What do you think?
Rate this book
Native Peoples of North America
History, for all its facts and figures, names and dates, is ultimately subjective. You learn the points of view your teachers provide, the perspectives that books offer, and the conclusions you draw yourself based on the facts you were given. Hearing different angles on historical events gives you a more insightful, more accurate, and more rewarding understanding of events – especially when a new viewpoint challenges the story you thought you knew.
13 pages, Audible Audio
First published January 1, 2016
13 people are currently reading
134 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
December 16, 2022
This is an amazing class, with excellent lectures about the Native Americans, from 1492 until the present!
December 14, 2017
This "so-called" lecture aeries had about 30 minutes of useful historical information and 19 hoirs of junk interspersed with the phrase "so-called" so many times I feel like I want to slap the next person who says it. The presenter is so busy trying to virtue signal that he often completely skips the relevant information to make his case (if there actually is one). It is sad that on the rare occasions he talks about actual history or practices it is interesting... sad because so much of the lecture is about feelings and intersectional perspectives (without backup) and the great shaming phrase "so-called" that it makes it painful to extract what little information is provided. Everyone should do themselves a favor and just skip this altogether.
October 23, 2021
This was a disappointment. In short, the author had an agenda and used extraordinarily sloppy methodology. I’ll explain.
Cobb starts off with talking about the inadequacies of earlier scholarship on Native Americans. Namely they were almost exclusively Eurocentric and seen from the view of “White Man’s Burden.” Great; he’s establishing what was lacking in the methodology of earlier histories. But what does Cobb do? Presents a history that is narrated almost exclusively from the European perspective, but he merely takes pains to assume the worst motives of Europeans and glosses over any moral failings of Native Americans. That’s not good history.
He starts his history of Native Americans with…the arrival of Europeans. There have been many distinct migrations of peoples into North America. Cobb makes almost no reference. They are “just there” when the Europeans arrive and he starts his analysis of how they react to the Europeans. He takes a seemingly haphazard anecdotal linking of various tribes; in one breath, he mentions how the Mohawks reacted to some policy and then brings up Paiutes and Hopi tribes. These tribes have entirely different histories and Cobb indiscriminately links them together. It became obvious that Cobb was treating the various tribes as exchangeable placeholders for his larger thesis. His sole focus is the impact of Euro/White policies on various tribes. Again, it is baffling that a historian that starts the lecture series bemoaning the Eurocentric perspective of older historians somehow manages to frame his entire course based on the reaction of native peoples to white settlers. Being smug trumps the basic methodological integrity expected of undergraduates...
Moral Agency: Cobb takes pains to present Europeans with the worst possible motives and he glosses over anything "questionable" done by non-Europeans. I’ll give a couple examples. He talks about some early 16th century Spaniards and how they were so terrible for wanting to convert various tribes to Christianity. I’ll put this as a disclaimer because I’m sure people might misinterpret this: yes, many Spaniards did many horrific deeds. I’m not justifying it. My point is Cobb is purportedly a historian. He applies 20th century notions to Spaniards that were just getting out of the Middle Ages. It is clear that Cobb finds it inconceivable to think that a 16th century Spaniard might actually believe in Catholicism. Cobb implies that the Spaniards actively had a bad conscience about what they were doing. Cobb also lambasts the Spaniards for not honoring the human rights of the local population. This is such a basic point that I hate to have to mention it, but Europe never had a secular notion of human rights until around the French Revolution, i.e. a couple hundred years after these Spaniards died. What type of human rights and dignity was the standard in 16th century Catholicism? The dignity of the human soul, a religious notion, and that would obviously be in peril if these people remained “heathens.” You never have to agree with people as a historian, but you are incompitent if you ignore the historical outlook of the people at the time. (It is easier to criticize them from a moral outlook that is 500+ years later in time) How does Cobb treat “bad moral behavior” of the Native Americans? Cobb makes multiple mentions of the fact that many Cherokee people engaged in chattel slavery of Africans. Literally the same method of slavery that Cobb (rightly) denounces for Whites. Yet Cobb literally presents the Cherokee version as “hey, fun fact: they did chattel slavery too! Isn’t that interesting?” He loves the phrase of someone “doing it his own way.” I started tracking that phrase because he was predictable about his moral judgment. When a European did “something his own way,” Cobb criticizes him for not respecting Native cultures and people. When a Native American leader does the same, Cobb praises him for his bravery. I could go on with other examples, but Cobb is heavily biased.
History: as a history PhD and professor, Cobb sadly has no idea what history is. He completely conflates folklore, religion and history into one thing. He states various religious and folk beliefs of various tribes as if they were objective, historical truth. (He somehow doesn’t do that for the beliefs of the Spaniards…) Cobb makes weird statements like it is terrible that the various tribes lost their lands, because they received their lands from the gods. He doesn’t frame it as they believed this, but rather Cobb oddly treats it as fact. It is as absurd as if a European historian lamented the Roman invasion of Germania, noting how Wotan gave those forests to the Germans and the Romans had no right to them. Cobb loves to weave folklore and religion into his supposedly objective historical account.
I could go on, but I won’t. I don’t mind new ways of presenting history. And many times it is very beneficial. Cobb somehow manages to simultaneously denounce Eurocentric history and the notion of “White Man’s Burden,” while managing to incoherently pull off writing another Eurocentric history full of “White Man’s Burden.”
Cobb starts off with talking about the inadequacies of earlier scholarship on Native Americans. Namely they were almost exclusively Eurocentric and seen from the view of “White Man’s Burden.” Great; he’s establishing what was lacking in the methodology of earlier histories. But what does Cobb do? Presents a history that is narrated almost exclusively from the European perspective, but he merely takes pains to assume the worst motives of Europeans and glosses over any moral failings of Native Americans. That’s not good history.
He starts his history of Native Americans with…the arrival of Europeans. There have been many distinct migrations of peoples into North America. Cobb makes almost no reference. They are “just there” when the Europeans arrive and he starts his analysis of how they react to the Europeans. He takes a seemingly haphazard anecdotal linking of various tribes; in one breath, he mentions how the Mohawks reacted to some policy and then brings up Paiutes and Hopi tribes. These tribes have entirely different histories and Cobb indiscriminately links them together. It became obvious that Cobb was treating the various tribes as exchangeable placeholders for his larger thesis. His sole focus is the impact of Euro/White policies on various tribes. Again, it is baffling that a historian that starts the lecture series bemoaning the Eurocentric perspective of older historians somehow manages to frame his entire course based on the reaction of native peoples to white settlers. Being smug trumps the basic methodological integrity expected of undergraduates...
Moral Agency: Cobb takes pains to present Europeans with the worst possible motives and he glosses over anything "questionable" done by non-Europeans. I’ll give a couple examples. He talks about some early 16th century Spaniards and how they were so terrible for wanting to convert various tribes to Christianity. I’ll put this as a disclaimer because I’m sure people might misinterpret this: yes, many Spaniards did many horrific deeds. I’m not justifying it. My point is Cobb is purportedly a historian. He applies 20th century notions to Spaniards that were just getting out of the Middle Ages. It is clear that Cobb finds it inconceivable to think that a 16th century Spaniard might actually believe in Catholicism. Cobb implies that the Spaniards actively had a bad conscience about what they were doing. Cobb also lambasts the Spaniards for not honoring the human rights of the local population. This is such a basic point that I hate to have to mention it, but Europe never had a secular notion of human rights until around the French Revolution, i.e. a couple hundred years after these Spaniards died. What type of human rights and dignity was the standard in 16th century Catholicism? The dignity of the human soul, a religious notion, and that would obviously be in peril if these people remained “heathens.” You never have to agree with people as a historian, but you are incompitent if you ignore the historical outlook of the people at the time. (It is easier to criticize them from a moral outlook that is 500+ years later in time) How does Cobb treat “bad moral behavior” of the Native Americans? Cobb makes multiple mentions of the fact that many Cherokee people engaged in chattel slavery of Africans. Literally the same method of slavery that Cobb (rightly) denounces for Whites. Yet Cobb literally presents the Cherokee version as “hey, fun fact: they did chattel slavery too! Isn’t that interesting?” He loves the phrase of someone “doing it his own way.” I started tracking that phrase because he was predictable about his moral judgment. When a European did “something his own way,” Cobb criticizes him for not respecting Native cultures and people. When a Native American leader does the same, Cobb praises him for his bravery. I could go on with other examples, but Cobb is heavily biased.
History: as a history PhD and professor, Cobb sadly has no idea what history is. He completely conflates folklore, religion and history into one thing. He states various religious and folk beliefs of various tribes as if they were objective, historical truth. (He somehow doesn’t do that for the beliefs of the Spaniards…) Cobb makes weird statements like it is terrible that the various tribes lost their lands, because they received their lands from the gods. He doesn’t frame it as they believed this, but rather Cobb oddly treats it as fact. It is as absurd as if a European historian lamented the Roman invasion of Germania, noting how Wotan gave those forests to the Germans and the Romans had no right to them. Cobb loves to weave folklore and religion into his supposedly objective historical account.
I could go on, but I won’t. I don’t mind new ways of presenting history. And many times it is very beneficial. Cobb somehow manages to simultaneously denounce Eurocentric history and the notion of “White Man’s Burden,” while managing to incoherently pull off writing another Eurocentric history full of “White Man’s Burden.”
May 28, 2023
I believe that this is an excellent book; one that collects a series of lectures dealing with the interactions between Native Americans and Europeans, and it does so from a different perspective.
Does the author have an agenda? Maybe. But no historian is 100% objective, so I don't think this is a problem. At least, if you're a critical reader. *shrugs*
I found particularly interesting all the information about the different treatises and the way in which they evolved across time; and the different ways in which the different NA nations acted during both World Wars.
I liked it, and I think that it adds a lot to what is usually taught.
Does the author have an agenda? Maybe. But no historian is 100% objective, so I don't think this is a problem. At least, if you're a critical reader. *shrugs*
I found particularly interesting all the information about the different treatises and the way in which they evolved across time; and the different ways in which the different NA nations acted during both World Wars.
I liked it, and I think that it adds a lot to what is usually taught.
May 2, 2020
Great Courses lectures about the history of the United States and the Native Americans and their tribes that were on this land first, and resiliently still remain.
Why I started this book: I wanted to learn more about Native American tribes and customs.
Why I finished it: So that wasn't what this lecture series was about, instead it was a recitation of United States history from the perspective of the tribes that it encountered, made and broke treaties with, and the process of reservations, and its consequences. Eye opening, depressing and in parts inspiring it was a great reminder that Native Americans are people with a past not people from the past.
Why I started this book: I wanted to learn more about Native American tribes and customs.
Why I finished it: So that wasn't what this lecture series was about, instead it was a recitation of United States history from the perspective of the tribes that it encountered, made and broke treaties with, and the process of reservations, and its consequences. Eye opening, depressing and in parts inspiring it was a great reminder that Native Americans are people with a past not people from the past.
February 1, 2019
This is an excellent overview, although I wanted more about Mexican and Canadian Native Peoples. This really does tell the story fairly strongly, although it is a but dry. It's very much like a textbook and I think there are PDFs available which would be quite helpful. They use the term Indians which some people object to, but it makes sense here
Some of this I've known for a long time, some like when US soldiers gave smallpox infected blankets to some tribes, I hadn't known until recently. Indigenous Peoples around the World have suffered at the hands of others - Europeans here of course.
The mistreatment of our Native Peoples has not ended. The Keystone Pipeline is evidence of how much our government and corporations have screwed these people. We as a society need to do better. This book really gives a good overview. I would recommend it, but I think it really leaves a need for me to delve further. I'll certainly be doing that down the line.
Some of this I've known for a long time, some like when US soldiers gave smallpox infected blankets to some tribes, I hadn't known until recently. Indigenous Peoples around the World have suffered at the hands of others - Europeans here of course.
The mistreatment of our Native Peoples has not ended. The Keystone Pipeline is evidence of how much our government and corporations have screwed these people. We as a society need to do better. This book really gives a good overview. I would recommend it, but I think it really leaves a need for me to delve further. I'll certainly be doing that down the line.
March 4, 2019
This took me way longer to finish than it should have, since it is rather depressing at times. The title suggested to me that it would be about the history and cultures of Native Americans, perhaps broken down by tribe, but it is more of an overall history of Native American interactions with European colonialism and the United States, focusing on the experiences of specific tribes and nations as examples.
October 7, 2022
Audio version. Good book, debated between 3 and 4 stars. Bedtime reading, and I’ve been anxious and distracted lately so didn’t get as much out of it as I could have. Utter travesty how we (white Americans) have treated the Native Americans. Couldn’t help but wonder what the author has to say about recent events - e.g. the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing local law enforcement to go onto reservations rather than letting tribal authorities to deal with issues.
January 9, 2022
I love the positive perspective!
Regardless of how disheartening the information provide was Daniel kept to his theme of not playing the victim. Although many of the most courageous people lost their lives in the battle for sovereignty and although there are many disparities plaguing the community they have and continue to survive.
Regardless of how disheartening the information provide was Daniel kept to his theme of not playing the victim. Although many of the most courageous people lost their lives in the battle for sovereignty and although there are many disparities plaguing the community they have and continue to survive.
October 4, 2022
This is well written and should be required reading. As invaders our ancestors that settled North America consistently moved to wipe out intelligent, capable, respectable organized indigenous nations. What we could have and can learn from recognizing these amazing people is incredible. Such a debt is owed to them
August 5, 2021
Worth listening to. I don't know why the other reviewer said that there were only a few minutes of "actual history" in these lectures. The entire thing is history; I suspect other reviewer means "ten minutes of history I actually wanted to think about." Reality is not so accommodating.
August 25, 2018
Good overview of indigenous history with an emphasis on disbanding inaccurate colonialist perspectives.
March 15, 2021
This is a history of the interactions between the indigenous population of North America and Manifest Destiny. It's not a pretty story, full of broken treaties and massacres.
August 23, 2022
Brutal read, so hard to get through. It’s well told and well researched just hard to hear the brutality and genocide. Still, I’m glad I read it.
December 1, 2025
A woke history of the American Indian.
Cobb is knowledgeable about American Indian history in the 20th century, the main subject of his research. Too many histories of Indians have given history from the perspective of the white colonizer, and he strives to let natives speak, something that is largely good. But Cobb is also blinded by a woke ideology, common in American Indian studies, but still debilitating for taking a better, more comprehensive view of America’s indigenous peoples.
His discussions of things like the Dawes Act, Termination, the National Congress of the American Indian and the National Indian Youth Council, that is 20th century American Indian history, l are insightful.
What problems does Cobb’s woke ideology cause?
First, though he does often give voice to American Indians and decenter white folks, he oddly says almost nothing about American Indians' existence in North America before White folks arrived in 1492. Woke scholars in English departments all over America do something similar, with scholars of Chinese or Korean American literature who know nothing about Chinese literature or Korean literature. Instead, Cobb and these other woke scholars talk about being multicultural, but their understanding of multiculturalism doesn’t do the hard work of engaging with distinct cultures, but they are focused entirely on the tension between their topic of study and white folks. Cobb apparently doesn’t talk about pre-Colombian Indians, like lots of woke folks, he does not know that much about them because he doesn’t want to do the hard work of engaging with these really different cultures and because most of the energy driving his intellectual project is about condemning white folks, not actually understanding Indians.
Don’t believe me, just look at how the course doesn’t match up with the title. Though the course is about the “Native Peoples of North America,” he says next to nothing about the most populous parts of native North America, the Aztec and Mayan empires.
Why does he have nothing to say about these parts of indigenous North Americans? He does not give an answer, but I speculate that it is because he both lacks the intellectual chops to engage with cultures that are different from his own and because what is driving his intellectual project is talking about how bad White folks were towards the Indians. Though Mexico is just as much a product of European colonization as the US, Mexico is harder to shoehorn into his black-white dichotomy, so he just ducks the discussion altogether.
Speaking of imperialism, Cobb never refers to Indians as imperialists or colonizers, even though he is clear that they do this. He describes the Shoshone, “who originated in the great basin of Nevada, acquired horses and continued their northward migration. this time they carried on into the lands of the pegan (sp?) and the tsicun(sp?)?” What does it mean to carry on into the lands of these other native groups other than to be an imperialist and colonize the land of other peoples for yourself.
Throughout these lectures, Cobb describes white people doing this as imperialism, but when Indians do it, it is fine. In this way, Cobb, who originally set out to fight the racism baked into older ways of narrating American history, has embraced racism. This is a racism that allows for Indians to, because of their race, occupy the lands of others, but sees the same act as a sin when it is done by White folks.
Finally, his repeated insistence that tribes had and have sovereignty, while a common shibboleth among American Indian activists and scholars, is disproven by the history he recites. “It is absolutely essential to recognize that the treaties didn’t give native nations anything, especially sovereignty, rather they acknowledged it,” he says in lecture 1. But in every lecture, he cites examples where tribes did not have sovereignty, where they lacked “the authority to self-govern,” which is how he defines sovereignty. I am certain he thinks that they should have sovereignty, but it just ain’t so, as the historical events he narrates reveal again and again.
Cobb has a deep knowledge of some of the things that happened in the 20th Century, but he is too blinded by what he wants to believe to make for a good historian.
Cobb is knowledgeable about American Indian history in the 20th century, the main subject of his research. Too many histories of Indians have given history from the perspective of the white colonizer, and he strives to let natives speak, something that is largely good. But Cobb is also blinded by a woke ideology, common in American Indian studies, but still debilitating for taking a better, more comprehensive view of America’s indigenous peoples.
His discussions of things like the Dawes Act, Termination, the National Congress of the American Indian and the National Indian Youth Council, that is 20th century American Indian history, l are insightful.
What problems does Cobb’s woke ideology cause?
First, though he does often give voice to American Indians and decenter white folks, he oddly says almost nothing about American Indians' existence in North America before White folks arrived in 1492. Woke scholars in English departments all over America do something similar, with scholars of Chinese or Korean American literature who know nothing about Chinese literature or Korean literature. Instead, Cobb and these other woke scholars talk about being multicultural, but their understanding of multiculturalism doesn’t do the hard work of engaging with distinct cultures, but they are focused entirely on the tension between their topic of study and white folks. Cobb apparently doesn’t talk about pre-Colombian Indians, like lots of woke folks, he does not know that much about them because he doesn’t want to do the hard work of engaging with these really different cultures and because most of the energy driving his intellectual project is about condemning white folks, not actually understanding Indians.
Don’t believe me, just look at how the course doesn’t match up with the title. Though the course is about the “Native Peoples of North America,” he says next to nothing about the most populous parts of native North America, the Aztec and Mayan empires.
Why does he have nothing to say about these parts of indigenous North Americans? He does not give an answer, but I speculate that it is because he both lacks the intellectual chops to engage with cultures that are different from his own and because what is driving his intellectual project is talking about how bad White folks were towards the Indians. Though Mexico is just as much a product of European colonization as the US, Mexico is harder to shoehorn into his black-white dichotomy, so he just ducks the discussion altogether.
Speaking of imperialism, Cobb never refers to Indians as imperialists or colonizers, even though he is clear that they do this. He describes the Shoshone, “who originated in the great basin of Nevada, acquired horses and continued their northward migration. this time they carried on into the lands of the pegan (sp?) and the tsicun(sp?)?” What does it mean to carry on into the lands of these other native groups other than to be an imperialist and colonize the land of other peoples for yourself.
Throughout these lectures, Cobb describes white people doing this as imperialism, but when Indians do it, it is fine. In this way, Cobb, who originally set out to fight the racism baked into older ways of narrating American history, has embraced racism. This is a racism that allows for Indians to, because of their race, occupy the lands of others, but sees the same act as a sin when it is done by White folks.
Finally, his repeated insistence that tribes had and have sovereignty, while a common shibboleth among American Indian activists and scholars, is disproven by the history he recites. “It is absolutely essential to recognize that the treaties didn’t give native nations anything, especially sovereignty, rather they acknowledged it,” he says in lecture 1. But in every lecture, he cites examples where tribes did not have sovereignty, where they lacked “the authority to self-govern,” which is how he defines sovereignty. I am certain he thinks that they should have sovereignty, but it just ain’t so, as the historical events he narrates reveal again and again.
Cobb has a deep knowledge of some of the things that happened in the 20th Century, but he is too blinded by what he wants to believe to make for a good historian.
December 18, 2023
This course was not quite what I expected, but was enlightening none the less. Cobb presents North American history through the perspective of native peoples. It is interesting because it reframes the narrative of natives as romantic victims of the past to an adaptive resilient people who are continuing to exist and evolve. I found this a nice counterpoint to traditional United States history. It is the story told from a different perspective than we are used to. As evidenced by other reviews, many won't appreciate it because they feel that it is "woke" or some such nonsense. But that is the beauty of history: there is enough room for many visions of what happened and why.
November 30, 2025
An excellent truth telling of our nation's history as viewed from the colonized perspective, not just the colonizer. The book and video series IS a LECTURE, so be prepared for the standard lectures style and format. And it's a ton of history, but neatly balanced with notable people and stories, photographs, and art examples. Provides the factual history with an excellent interdisciplinary style--using the geography, legal and statutory acts, the multidimensional cultures of great many tribes, and the landscape, as well as modern culture, pop culture, etc. Erases longstanding myths about the 'disappeared Indians' and demonstrates vibrant and applicable modern-day natives living among us.
June 20, 2024
This was very informative and succinct in the way that it covers topics on the Native American experience from pre-Columbus to roughly 2016. This is a great launch point for diving deeper into Native American history. This work spends a pretty good amount of time exploring each regions experiences with colonizing forces and then, for the last, maybe 5 lessons, focuses more on a combined history of Native Americans dealing with the U.S. government and where efforts are today for gaining their own autonomy.
January 16, 2023
Excellent overview of Native Peoples of North America....from an author taking the view from the Native perspective. Be prepared for some challenging events, sorrow and narratives as their story and plight unfolds. If anyone has a recommendation for a title which studies Native American prehistory I would be greatly appreciative! Compelling enough for a 2nd and possibly 3rd listen Highly recommended
October 8, 2022
Not a history of Native Americans.
October 28, 2022
Informative, but occasionally too much opinion included.
April 8, 2023
Extremely biased and disappointing. Found it somewhat useful in that it let me know about things I would want to learn more about from other sources.
August 31, 2024
This is one of the worst teaching company lecture series i've listened to. The depth wasn't good and it frankly didn't cover much of anything I was hoping to learn going in.
November 16, 2024
Stories good; narration bad.
December 4, 2024
Um, North America is not the same as the USA.....
August 30, 2025
One of the most intellectually lazy and dishonest things I have ever read. Shockingly misleading.
Currently reading
March 6, 2019Saw on Great Courses.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews