What do you think?
Rate this book
A Resistance History of the United States
Revisit the Salem Witch Trials, the Underground Railroad, and other resistance movements of American history to get a bold new understanding of how resistance shaped our past—and how its principles can change our future.
The United States was shaped by resistance—but not in the way we’ve been taught. The Revolution did not secure liberty; it opened the door to either liberty or oppression, where only white men enjoyed all of the benefits and protections of citizenship.
In A Resistance History of the United States, public historian Tad Stoermer shows how from the very beginning, that tension—between the ideals of resistance and the realities of power—has defined America more than the Enlightenment ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Utililizing powerful storytelling to focus on key—and often lesser-known—moments in American history, this book reveals the truth of how resistance movements from Colonial times have opposed the powers that be. Stoermer covers an impressive roster of pivotal movements, with each chapter identifying a key resistance movement and principle meant to inspire contemporary readers,
Bacon’s Rebellion/Metacomet’s War (1676)Salem Witch Trials (1692)The Black Loyalists (1783)The Underground Railroad (1850)
Through these and many more examples, Stoermer dismantles the mythologies that pass for American history—exposing the curated nostalgia, moral evasions, and institutional silences that have long protected abusive power. What emerges is an essential look at how we can take lessons from the past to understand, and effectively respond to, the injustices we face today.
The United States was shaped by resistance—but not in the way we’ve been taught. The Revolution did not secure liberty; it opened the door to either liberty or oppression, where only white men enjoyed all of the benefits and protections of citizenship.
In A Resistance History of the United States, public historian Tad Stoermer shows how from the very beginning, that tension—between the ideals of resistance and the realities of power—has defined America more than the Enlightenment ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Utililizing powerful storytelling to focus on key—and often lesser-known—moments in American history, this book reveals the truth of how resistance movements from Colonial times have opposed the powers that be. Stoermer covers an impressive roster of pivotal movements, with each chapter identifying a key resistance movement and principle meant to inspire contemporary readers,
Bacon’s Rebellion/Metacomet’s War (1676)Salem Witch Trials (1692)The Black Loyalists (1783)The Underground Railroad (1850)
Through these and many more examples, Stoermer dismantles the mythologies that pass for American history—exposing the curated nostalgia, moral evasions, and institutional silences that have long protected abusive power. What emerges is an essential look at how we can take lessons from the past to understand, and effectively respond to, the injustices we face today.
368 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 2, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
July 19, 2026
25 June 2026:
My criticisms of A Resistance History of the United States are legion, but I’ll lead with the most salient: I strongly suspect that Stoermer used generative AI to produce at least large swaths of this book.
I didn’t arrive at this conclusion lightly; I’d read over 35% of the book before I trusted my instinct enough to begin documenting some of the passages I believe feature AI “tells.” I read hundreds of books a year (95 so far in 2026 alone) and have throughout my life; many of those books are contemporary nonfiction and contemporary literary fiction, so I’m familiar with a wide range of modern writing styles. No other published book has triggered this suspicion in me.
Throughout, the text evidences so many hallmark AI “tells”: overwhelmingly rampant contrastive negation (e.g., “That’s not x, it’s y,” where the “it’s not…” often isn’t even something one would reasonably infer based on the preceding sentence or paragraph); repetitive and unnecessary little summaries every page or so that often bely the complexities of the individuals or topics they purport to synopsize; triplet lists; wildly excessive and often bizarre em dash use (N.B.: I love the em dash and use it often myself; this reading experience is actually the first time I’ve understood why it’s become associated with AI “writing”); bland, sterile, unnaturally homogenous tone; formulaic structuring; short, often one-word “sentences” (fragments); endless missing antecedents; restatements of the same assertions using nearly identical words and phrases; etc.
I encourage readers of this review to peruse the highlights I’ve shared for some examples of the patterns I’m charting and to arrive at their own judgments. (My shared highlights represent only a fraction of the genAI language with which this book is overrun.)
Is it possible that Stoermer has simply consumed so much AI slop that he’s absorbed its linguistic tics to the extent that they’ve subsumed his own writing style? Perhaps, but this man is (I think) in his 40s or 50s. He holds a PhD, an achievement that would have required reading innumerable historical artifacts and scholarly texts spanning from US colonial times to the present. His website indicates that he obtained his PhD before generative AI existed for public consumption, so none of his academic accomplishments could have relied on it. He isn’t from Gen Alpha, someone for whom ChatGPT “writing” might be the only style he’s ever known.
I attempted to locate Stoermer’s scholarly work so I could compare his earlier writing to the writing in this book (with the obvious understanding that a history book written for the general population would differ in style from an article penned for an academic audience), but I was unable to find any such work. Nevertheless, the “evidence” of genAI language (as I personally assess it–I don’t and can’t have proof) is so extensive and so sustained throughout the text that it bears in me the weight of near-certainty.
And what kind of history book doesn’t include a bibliography or even works cited?! Well, probably one assembled by generative AI rather than years of scholarly toil in service of developing and delivering a well-supported thesis. Oh, and–coincidentally?--THIS history book.
I want to be wrong. Steerforth Press, an imprint of Pushkin Press and bearing some sort of Penguin Random House affiliation, published A Resistance History. I don’t want to believe that any publisher would finance and affix its name to a book “written” using generative AI. Unfortunately, my guess is that that’s exactly what happened, and I fear those of us who love reading and the human-crafted language their authors have wrestled onto the page will increasingly find that palpable, sometimes messy humanity absent from new book releases.
Even if my AI evaluation is erroneous, A Resistance History still isn’t a good book. If it’s organic, the writing is simply bad: maddeningly repetitive, sometimes nonsensical, exploding with fragments, marred by logical inconsistency. The text is bloodless except when its author is disparaging other historians (he harbors particular animus for Ken Burns and Jon Meacham).
If AI slop language will invade even entirely human-written work through a sort of gross linguistic osmosis, I’m thankful that books written before 2022 can sustain the rest of my reading life.
Stoermer’s central thesis is twofold: that the founding fathers and their work products have been mythologized in a manner at odds with their actual lives and beliefs, rendering them unworthy of their hallowed status in the American imagination (a largely correct but unoriginal take), and that “the system” (undefined) and the Constitution are currently, in 2026, working exactly as designed / as the founders intended. Neither the Constitution nor A Resistance History supports the latter claim (with regard to the Constitution–I can’t comment on the ambiguous “system” absent a specific meaning the book fails to provide). Yes, the founders intended that the original Constitution’s provisions would apply exclusively to wealthy (land-owning) white men (again, not at all a novel or even contested interpretation). However, Stoermer’s sweeping and unsupported assertion collapses because it cannot bear the weight of the the separation of powers clearly delineated in the source text. It’s frankly absurd to suggest that the Constitution’s authors would look approvingly on a United States in which the executive branch has fully usurped the legislative branch and partially captured the judicial branch, and that’s the state in which we find ourselves upon this book’s publication.
The book does not in fact present a history of the US; its last chapter centers around 1865, and its conclusion makes only fleeting references to eras since, which are of course abundant with resistance movements that warrant more than a superficial sentence or paragraph (if any mention at all) each.
(Stoermer dismisses movements like the 2017 Women’s March, the 2020 George Floyd protests, and efforts during Trump’s second term as achieving “no structural transformation” because they didn’t compel Constitutional amendments, and he devotes little to no space to civil rights, labor, LGBTQIA+, climate, etc. movements. In fact, he asserts that the last victory that mattered was the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.)
Because of the profligate filler language and overuse of repetition, even the history Stoermer does cover is ultimately quite thin.
Stoermer argues that only Constitutional amendments can secure real change, then a few pages later acknowledges that “the Supreme Court gutted the Fourteenth Amendment.” He claims that the Equal Rights Amendment and other protections that should have been constitutionally codified didn’t become law because Americans see the Constitution as perfect and inviolable and would revolt against amending it, which simply isn’t true. He attempts to dethrone one group of white men (the founding fathers) by centering other groups of mostly white men; even Stoermer’s hasty treatment of historical episodes featuring indigenous, Black, and female Americans’ resistance ends up focusing more on the white men peripheral to minorities’ sacrifices. Stoermer’s reverence for Thoreau, who seems more than any other person to embody the author’s vision of efficacious resistance, strikes me as odd: certainly Thoreau took real risks in service of his anti-slavery beliefs, but–apart from that single night in jail–he didn’t have to sacrifice even his comforts for the cause, whereas many others gave their lives. (Unsurprisingly, Stoermer makes no reference to the uncredited female labor that enabled those comforts or Thoreau’s part in perpetuating the very patriarchal and individualistic ideals that made resistance both necessary and so difficult to mount!)
I also can’t help but ask whether Stoermer himself has learned the lesson he aims to impart.
Stoermer tells his readers that breaking the pattern of impotent resistance “would require abandoning liberal nationalism’s faith that the system saves itself, that appeals to founding principles persuade authority to reform, that working within permitted channels produces transformation, that speeches matter.” The author repeatedly condemns nonviolent resistance that he sees as working within established systems of power as ineffective “moral suasion.” He seems to argue that violence is often necessary: “When all peaceful avenues have been closed and authority is already deploying violence systematically, resistance needs people who can accept what stopping that authority actually requires. Not philosophically justify violence, but accept that nothing is off the table when the choice is between making authority stop or accepting that it will continue.” When in our lifetimes have those conditions been more present than now, in 2026? Never. What is Stoermer, with all his straight, wealthy, white male privilege doing? Profiting from a book of moral suasion that merely “philosophically justif[ies] violence”; teaching “public history” as a lecturer in the Museum Studies MA program at an emblematically establishment institution where tuition costs $52,900-$53,000; and earning income from videos posted to Larry Ellison’s TikTok.
If speeches–words–don’t matter (and, to be clear, I do not myself concede that premise), what use is this book meant to serve? Whom does Stoermer expect to mount the type of resistance for which he calls, resistance he’d consider adequate? Clearly not himself.
In my view, this book is guilty of that with which Stoermer (or his AI tool of choice) charges what he calls liberal nationalist history: it’s “rhetoric that sounds profound until you ask what it means. It doesn’t say anything. It just asserts.”
21 June 2026:
Y'all, I'm at least 90% convinced this book was written by generative AI.
My criticisms of A Resistance History of the United States are legion, but I’ll lead with the most salient: I strongly suspect that Stoermer used generative AI to produce at least large swaths of this book.
I didn’t arrive at this conclusion lightly; I’d read over 35% of the book before I trusted my instinct enough to begin documenting some of the passages I believe feature AI “tells.” I read hundreds of books a year (95 so far in 2026 alone) and have throughout my life; many of those books are contemporary nonfiction and contemporary literary fiction, so I’m familiar with a wide range of modern writing styles. No other published book has triggered this suspicion in me.
Throughout, the text evidences so many hallmark AI “tells”: overwhelmingly rampant contrastive negation (e.g., “That’s not x, it’s y,” where the “it’s not…” often isn’t even something one would reasonably infer based on the preceding sentence or paragraph); repetitive and unnecessary little summaries every page or so that often bely the complexities of the individuals or topics they purport to synopsize; triplet lists; wildly excessive and often bizarre em dash use (N.B.: I love the em dash and use it often myself; this reading experience is actually the first time I’ve understood why it’s become associated with AI “writing”); bland, sterile, unnaturally homogenous tone; formulaic structuring; short, often one-word “sentences” (fragments); endless missing antecedents; restatements of the same assertions using nearly identical words and phrases; etc.
I encourage readers of this review to peruse the highlights I’ve shared for some examples of the patterns I’m charting and to arrive at their own judgments. (My shared highlights represent only a fraction of the genAI language with which this book is overrun.)
Is it possible that Stoermer has simply consumed so much AI slop that he’s absorbed its linguistic tics to the extent that they’ve subsumed his own writing style? Perhaps, but this man is (I think) in his 40s or 50s. He holds a PhD, an achievement that would have required reading innumerable historical artifacts and scholarly texts spanning from US colonial times to the present. His website indicates that he obtained his PhD before generative AI existed for public consumption, so none of his academic accomplishments could have relied on it. He isn’t from Gen Alpha, someone for whom ChatGPT “writing” might be the only style he’s ever known.
I attempted to locate Stoermer’s scholarly work so I could compare his earlier writing to the writing in this book (with the obvious understanding that a history book written for the general population would differ in style from an article penned for an academic audience), but I was unable to find any such work. Nevertheless, the “evidence” of genAI language (as I personally assess it–I don’t and can’t have proof) is so extensive and so sustained throughout the text that it bears in me the weight of near-certainty.
And what kind of history book doesn’t include a bibliography or even works cited?! Well, probably one assembled by generative AI rather than years of scholarly toil in service of developing and delivering a well-supported thesis. Oh, and–coincidentally?--THIS history book.
I want to be wrong. Steerforth Press, an imprint of Pushkin Press and bearing some sort of Penguin Random House affiliation, published A Resistance History. I don’t want to believe that any publisher would finance and affix its name to a book “written” using generative AI. Unfortunately, my guess is that that’s exactly what happened, and I fear those of us who love reading and the human-crafted language their authors have wrestled onto the page will increasingly find that palpable, sometimes messy humanity absent from new book releases.
Even if my AI evaluation is erroneous, A Resistance History still isn’t a good book. If it’s organic, the writing is simply bad: maddeningly repetitive, sometimes nonsensical, exploding with fragments, marred by logical inconsistency. The text is bloodless except when its author is disparaging other historians (he harbors particular animus for Ken Burns and Jon Meacham).
If AI slop language will invade even entirely human-written work through a sort of gross linguistic osmosis, I’m thankful that books written before 2022 can sustain the rest of my reading life.
Stoermer’s central thesis is twofold: that the founding fathers and their work products have been mythologized in a manner at odds with their actual lives and beliefs, rendering them unworthy of their hallowed status in the American imagination (a largely correct but unoriginal take), and that “the system” (undefined) and the Constitution are currently, in 2026, working exactly as designed / as the founders intended. Neither the Constitution nor A Resistance History supports the latter claim (with regard to the Constitution–I can’t comment on the ambiguous “system” absent a specific meaning the book fails to provide). Yes, the founders intended that the original Constitution’s provisions would apply exclusively to wealthy (land-owning) white men (again, not at all a novel or even contested interpretation). However, Stoermer’s sweeping and unsupported assertion collapses because it cannot bear the weight of the the separation of powers clearly delineated in the source text. It’s frankly absurd to suggest that the Constitution’s authors would look approvingly on a United States in which the executive branch has fully usurped the legislative branch and partially captured the judicial branch, and that’s the state in which we find ourselves upon this book’s publication.
The book does not in fact present a history of the US; its last chapter centers around 1865, and its conclusion makes only fleeting references to eras since, which are of course abundant with resistance movements that warrant more than a superficial sentence or paragraph (if any mention at all) each.
(Stoermer dismisses movements like the 2017 Women’s March, the 2020 George Floyd protests, and efforts during Trump’s second term as achieving “no structural transformation” because they didn’t compel Constitutional amendments, and he devotes little to no space to civil rights, labor, LGBTQIA+, climate, etc. movements. In fact, he asserts that the last victory that mattered was the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.)
Because of the profligate filler language and overuse of repetition, even the history Stoermer does cover is ultimately quite thin.
Stoermer argues that only Constitutional amendments can secure real change, then a few pages later acknowledges that “the Supreme Court gutted the Fourteenth Amendment.” He claims that the Equal Rights Amendment and other protections that should have been constitutionally codified didn’t become law because Americans see the Constitution as perfect and inviolable and would revolt against amending it, which simply isn’t true. He attempts to dethrone one group of white men (the founding fathers) by centering other groups of mostly white men; even Stoermer’s hasty treatment of historical episodes featuring indigenous, Black, and female Americans’ resistance ends up focusing more on the white men peripheral to minorities’ sacrifices. Stoermer’s reverence for Thoreau, who seems more than any other person to embody the author’s vision of efficacious resistance, strikes me as odd: certainly Thoreau took real risks in service of his anti-slavery beliefs, but–apart from that single night in jail–he didn’t have to sacrifice even his comforts for the cause, whereas many others gave their lives. (Unsurprisingly, Stoermer makes no reference to the uncredited female labor that enabled those comforts or Thoreau’s part in perpetuating the very patriarchal and individualistic ideals that made resistance both necessary and so difficult to mount!)
I also can’t help but ask whether Stoermer himself has learned the lesson he aims to impart.
Stoermer tells his readers that breaking the pattern of impotent resistance “would require abandoning liberal nationalism’s faith that the system saves itself, that appeals to founding principles persuade authority to reform, that working within permitted channels produces transformation, that speeches matter.” The author repeatedly condemns nonviolent resistance that he sees as working within established systems of power as ineffective “moral suasion.” He seems to argue that violence is often necessary: “When all peaceful avenues have been closed and authority is already deploying violence systematically, resistance needs people who can accept what stopping that authority actually requires. Not philosophically justify violence, but accept that nothing is off the table when the choice is between making authority stop or accepting that it will continue.” When in our lifetimes have those conditions been more present than now, in 2026? Never. What is Stoermer, with all his straight, wealthy, white male privilege doing? Profiting from a book of moral suasion that merely “philosophically justif[ies] violence”; teaching “public history” as a lecturer in the Museum Studies MA program at an emblematically establishment institution where tuition costs $52,900-$53,000; and earning income from videos posted to Larry Ellison’s TikTok.
If speeches–words–don’t matter (and, to be clear, I do not myself concede that premise), what use is this book meant to serve? Whom does Stoermer expect to mount the type of resistance for which he calls, resistance he’d consider adequate? Clearly not himself.
In my view, this book is guilty of that with which Stoermer (or his AI tool of choice) charges what he calls liberal nationalist history: it’s “rhetoric that sounds profound until you ask what it means. It doesn’t say anything. It just asserts.”
21 June 2026:
Y'all, I'm at least 90% convinced this book was written by generative AI.
July 4, 2026
I took one star off because Stoermer did not list any footnotes or citations. As a historian, he knows very well that these things are required. Otherwise, what is to stop him making things up to suit his narrative?
Other than that, I can find no fault with the book. It refers to many things about which I knew a bit, but it added so much more to the topics. He begins with the premise that what he calls the First Republic began with the ratification of the Constitution began the first republic. But the resistance history of the country began before that. Madison's constitution contained no Bill of Rights and he saw no need for one, believing that to add a specific bill of rights might make rights not mentioned, assumed not to be included. But there were those (the anti-Federalists) who refused to pass it until the rights were added. The author also took exception to the fact that the document was written in secret. It wasn't until it was clear that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be ratified. Just how right the anti-Federalists were became clear over time when most arguments that came before the Supreme Court had to do with the first ten amendments. This is seen as a victory for resistance.
But in Stoermer's view (and in the view of others), the Constitution was written by elites, for elites. Slavery, even though the word is not mentioned in the original text, is protected through a few of the provisions and slave owners were even given more electoral power. He cites cases like Nancy Dixon, an enslaved woman who ran away to the British side during the War for Independence, because they promised freedom to any enslaved person. She resisted and won her freedom. Ona Judge, the personal slave of Martha Washington also ran away in an act of resistance. George Washington hunted her to the day he died and even after Martha's death, she was always very careful because she knew that the Custis family could take her and return her to slavery. She told her story in 1842, not long before her death. Even though she was widowed at a young age with children and lived out her life in poverty, she was free.
The book covers several instances of resistance, some successful, some not. The book focuses a good bit of time on John Brown and the attack on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry. He documents the six men who financed him, provided him with armaments, but most of whom did not fight with him on the day. The point that Stoermer makes about this incident is that Brown himself recognized that slavery was wrong and was determined to do his part to end it, accepting the consequences. The others who gave him financial assistance understood the righteousness of his cause but could not bring themselves to cross the line when it came to violence.
The book includes a kind of handbook for resistance, explaining that when all peaceful means have failed, to be successful, one must be willing to take the last step- using violence to achieve the ends, accepting that death might be the result.
The Second Republic began with the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), especially the 14th, which was almost a mini-constitution in and of itself. The rights in the Constitution now extended to the states, and they brought about structural changes. Unfortunately, the Second Republic ended with the death of Reconstruction in 1877. The Supreme Court gutted the rights accorded in the Amendments, but they were still there, waiting to be rediscovered a century later. He ends the book by talking briefly about the present. He refers to the insurrection on Jan 6 and faults Biden for not calling for structural change to prevent the same thing from happening again. He also makes reference to the Supreme Court of late which has been overturning legislation passed over the past 50 years. The laws he talks about were good laws but it is much easier to overturn laws than it is to throw out Constitutional Amendments.
The book is a fascinating study of something that has rarely been addressed in our country. For Stoermer, we have not been willing to grab the opportunities that have arisen, and instead accepting reform as permanent when they could never be permanent. In the case of the Civil War Amendments, he argues that the Radical Republicans understood that they had an opportunity to make necessary change but knew that the window that opened was small and that they had to act quickly.
I am not certain about all of his conclusions, but I realize that it might have to do with my age. If I had read this book at age 20, I would have been willing to engage in battle on the streets, but I now feel that it might be too much for me. That said, I do believe that just about every peaceful solution has been tried to turn around the turn toward autocracy and fascism our country has taken. We are truly leaving our prodigy with a very heavy load to bear.
Other than that, I can find no fault with the book. It refers to many things about which I knew a bit, but it added so much more to the topics. He begins with the premise that what he calls the First Republic began with the ratification of the Constitution began the first republic. But the resistance history of the country began before that. Madison's constitution contained no Bill of Rights and he saw no need for one, believing that to add a specific bill of rights might make rights not mentioned, assumed not to be included. But there were those (the anti-Federalists) who refused to pass it until the rights were added. The author also took exception to the fact that the document was written in secret. It wasn't until it was clear that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be ratified. Just how right the anti-Federalists were became clear over time when most arguments that came before the Supreme Court had to do with the first ten amendments. This is seen as a victory for resistance.
But in Stoermer's view (and in the view of others), the Constitution was written by elites, for elites. Slavery, even though the word is not mentioned in the original text, is protected through a few of the provisions and slave owners were even given more electoral power. He cites cases like Nancy Dixon, an enslaved woman who ran away to the British side during the War for Independence, because they promised freedom to any enslaved person. She resisted and won her freedom. Ona Judge, the personal slave of Martha Washington also ran away in an act of resistance. George Washington hunted her to the day he died and even after Martha's death, she was always very careful because she knew that the Custis family could take her and return her to slavery. She told her story in 1842, not long before her death. Even though she was widowed at a young age with children and lived out her life in poverty, she was free.
The book covers several instances of resistance, some successful, some not. The book focuses a good bit of time on John Brown and the attack on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry. He documents the six men who financed him, provided him with armaments, but most of whom did not fight with him on the day. The point that Stoermer makes about this incident is that Brown himself recognized that slavery was wrong and was determined to do his part to end it, accepting the consequences. The others who gave him financial assistance understood the righteousness of his cause but could not bring themselves to cross the line when it came to violence.
The book includes a kind of handbook for resistance, explaining that when all peaceful means have failed, to be successful, one must be willing to take the last step- using violence to achieve the ends, accepting that death might be the result.
The Second Republic began with the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), especially the 14th, which was almost a mini-constitution in and of itself. The rights in the Constitution now extended to the states, and they brought about structural changes. Unfortunately, the Second Republic ended with the death of Reconstruction in 1877. The Supreme Court gutted the rights accorded in the Amendments, but they were still there, waiting to be rediscovered a century later. He ends the book by talking briefly about the present. He refers to the insurrection on Jan 6 and faults Biden for not calling for structural change to prevent the same thing from happening again. He also makes reference to the Supreme Court of late which has been overturning legislation passed over the past 50 years. The laws he talks about were good laws but it is much easier to overturn laws than it is to throw out Constitutional Amendments.
The book is a fascinating study of something that has rarely been addressed in our country. For Stoermer, we have not been willing to grab the opportunities that have arisen, and instead accepting reform as permanent when they could never be permanent. In the case of the Civil War Amendments, he argues that the Radical Republicans understood that they had an opportunity to make necessary change but knew that the window that opened was small and that they had to act quickly.
I am not certain about all of his conclusions, but I realize that it might have to do with my age. If I had read this book at age 20, I would have been willing to engage in battle on the streets, but I now feel that it might be too much for me. That said, I do believe that just about every peaceful solution has been tried to turn around the turn toward autocracy and fascism our country has taken. We are truly leaving our prodigy with a very heavy load to bear.
June 9, 2026
5 stars
If I could give this book six stars I would. I did not rate this book five stars because it was entertaining or for fun facts, but because of the important events included and while some seem small and even irrelevant at the time, but how the author used them to iterate what the United States was built on a foundation of morals and values for the people and how resistance and fighting corruptions of government was what our country was founded on. Some stories included may seem small while others have great sacrifice, but all play a part in history. While that was all fascinating and impactful in itself, how it relates to the current social, political and economic climate is just as equally as important. I think that individuals who are looking for information, politics, history, and are concerned with our current and previous administrations would benefit from reading this book. Not only does it remind and inform us of the past but how it relates to our present. The writing was nicely paced, easy to follow without feeling like info dumped on. I highly recommend
I received an advanced ebook, via Netagelly. This review is my own honest opinion.
July 2, 2026
AI written and insulting. Can't get past page 9 without feeling ripped off. If there's a good message in there, I can't bear to get to it.
Did Not Finish
April 2, 2026DNF. This felt more like an academic paper than anything else. I didn't get far. 🤷♀️
June 20, 2026
Eén ster eraf omdat er geen voet- of eindnoten zijn, geen bibliografie, geen 'further reading' of iets dergelijks. Het mag dan wel een boek zijn die voor een breed publiek geschreven is, maar het moet ook controleerbaar zijn.
Overigens een fantastisch boek waar ik ontzettend veel van geleerd heb, en natuurlijk ongelooflijk relevant voor nu. Leest heel vlot en zet de lezer actief tot nadenken - een absolute aanrader.
De grootste inhoudelijke spanning die ik had opgemerkt is de eeuwige discussie tussen reform en revolutie in de laatste twee hoofdstukken. In het één na laatste hoofdstuk over John Brown's aanval op Harper's Ferry werd er een héél duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt tussen de 'puren' - John Brown en the Six (en zelfs dan eigenlijk alleen maar twee leden van die Six) - en de rest die als moreel laf worden neergezet omdat ze niet genoeg steun aan John Brown gaven. Met name radicale politici als Charles Sumner worden verweten dat zij naïef zijn om te geloven dat de Slavenmacht via het Congres vernietigd kon worden, terwijl het hele systeem tot de bot verrot was en reform niet mogelijk was. Dat is tot op zekere hoogte ook allemaal waar: het probleem is dat de auteur hier niet consequent mee is. Terwijl de Radicalen in dit hoofdstuk worden weggezet als de belichaming van de beperkingen van reform, worden zij in het laatste hoofdstuk neergezet als de revolutionairen van het eerste uur die strijd leverden om het gehele Amerikaanse stelsel te transformeren - wat vervolgens tot een overwinning voor revolutie in plaats van reform wordt gerekend. Het moment was weliswaar revolutionair, maar de Radicalen waren nog steeds hervormers, ook toen ze soms buiten de wettelijke normen om hun hervorming doorpushten. Het komt neer op een miskenning en selectieve viering van grote hervormingsfiguren als Charles Sumner en Thaddeus Stevens vanuit de kant van revolutie - waar op zichzelf niets verkeerd mee is, mits het consequent wordt gedaan. Het heeft weinig zin om te waarschuwen voor het eeuwig lang wachten op ideologisch-pure bondgenoten waardoor niets uit de grond komt, en tegelijkertijd de bondgenoten die er wél zijn (Frederick Douglass, Sumner) bekritiseren omdat ze niet puur genoeg zijn. Dat creëert een onnodige en onproductieve - en vooral een frustrerende - breuk tussen grofweg "revo' s" en "refo's" met het risico op een averrechts effect, namelijk ontmoediging (uiteraard is dit altijd afhankelijk van de situatie; soms kan zo'n breuk terecht zijn als de verschillen onherenigbaar groot zijn). Toen de tijd aankwam, waren revo's uiteindelijk afhankelijk van refo's om de structurele hervormingen door te voeren tijdens Reconstructie. Punt is, je hebt altijd bondgenoten "on the inside" nodig en de drammers "on the outside", en het liefst werken ze nauw samen - zoals ze deden tijdens de Radicale Reconstructie. Het kan zeker het geval zijn dat ik hierin tekort kom aan kennis over het debat (in welk geval ik graag gecorrigeerd wil worden), maar naar mijn inzien zou het niet primair moeten gaan over of-of, maar en-en.
Tl;dr, lees dit boek!!!
Overigens een fantastisch boek waar ik ontzettend veel van geleerd heb, en natuurlijk ongelooflijk relevant voor nu. Leest heel vlot en zet de lezer actief tot nadenken - een absolute aanrader.
De grootste inhoudelijke spanning die ik had opgemerkt is de eeuwige discussie tussen reform en revolutie in de laatste twee hoofdstukken. In het één na laatste hoofdstuk over John Brown's aanval op Harper's Ferry werd er een héél duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt tussen de 'puren' - John Brown en the Six (en zelfs dan eigenlijk alleen maar twee leden van die Six) - en de rest die als moreel laf worden neergezet omdat ze niet genoeg steun aan John Brown gaven. Met name radicale politici als Charles Sumner worden verweten dat zij naïef zijn om te geloven dat de Slavenmacht via het Congres vernietigd kon worden, terwijl het hele systeem tot de bot verrot was en reform niet mogelijk was. Dat is tot op zekere hoogte ook allemaal waar: het probleem is dat de auteur hier niet consequent mee is. Terwijl de Radicalen in dit hoofdstuk worden weggezet als de belichaming van de beperkingen van reform, worden zij in het laatste hoofdstuk neergezet als de revolutionairen van het eerste uur die strijd leverden om het gehele Amerikaanse stelsel te transformeren - wat vervolgens tot een overwinning voor revolutie in plaats van reform wordt gerekend. Het moment was weliswaar revolutionair, maar de Radicalen waren nog steeds hervormers, ook toen ze soms buiten de wettelijke normen om hun hervorming doorpushten. Het komt neer op een miskenning en selectieve viering van grote hervormingsfiguren als Charles Sumner en Thaddeus Stevens vanuit de kant van revolutie - waar op zichzelf niets verkeerd mee is, mits het consequent wordt gedaan. Het heeft weinig zin om te waarschuwen voor het eeuwig lang wachten op ideologisch-pure bondgenoten waardoor niets uit de grond komt, en tegelijkertijd de bondgenoten die er wél zijn (Frederick Douglass, Sumner) bekritiseren omdat ze niet puur genoeg zijn. Dat creëert een onnodige en onproductieve - en vooral een frustrerende - breuk tussen grofweg "revo' s" en "refo's" met het risico op een averrechts effect, namelijk ontmoediging (uiteraard is dit altijd afhankelijk van de situatie; soms kan zo'n breuk terecht zijn als de verschillen onherenigbaar groot zijn). Toen de tijd aankwam, waren revo's uiteindelijk afhankelijk van refo's om de structurele hervormingen door te voeren tijdens Reconstructie. Punt is, je hebt altijd bondgenoten "on the inside" nodig en de drammers "on the outside", en het liefst werken ze nauw samen - zoals ze deden tijdens de Radicale Reconstructie. Het kan zeker het geval zijn dat ik hierin tekort kom aan kennis over het debat (in welk geval ik graag gecorrigeerd wil worden), maar naar mijn inzien zou het niet primair moeten gaan over of-of, maar en-en.
Tl;dr, lees dit boek!!!
Did Not Finish
July 1, 2026Struggling to get into this. I don’t think I like the writing style or something. I feel like he’s not connecting the dots he said he’d connect in the author’s note/intro.
July 13, 2026
This felt very surface level and it lacks references to source material. This is odd considering the author is a professor. I wanted more from the stories of resistance; this was very lacking.
June 25, 2026
I’ve been waiting months to read this book and was glad when I got my copy the day it came out. Tad does a great job of telling history without it sounding dry. I loved learning about Thaddeus Steven’s and the Six who were involved in John Browns rebellion (also, I feel the need to say “Ona Judge” from now on when anyone starts invoking Washington’s name with reverence). The constitution was not created to give us full freedom and liberties, it was created to maintain the status quo, to protect slavery, to cushion institutions that resistance efforts tried to shock. I’m listening to “Born Equal” simultaneously to reading this book and it has been wild to learn about enslaved people counting as 3/5 (I was taught that it was immoral that they were counted as a partial soul, but the real reason why the enslaved were 3/5 a person was so that slave owners could count enslaved as people on ballots who never got to vote. To think that John Adams could’ve had a second term and beat Jefferson (who won because of the vast amounts of enslaved people included on the voter roll) is mind boggling).
June 18, 2026
I love reading a book that puts our current shared experiences into context.
When I look at the US, the liberal “opposition” and the constant appeals to the constitution and founders, it feels like I’m being sold beachfront property in Arizona. Something just isn’t right and we’re being duped. This book explains that.
I’m big on bashing American exceptionalism and our founding mythology. That being said, there was legitimate resistance to abusive authority that sparked the revolution. Unfortunately, that revolutionary energy was co-opted by wealthy Southern enslavers and used to distort the initial ideas of liberty.
The constitution was written to protect the white, “property”-owning male minority from the majority, effectively nullifying participatory democracy. The current admin is simply reinstating that hierarchy. Our system is built on a rotten foundation, which will only continue to rot unless forced to change.
Without touching on Marxism or economic alternatives (socialism, communism, etc), the author does a great job of applying historical materialism to American history. Those that preach and revere the ideals of liberty, freedom, and patriotism without changing the system are putting lipstick on a pig (Biden, Obama, Clinton to name a few).
Walked away from this more interested in US history and more secure in my distaste for our system. Shoutout the Black loyalists, John Brown, Metacomet, and Ona Judge.
When I look at the US, the liberal “opposition” and the constant appeals to the constitution and founders, it feels like I’m being sold beachfront property in Arizona. Something just isn’t right and we’re being duped. This book explains that.
I’m big on bashing American exceptionalism and our founding mythology. That being said, there was legitimate resistance to abusive authority that sparked the revolution. Unfortunately, that revolutionary energy was co-opted by wealthy Southern enslavers and used to distort the initial ideas of liberty.
The constitution was written to protect the white, “property”-owning male minority from the majority, effectively nullifying participatory democracy. The current admin is simply reinstating that hierarchy. Our system is built on a rotten foundation, which will only continue to rot unless forced to change.
Without touching on Marxism or economic alternatives (socialism, communism, etc), the author does a great job of applying historical materialism to American history. Those that preach and revere the ideals of liberty, freedom, and patriotism without changing the system are putting lipstick on a pig (Biden, Obama, Clinton to name a few).
Walked away from this more interested in US history and more secure in my distaste for our system. Shoutout the Black loyalists, John Brown, Metacomet, and Ona Judge.
August 1, 2026
Well researched & well written. It contains history that is necessary for us to know, but is overlooked. The message comes across clear- our democracy has to be fought for, over & over again. It is not inherited.
July 31, 2026
Something was very "off" about the writing in this book. It was proficient enough technically, but on a more macro level it was meandering, repetitive, and irrelevant to its supposed thesis. I found the author prone to hyperbole and reliant on tonally inappropriate sentence fragments and rhetorical flourishes. He didn't cite sources, but he made grand pronouncements about historic events. It also didn't live up to its potential, which is a pity. But again - something was very, very off.
Read
July 21, 2026Powerful, clear-eyed view of people who resisted abusive authority. Also, quite dense. It makes an argument and gives a call to action. I'm going to have to sit with this one, and will probably reread it. (Having read it just the once has probably put me on some kind of list 🙄)
July 10, 2026
Listening to nonfiction on audio is my favorite because it sounds more like a podcast than anything. Some people find nonfiction, particularly history, to be dry, but opting for the audio version really changes that up. Tad Stoermer is both the author and audiobook narrator, which gives this that podcast feel.
He is clear at the start of this book that it’s not an instruction manual, but rather a close look at key moments of resistance in history that helped to shape our nation.
Awesome and just in time for America’s 250th!
He is clear at the start of this book that it’s not an instruction manual, but rather a close look at key moments of resistance in history that helped to shape our nation.
Awesome and just in time for America’s 250th!
June 3, 2026
As someone who spent the first 20 years of my life in the USA, I realised once I finished school that most of American history was curated to suit a specific narrative. I'm always up for learning the REAL history of the USA and not the polished version published in the Maxwell produced textbooks.
This one is laid out quite well in that he provides a quick introduction and some semblance of hope in the conclusion of the book (if you are worried about where America is currently going).
There's mentions of history that most people know and the stories behind it such as the Salem witch trial, Tea Party, revolutionaries, slave trade, George Washington etc.
It's nice hearing that there were some people back then who tried to prevent the witch trials. Because let's face it - they burned women, not witches.
And boy does this book make me hate George Washington even more. What a complete asshole he is. I wish I could go back to my primary school history class and say something bad about him or spit on his grave at Mt Vernon when all 8th graders had to visit.
The author describes the American way of resistance and as much as I want Americans to be more like the French in their resistance, he does outline some ways that American resistance works.
Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC of this book.
This one is laid out quite well in that he provides a quick introduction and some semblance of hope in the conclusion of the book (if you are worried about where America is currently going).
There's mentions of history that most people know and the stories behind it such as the Salem witch trial, Tea Party, revolutionaries, slave trade, George Washington etc.
It's nice hearing that there were some people back then who tried to prevent the witch trials. Because let's face it - they burned women, not witches.
And boy does this book make me hate George Washington even more. What a complete asshole he is. I wish I could go back to my primary school history class and say something bad about him or spit on his grave at Mt Vernon when all 8th graders had to visit.
The author describes the American way of resistance and as much as I want Americans to be more like the French in their resistance, he does outline some ways that American resistance works.
Thank you to NetGalley for the ARC of this book.
Read
August 13, 2026Paused @56% after finding out that there are no citations in the book. I need to get my hands on a physical copy before I decide how to proceed.
It’s quite disappointing as I was really enjoying the perspective of this book. I’ve followed Stoermer on socials for a while and have consistently found his content refreshing so when I found out he was writing a book I immediately placed my hold at the library.
This is a book of the untold stories, the stories of defiance, resilience, and sometimes violence that are sanitized and white-washed in schools and history books. However, without citations, how is this any better or more reliable?
One thing that absolutely must be addressed are the accusations of the use of AI here. They are entirely unfounded — and no your vibes, “tells,” or software are not definitive proof (this is the same detection software that would tell you the Bible is AI) — and these rhetorics are harmful. As a person raised in the academy who’s writing is almost entirely academic, I have been accused of using AI because of my use of em-dashes or these other supposed tells. Pray tell, who do you think the LLMs largely learned their ways from? Please be more thoughtful and critical with these assumptions in the future. There’s plenty to critique here without baseless accusation.
As my darling Kayla would say, QED.
It’s quite disappointing as I was really enjoying the perspective of this book. I’ve followed Stoermer on socials for a while and have consistently found his content refreshing so when I found out he was writing a book I immediately placed my hold at the library.
This is a book of the untold stories, the stories of defiance, resilience, and sometimes violence that are sanitized and white-washed in schools and history books. However, without citations, how is this any better or more reliable?
One thing that absolutely must be addressed are the accusations of the use of AI here. They are entirely unfounded — and no your vibes, “tells,” or software are not definitive proof (this is the same detection software that would tell you the Bible is AI) — and these rhetorics are harmful. As a person raised in the academy who’s writing is almost entirely academic, I have been accused of using AI because of my use of em-dashes or these other supposed tells. Pray tell, who do you think the LLMs largely learned their ways from? Please be more thoughtful and critical with these assumptions in the future. There’s plenty to critique here without baseless accusation.
As my darling Kayla would say, QED.
June 18, 2026
Excellent! Like a whole US history specialty semester (maybe 2?) in a book. Professor Stoermer narrates the audiobook...so even more, you feel as if you're sitting in his classroom. Stories upon stories not commonly taught in US classrooms with loads of examples and explanations of resistance that hooks you early and keeps you late.
"...when the student is ready, the teacher appears." Perfect timing, I think.
"...when the student is ready, the teacher appears." Perfect timing, I think.
Read
July 30, 2026The book was difficult to read , but it was very instructional. It opened my eyes to the falsehoods I was taught about our country’s history. Also, I saw many of the same patterns happening now in our country
August 8, 2026
This book presents a unique perspective of history which became informative for those who want to see changes in the US government and policies today. Beginning with resistance by various Native American tribes to resistance to slavery, there were many unsung heroes and groups who have been overlooked in our teaching of history today. Fascinating reading and I learned a lot.
June 22, 2026
repetitive and exhausting w/ the rhetorically-meandering pace of each story. get to the Fn point and move tf on, damn.... But the info is clutch, worth the effort to stay engaged
August 8, 2026
god what an awful, preachy book… just stop with the manifesto driven writing and actually just share some history… oh and by the way, the entire 20th century is FILLED with stories of resistance, so why’d u stop at the 1860s??? bruh 💀
July 28, 2026
A Resistance History of the United States by Tad Stoermer
I listened to this whole book on Spotify and it feels very wrong that I did that.
Reading history:
Normally I keep this in my private notes section, but I'm moving it. Yay!
Reading history was not added on Goodreads, but was instead kept on a small piece of paper with the book.
Started July 23rd, 2026.
Finished July 26th, 2026.
Page numbers refers first edition paperback.
July 23rd, 2026: listened to intro + chapters 1-3 (pp. 1-66) + portion of chapter 4 (pp. 67-92) via Spotify with physical copy nearby
July 24th, 2026: listened to the rest of chapter 4 (pp. 93-124) via Spotify with physical copy nearby.
July 25th, 2026: listened to chapters 5-7 (pp. 125-211) via Spotify with physical copy nearby.
July 26th, 2026: listened to chapter 8-acknowledgments (pp. 212-358) via Spotify with physical copy nearby.
I listened to this whole book on Spotify and it feels very wrong that I did that.
Reading history:
Normally I keep this in my private notes section, but I'm moving it. Yay!
Reading history was not added on Goodreads, but was instead kept on a small piece of paper with the book.
Started July 23rd, 2026.
Finished July 26th, 2026.
Page numbers refers first edition paperback.
July 23rd, 2026: listened to intro + chapters 1-3 (pp. 1-66) + portion of chapter 4 (pp. 67-92) via Spotify with physical copy nearby
July 24th, 2026: listened to the rest of chapter 4 (pp. 93-124) via Spotify with physical copy nearby.
July 25th, 2026: listened to chapters 5-7 (pp. 125-211) via Spotify with physical copy nearby.
July 26th, 2026: listened to chapter 8-acknowledgments (pp. 212-358) via Spotify with physical copy nearby.
July 29, 2026
IMO a more organized version of “People’s History of the United States” but more focused on takeaways than on recounting of events. Makes me want to *** **** * f****ing Flock Camera in my neighborhood.
Read
July 22, 2026I enjoyed this audiobook, but am troubled by the lack of source materials provided in the published material overall.
July 22, 2026
AI slop without source citations
July 16, 2026
This needs to be required reading. The conclusion and epilogue were especially powerful.
“Aggressive cultural production of American exceptionalism, teaching reverence for the founders’ framework, positioning constitutional critique as dangerous and possibly un-American…created… a political culture in which even discussing constitutional reform became nearly impossible…”(pg 320).
True patriotism should not be blind idolatry of the Founding Fathers and the supposed infallibility of the structures they created. True love of country means to be humble enough to see the blindspots in our governmental structures clearly and to care enough to imagine and enable improvement to benefit ALL who live within it. “Resistance isn’t a departure from American ideals. It’s their defense. Their duty” (pg.354). But it’s not enough to resist oppressive authorities; resistance movements must have endurance, clear executable goals, and be enacted in ways that protect lasting structural change.
The author highlights 9 Principles in a toolkit to do so using historical examples of resistance.
“Aggressive cultural production of American exceptionalism, teaching reverence for the founders’ framework, positioning constitutional critique as dangerous and possibly un-American…created… a political culture in which even discussing constitutional reform became nearly impossible…”(pg 320).
True patriotism should not be blind idolatry of the Founding Fathers and the supposed infallibility of the structures they created. True love of country means to be humble enough to see the blindspots in our governmental structures clearly and to care enough to imagine and enable improvement to benefit ALL who live within it. “Resistance isn’t a departure from American ideals. It’s their defense. Their duty” (pg.354). But it’s not enough to resist oppressive authorities; resistance movements must have endurance, clear executable goals, and be enacted in ways that protect lasting structural change.
The author highlights 9 Principles in a toolkit to do so using historical examples of resistance.
July 17, 2026
I wanted to love this book but it was ultimately pretty dry and soulless. I should’ve felt inspired and invigorated by the story of resistance, but this read like a repetitive textbook. The narrative was weird and regularly left me wondering where we were in time compared to the previous chapter. I don’t know who the editor was for this book…but they did a bad job.
There were a few interesting lessons, but I ultimately finished feeling like it would’ve been better as a substack with bullet points.
There were a few interesting lessons, but I ultimately finished feeling like it would’ve been better as a substack with bullet points.
July 20, 2026
I think this is a really good primer on resistance in early America. I do think that the title implies that the book will go up to the present day and not just through Reconstruction, but that's a small gripe. I appreciate how Stoermer specifically points out examples of resistance, even those that may feel more uncomfortable to some Americans (I'm specifically thinking about loyalists during the Revolution) and then explains a specific lesson we can learn from those actions. I also like the note in the back restating those lessons and explaining how we might use them as tools.
I received a free ALC for library employees from Libro.fm.
I received a free ALC for library employees from Libro.fm.
August 21, 2026
Some takeaways from what I think is a brilliant book:
"Every resistance movement that forces change gets rewritten as vindication of American ideals rather than challenge to American institutions." pp 304-5
"Real resistance is rare, dangerous, and usually unpopular in its own time." p 207
The Founders design was for white male property owners. "It protected slavery as a constitutional right. It denied women legal personhood. It treated Native Americans as foreign nations to be conquered or removed. It created instruments - the Electoral College, the Senate, lifetime judicial appointments, the pardon power - specifically designed to prevent popular majorities from controlling government..."
What is happening today with the implementation of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 is an attempt to destroy everything that American resistance has achieved since 1790, "using the founders' own tools."
The promises of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, so important for equality and democracy are being rendered meaningless through judicial interpretation (e.g. gutting of the Voting Rights Act), "administrative refusal to enforce, legislative blocking, and cultural reconstruction." p 311
The author calls the current regime effecting these changes "restorationists" because they want to restore the founders' actual design, "the constitutional order that explicitly excluded most people..." p 314
"Every resistance movement that forces change gets rewritten as vindication of American ideals rather than challenge to American institutions." pp 304-5
"Real resistance is rare, dangerous, and usually unpopular in its own time." p 207
The Founders design was for white male property owners. "It protected slavery as a constitutional right. It denied women legal personhood. It treated Native Americans as foreign nations to be conquered or removed. It created instruments - the Electoral College, the Senate, lifetime judicial appointments, the pardon power - specifically designed to prevent popular majorities from controlling government..."
What is happening today with the implementation of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 is an attempt to destroy everything that American resistance has achieved since 1790, "using the founders' own tools."
The promises of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, so important for equality and democracy are being rendered meaningless through judicial interpretation (e.g. gutting of the Voting Rights Act), "administrative refusal to enforce, legislative blocking, and cultural reconstruction." p 311
The author calls the current regime effecting these changes "restorationists" because they want to restore the founders' actual design, "the constitutional order that explicitly excluded most people..." p 314
July 8, 2026
The author has analyzed resistance, protest, and other willful acts to drive change against what the author terms "abusive authority", focusing on the first 100 years or so of the country, which makes slavery and its resistance history a recurring theme. Also recurring is how very much people put on the line in order to achieve resistance goals. Much more than they told us in history class.
The book goes over nine specific periods in the window of time, the resistance that occurred during those periods, tactics employed, the pushback from those in authority, how effective each side was and how things turned out. For example, one of those periods looks at the slave Ona Judge, who was Martha Washington's personal slave, her breaking away from the Washingtons to find freedom, and Washington's relentless pursuit of her until his death.
If you read nothing else, read the very last section, "A Resistance History Toolkit" which goes over the patterns of resistance and of abusive-authority pushback seen throughout the book, and most importantly, what it takes in order to prevail.
The book goes over nine specific periods in the window of time, the resistance that occurred during those periods, tactics employed, the pushback from those in authority, how effective each side was and how things turned out. For example, one of those periods looks at the slave Ona Judge, who was Martha Washington's personal slave, her breaking away from the Washingtons to find freedom, and Washington's relentless pursuit of her until his death.
If you read nothing else, read the very last section, "A Resistance History Toolkit" which goes over the patterns of resistance and of abusive-authority pushback seen throughout the book, and most importantly, what it takes in order to prevail.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews