the retreating Mexican government, a great number of California Indians seem to have disappeared — to the extent that a population, formerly three hundred thousand strong, melted away, mostly during the brief Mexican period between circa 1810 and 1848. By the time the Americans got hold of the territory, the Indian population in California is believed to have been between one hundred thousand and one hundred and fifty thousand people. Of course, modern critics opt for the higher number because this makes the Americans look worse. What happened to the approximately one hundred and fifty thousand California Indians who disappeared during the last few decades of Spanish and Mexican rule in California? No one knows for certain.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 365–366). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Social upheavals can have huge effects through mechanisms other than outright murder. Flynn-Paul explains that social upheaval can mean that children just are not born because of lower birth rates:

“In light of these cold, hard population figures, with tens of millions of mestizos and Amerindians living precisely where their ancestors lived five hundred years ago, where then is the “holocaust” of one hundred million dead claimed by Stannard and others? Up to 75 percent of them never existed at all — they are a figment of the Berkeley School’s fevered imaginations. In places such as Hispaniola, the pre-Columbian population is exaggerated by the media and government organizations by several thousand percent. Of those Indigenous people who did “disappear” after 1491, most did not die a horrible death. Many were simply not born, because cultural upheaval tends to cause lower birth rates. Of those who actually died under adverse conditions introduced by Europeans, even Stannard recognizes that some 90 percent of Indigenous casualties of European intervention were due to neutral causes such as disease, rather than war. Nor as we will see in later chapters is there evidence that Europeans deliberately infected Indian populations with smallpox or other diseases.

Fynn-Paul, Jeff. Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World (pp. 67–68). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

None of this means that Indians were not murdered or oppressed. They certainly were, but facts matter. History is complicated.

The Woke Narrative knows that facts matter. The Narrative has been shaped by many people who have gone out of their way to exaggerate historical events into events of monstrous barbarity. Presumably, that is necessary, or someone might notice that the natives were engaging in slaving and sacrifice on a far larger scale. In the case of the Aztecs, this was genuinely monstrous:

[nitya · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some historians should keep quiet...forever

Whitewashing is garbage

[Fred Llewen · Rating 1 out of 5]

White supremacist revisionist history. The author makes straw man arguments that nobody is making and then attacks them with bias. Not a good resource for much of anything other than as an example of white fragility.

[Matthew Selby · Rating 5 out of 5]

People who didn’t even read it rated it one star. This not only makes the book worth reading, but in fact proves its point: The study of history has been hijacked by political activists steeped in Marxist theory who wish to destroy Western civilisation.

[Elliott · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am a staunch left winger, but I’ve got an open mind. I read books by conservatives and to the extent that they make good arguments I’ll acknowledge them and I’ll gladly change my mind. I have high regard for historian Niall Ferguson. Michael J. Smith’s The Enduring Crown Commonwealth was one of the best books I read last year. I even found myself sympathetic to Andrew Roberts’ main subject in The Last King of America. I am also skeptical of The 1619 Project whose starting point I am sympathetic to, but whose conclusions, and interpretation of the historical record I do not always agree with, or are simply wrong.
Niall Ferguson though, writes history. Jeff Fynn-Paul does not. Jeff Fynn-Paul has written a polemic and polemics are rarely any good. Polemics don’t break new ground, they rely on someone else’s narrative. So, rather than write a book that more subtly makes the case that the Columbian Exchange was not altogether negative Fynn-Paul tries to refute every single book that says that it was. We don’t really need this book since he just repeats from other books, and Wikipedia.
What’s worse is the sheer scope that Fynn-Paul works with makes his refutations brief and unconvincing. In my opinion he should have stuck to the Anglo-sphere not only would it have been more manageable but, even the Spanish considered their own imperialist project to be unusually cruel. When I say “more convincing” I’m allowing a little bit of leeway. The book might have been better but probably wouldn’t be. You see, Fynn-Paul is convinced that the critical views he tries to refute are products of a Marxist conspiracy put into motion during the 1960s and 1970s and bearing fruition now with the toppling of statues to Washington, Lincoln, and Churchill. He cites similarities between Howard Zinn’s A People’s History with passages from The Communist Manifesto. As silly as that sounds- that’s already kind of the mainstream position of the Republican Party where nearly everything has a conspiratorial explanation. That silliness though dooms this book from the start. Again, I’m an actual Marxist. We don’t have that kind of sway and if we did we wouldn’t spend 60 years in the vague hope that someday the New York Times and NPR would feature our book.

[Thijmen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Fun fact: if you go to ChatGPT and prompt it: "generate a book on 'woke colonial history' in the voice and style of Tucker Carlson with a rant about left-wing academics every 5 pages," this is exactly what you get.

[Clay Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book armed with facts to fight information wars.

[Patrick Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

2025-05-06 Started this book a week or so ago. About 50% into it so far.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GREAT stuff.
Well written.
Excellent factual material.
Fascinating critiques and theories that I had never heard of that make so much sense.

Crucial for anyone who wants to know about this topic and all the myths and pernicious ideas that are being normalized about it in our society.

More on this after I finish.

[Dav · Rating 5 out of 5]

.


Not Stolen: 
The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World 

by Jeff Fynn-Paul, pub. 2023, about 400 pages.

BOOKBLURB:
The historian Professor Jeff Fynn-Paul debunks the myths and lies about Europeans in the New World (America) and restores our understanding of the past.

America was “Not Stolen” from the Indians, Columbus wasn't a racist, Indians were not the peace-loving, communistic environmentalists that so many claim they were and genocide was not the practice of Europeans in the New World.

It seems that almost everyone—from CNN to the New York Times to angry students pulling down statues of our founders—believes that America’s history is a shameful tale of racism, exploitation, and cruelty. The author systematically dismantles this negative view of U.S. history, arguing that it is based on shoddy methods, misinformation, and outright lies about the past.

America was not “stolen” from the Indians but fairly purchased piece by piece in a thriving land market. Nor did European settlers cheat, steal, murder, rape or purposely infect them with smallpox to the extent that most people believe. No genocide occurred—either literal or cultural—and the decline of Native populations over time is not due to violence but to assimilation and natural demographic processes. The book debunks these toxic myths and provides a balanced portrait of this historical process over 500 years.

The accurate history of Indian and European relations is refreshing. Not only is this not a tale of shameful sins and crimes against humanity—it's inspiring. - edited

.

I've read an introduction for the book and I've seen the author interview - really looked forward to reading this one. The book, The 10 Big Lies About America, by Michael Medved, has a chapter that briefly covers some of these misconceptions. In Michael’s book Big Lie #1, America Was Founded on Genocide Against Native Americans.

CONTENTS
Intro: the radical assault on Western history

I: The Age of Discovery
1. Intrepid Explorer or Genocidal Maniac? ... Columbus
2. Did Europeans Commit Genocide in the New World?
3. Were Europeans Racist?
4. Were the Conquistadors Bloodthirsty Zealots?
5. Is Europe Guilty of "Settler Colonialism"?

II: The Native Peoples
6. Were New World Civilizations Equal or Superior to Europe?
7. Were Native Americans Naturally Peaceful and Benevolent?
8. Were Native Americans Natural Environmentalists?
9. Were Native Americans Natural Communists?
10. Did the Founders Steal Democracy from Native Americans?

III: American Displacement
11. Is Thanksgiving Racist?
12. Was Pocahontas a Race Traitor?
13. Was America Stolen?
14. Were the Founding Fathers Anti-Indian?
15. Was the Trail of Tears Genocidal?
16. Did Europeans Starve, Massacre, or Spread Disease among the Natives?
17. Did the Gold Rush Trigger an Indian Genocide?

IV: Contemporary Issues
18. Did Europeans Commit Cultural Genocide?
19. Is Using Native American Names "Cultural Appropriation"?
20. Are Natives Owed Reparations?

Conclusion: Not Stolen:
Toward a Balanced History of European Colonialization

Following are some notable topics from various chapters.

▪︎ INTRO: Begins with the statue-toppling mob of 2020 and the labeling of the USA as stolen ground. Facts of history haven't changed, but the anti-American left [the Democrats] are pushing a new ideology. In the recent past it was just the radical fringe pseudo-historians who propagated the lie of the USA and Canada being illegitimate, due to their history of genocide / mass murder, slavery, racism and stolen lands.

"This is not a book of historical revisionism ... it is a work of historical restoration.
... historical reason was drowned by cultural hysteria sometime around the year 2016." For example, Bernie Sanders and his CNN media at a 2016 visit to Mount Rushmore praised the memorial of our four great presidents. Just 4 years later it was being condemned as a monument to slave owners on stolen ground.

"In the end, we conclude that America was not 'stolen,' any more than Europeans were the inventors of slavery or colonialism."

Part I:
Chapter 1. Columbus -
Covers some of the intentional distortions of Columbus's journal used to vilify him. He actually wrote to the Queen and King of Spain, Isabella and Ferdinand, praising the Indian's appearance, intelligence, prospective as Christians and subjects of the crown.

Some of the Spanish atrocities are explained, but there wasn't a system of genocide, rather the Europeans intermarried with the indigenous peoples. The vast majority of deaths (more than 90 percent) was due to disease, not cruelty. Also mentions Columbus's governorship of the Indies, his execution of rebels either European or indigenous and his removal from office.

Part II:
Chapter 7. Native Americans as peaceful and benevolent -
"...this image of peace-loving Native American societies: it is completely untrue." Indians, just like most tribal chieftain societies in other parts of the world were founded on warfare, raids, slavery and in the case of Native Americans, cannibalism was only occasional. The torment and torture of captives was often a post-battle delight before executing their enemies. The view of Native Americans as peaceful and reasonable is a Left-wing fantasy, specifically beginning in the 1960s and '70s with peaceniks.

Part III:
Chapter 15 Trail of Tears, the 1830s and President Andrew Jackson -
Indian tribes were removed from the southeastern USA to Indian Territory in Oklahoma. These tribes were living as independent nations within the US on land established as theirs and sanctioned by the government. The removal was unfair and inconsiderate, however it's been purposely misrepresented for political effect. "To paint 'America' as uniformly bad due to the Trail of Tears, given that substantial numbers of Americans did indeed fight against the Trail of Tears policy, is to engage in propaganda rather than history."

Part IV:
Chapter 19 cultural appropriation
This movement primarily began early in the 21st century and claims the use of cultural elements, Indian symbolism or words belonging to a minority group is disrespectful and triggering. Even sports teams were compelled to change the team's name. It's of course the Lefty activists who demand removal of Indian symbolism and the like. "By erasing popular reference points such as the Cleveland Indians and Halloween costumes, they risk relegating the American Indian to even greater historical obscurity and cultural irrelevance."

The US, being a country of immigrants, has always incorporated aspects from various cultures. "This is a mark of respect and inclusion, not a racist domination."

Conclusion -
Ends with the need for truth in opposing tyranny and the falsehood of "stolen ground" and claims of genocide. "America and its democracy will continue to warrant a prominent place on the moral high ground of history."

.

Well done.
The myths about Europeans and Indians are clearly debunked as well as the modern myths of the Leftist activists.

The book clearly presented agregous historical events, but also included the actual context and insights into European mores of the time. European explorers and colonists were not genocidal nor cruel.



..






.
.




.

[Lourdes · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is Holocaust denial. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional or a Nazi. Plenty of articles have shredded it.

[David Bowles · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is well worth a read.

Nonhistorian have an ax to grind in tearing down wat is great and good about America. This book is inspiring.

[Tetsuo Ogami · Rating 5 out of 5]

MAD WHITE WOMEN HATE THIS BOOK. I NO HATE. IN JAPAN LOVE WHITE MAN, WHITE MAN MAKE AMERICA AND AMERICA MAKE GOOD MOVIE. THANK YOU

[Kevin Keating · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a worthwhile book to read as a counterpoint to all of the critical anti-American propaganda being fed to this generation. It's a wake-up call to remind historians that it is their job to make sure that both sides of the truth are showing up in academic circles.

My only problem is that the sourcing is not as rigorous as I would like to see. The author admits that he has written a one-sided piece, which is nice, because his task was to provide a counterbalance. Anyway, more sources would be great. Not saying he's making stuff up though. Just anticipating the response when I will try to use some of this data in arguments.

Good read.

[Mason Bruza · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a thorough overview of the interactions between Europeans and American natives from Columbus to early 20th century. The author aims to provide balance to the conversation and dismantle modern memes in this area of history.

He does this by presenting facts that are inconvenient to the modern narrative that Europeans were/are racist, genocidal monsters such as the fact that the population ratio of native to European stayed at 1:100 during the centuries when this genocide is supposed to have occured. The author doesn't claim that atrocities never happened or that all dealings were fair, but rather he distinguishes what was the normal state of affairs from horrific but relatively isolated incidents and ably shows that most of the history is characterized by peaceful and mutually beneficial interaction between Europeans and their Indian neighbors. He goes to great lengths to show where there was clear wrongdoing (e.g. Andrew Jackson's removal policy) there was also strong opposition from other Europeans who more often than not loved and even admired their Indian neighbors.

The book also demonstrates that far from being innocent victims, many indian tribes routinely raided, murdered, and enslaved other natives. When Europeans show up, most (though not all) violent incidents are in the context of wars begun as a result of this raiding culture. Many Indian tribes in fact benefited from European arrival and were protected from more violent neighbors, and there's a decent chance that the net result of European settlement was native lives saved rather than lost.

In a time of revisionist history, this book is highly recommended to anyone whether of primarily Indian or European descent who would like to celebrate their heritage and have a hate-free and guilt-free Thanksgiving.

[John Reis · Rating 5 out of 5]

It has been fashionable for the past fifty years or so to condemn the European discovery of the New World and its aftermath. We are told it is a tale of genocide, slavery, racism, theft, exploitation and rapine. The author argues that these claims are a result of exaggeration, cherry-picking and sometimes outright lying.

He does not deny that there were atrocities: the Pequot War, The Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee and the California Indian Wars and others. But he does mention the efforts to help Indians by Europeans that started as early as the late 1600s who faced loss of game. There are good guys and bad guys on both sides.

Columbus’ character-bad administrator but slaver? Cherry-picking his journal for the few statements where he is unkind, ignores his favorable statements about the Tainos.
The Caribs were another matter, being cannibals. It seems 24 Tainos were taken back to Spain. Hardly slave-trading.

We can take on the issue of genocide quickly. The racial makeup of the population of Mexico now is nearly the same as it was in 1500. The same can be said for major colonies in Africa and Asia and the Pacific Islands.

By the early 1800s the entire Indian population east of the Mississippi was around 100,000 people. The author attributes this not to the theft of the land or genocidal policies, but to the inefficiency of hunting and gathering, Indian susceptibility to disease, Amerindian aggression by the likes of the Iroquois, which made population replacement difficult. Fourth was gradual assimilation into farming society.
The population in the entire US was around 400,000 in 1850. There are about five million today.

As to theft, the populations of America, Canada and Australia were so sparse that the land seemed to be there for the taking. And the Europeans did not reach into the interior of the continent in any great numbers until the early 19th century. And that only because of canals and the development of the railroad and telegraph. However, there is plenty of evidence as to the assiduous protection of Indian property rights from the beginning.

Queen Isabella considered the natives to be her subjects and rejected their enslavement.

He looks at the population of the Western Hemisphere: was it 20 million or 50 million?
More likely the former. Most lived in Central America.

What about Cortes? In conquering the Aztecs; his allies were their enemies.

The conversion of the Mexicans-was it bloody? Apparently not, the Catholics incorporated local lore and custom as they had done in converting Europe.

On the matter of theft again, European GDP was ~$400 in 1000AD, similar to what it was in China, India and Aztec Mexico. In 1500, European GDP was ~$800, while in Mexico, Africa and Peru it had not changed. GDP in India and China sat at ~$600. So, GDP in the West was growing nearly 10% a century for the 500 years preceding the colonial era.

Stealing Indian land claims ignores the fact that Indians were more or less at war with their neighbors for centuries and while it might be true that the Wampanoags owned the land were the Pilgrims landed, exactly how long had they done so?

The idea of property existed in central Mexico. But in Northeast Indian villages land claims were often vaguely defined, especially when it came to the extent of hunting grounds. There were no permanent structures of any sort to use as landmarks. Nevertheless, Amerindian property rights were for the most part recognized and protected but this did not prevent the Indians from selling a piece of land that they only hunted on periodically. Also, the colonists encouraged the Indians to get educations so they could defend their own rights.

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson sent out smallpox vaccine sent out with the Lewis and Clark expedition. It had only been developed in 1796. This policy continued under James Madison and every other President after.

The mass killing of buffalo that began in 1871. was done by white private citizens to take advantage of the demand for buffalo hides in Europe. US government efforts to put a stop to it failed to get the votes needed to pass legislation. And the repeating rifle made short work of the animal.

This book is focused on the claims of the New Left against the US in the past. It is not a comparison with Indian behavior along the way, although there is a quick mention that 7000 Indians and 9000 whites died in massacres in the time period. He does mention long periods of peace with the colonists and Indians: notably, the period from 1621 to 1676 in New England and William Penn’s Long Peace.

I came away shocked at what little I had learned in school. I am not at all shocked by the hubris of activists on the left who take advantage of every opportunity to spin a tale that condemns the actions of Europeans in North America in the past.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

A historical corrective to the Marxist narrative.

funny Paul lays out the distortions and exaggerations of activist historians and demolishes them one by one. An antidote to guilty mongering professors that should be required reading for all American students. I would like to read a similar more neutral treatment of European Imperialism in other parts of the world.

[Abby Sostre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting and balanced book. I learned a lot

[Betsy Koestler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really interesting book written from a balanced historical perspective. I really enjoyed it!

[Jesse Beauford · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating deep dive rebuttal to the current racial click-bait woke lords that are destroying the “true” and “factual” story of American history, this book will be one of the books that I will have my son read as part of his education.
The superciliousness of those who would accuse me of racism, genocide, slavery and cultural appropriation based on the color of my skin are some of the most rabidly racists people that I’ve heard of. I would say they’re stupid, but I think they know exactly what they’re doing since according Flynn-Paul, many have Marxist roots. It’s a purposeful ploy to destroy Christian faith and culture and its last great western bastion, the United States.
If you’re sick of the blue haired weirdo’s and the violent BLM crowd screeching about you being the problem with the world and that you have committed horrific crimes against minorities, then this book is for you.

[Master Chief · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lot of breadth, not a lot of depth.

[Becca]

In the interest of studying all aspects of an issue...

[David A · Rating 5 out of 5]

With meticulous research and an unwavering commitment to truth, Fynn-Paul shatters entrenched myths and presents a profoundly enlightening perspective on European colonialism. He challenges preconceived notions. For example:

* Indigenous Agency in Alliances: The book discusses how many Indigenous groups actively collaborated with European settlers, forming alliances for mutual benefit. For instance, Fynn-Paul highlights the role of the Tlaxcalans in aiding Hernán Cortés during the conquest of the Aztec Empire, a partnership driven by longstanding grievances against the Aztecs.

* Economic Development Under Colonial Rule: Fynn-Paul illustrates how European colonial efforts contributed to infrastructure development in the New World, such as the establishment of trade networks and cities that became economic hubs, including Mexico City and Lima. He argues that these advancements laid foundations for modernization.

* Contextualizing the Columbian Exchange: The author offers a balanced view of the Columbian Exchange, emphasizing not only the devastation of Old World diseases but also the transformative benefits, such as the introduction of staple crops like wheat and livestock, which significantly impacted global diets and economies.

* Debunking the "Noble Savage" Myth: Fynn-Paul challenges romanticized notions of pre-Columbian societies, pointing to practices like human sacrifice in Aztec culture and tribal warfare in North America, to argue that European colonization introduced alternatives to systems that were often brutal and oppressive.

* Land and Labor Relations: The book examines the misrepresentation of land ownership in the New World, showing how European settlers often negotiated or purchased land from Indigenous groups, contrary to the narrative of universal land theft. Fynn-Paul draws on records of treaties and agreements to substantiate these claims.

[David Hensley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for all high school and college students.

[Andrew Kaluzny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not my favorite book to read, as it was more a collection of essays arguing against problematic leftist claims about colonialism that are gaining popularity. As someone who doesn’t live in a black and white, oppressors against oppressed worldview, most of what was written was common sense to me. I was looking forward to more a narrative style book on early colonialism and American policies on Indian relations rather than him addressing certain statements and debunking them. As someone who just graduated with a history degree I think he’s overestimating the impact that these Marxist historian visionaries have on the field and people in general. It is true that a lot of the general history professors view the world in the Marxist viewpoint. I even had a professor suggest that it was a mistake for humanity to start living settled lives instead of roaming hunter gatherers which almost made me vomit. However, most of my upper history courses took a more nuanced approach to examining things like racism and colonialism. I do think that a lot of younger liberals I’ve worked with and are acquaintances of it’s do believe a lot of the lies debunked in this book. The book is not gonna change any of these people’s minds as it’s not very persuasive. I did find myself groaning at some of the arguments made and the “but what about all the good things colonists did!” Arguments in the book. The book was clearly written for people who agree with his viewpoints to confirm them rather than to convince people to think more nuanced. It’s a shame that a book like this even needs to be written. It seems like most recent history literature is Marxist viewpoint then the right rebuttals right after. If you’re looking for a history book on colonialism I would not recommend. If you are looking for points to argue with liberals who won’t listen to anything you say anyway then read it.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book needed to be written. It’s not a “whitewashing” but a corrective to the activist historians, and non-historians, who have spent decades cherry picking and applying Marxist Critical Theory rather than actual criticism in reviewing the past. This isn’t hero worship but it isn’t euro-trashing either. The author, an actual historian, notes and cites everything and admits when he is taking one piece of evidence over another and why. This is a great counter to Zinn and Chomsky. In the West we criticize and challenge things. We have free speech and it matters. But we need more courage to stand for and search for truth. This is a great wake up call and has incited me to read more history to help understand where we are today. The questions of welfare, UBI, and other ideas can be explored better by looking to history. Flynn-Paul expertly shows us this path and lets the reader come to their own conclusions. Great questions asked here.

[Terrance D Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally, an Objective Study!

As a longtime law enforcement officer with an Abenaki connection, I was always required to deal with the facts wherever they fell. Court cases were screened for thorough investigation, facts beyond that "shadow of doubt," or the judge dismissed the charge(s).

The author has gone far beyond that standard in this book, is well read, and presents an authoritative, factual, unbiased look of our indigenous people and their so-called genocide.

[Ammon Le Moyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth the read

He successfully presents his case in a neutral fashion. It seemed to me that he was a little too critical of European colonization and expansion in an effort to appear more objective. (Also, I couldn't help but be a somewhat irritated by his frequent reference to the US as a democracy, the US is a republic.) Overall, he chose reliable and varied sources and was thorough and fair in his assessment. 

[James Timmins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Needed analysis

History is complex and brutal. Thorough analysis of historical record of European history in Western Hemisphere. Modern narrative of “stolen land” is refuted.
On balance, Western Civilization is a force gor good.