Status Updates From A Concise History of the Un...

How can the author simultaneously explain how colonists did not start out with a racialized view of society and yet, at the same time, use racialized terminology to explain their motivations before that ideology was even remotely recognizable in modern form? Awful, awful ahistoric forcings

This book CONSTANTLY imposes terms ahistorically, uses language from other eras, and repeatedly uses the term “natural” to describe certain behaviors, which is blatantly non academic and amateurish.

At this juncture of history, the Author has reached 1920s and is discussing the racial hatred of American toward immigrants. These immigrants were mostly; at this point, from Europe.
The immigrants were equated with rats while the inborn Americans were equated by one such influential person with Beavers. He warned the Americans that beavers are accumulating while the rats (immigrants) are stealing their food.

The book has gone extremely boring.

Before 1600, there was nothing like United States of America or any of these States or for that matter, not a white man on the vast continent of America. It was with columbus that the New world was found and presumed as abundant with all sorts of riches. Not only British but Spanish, French, Portuguese and many more tried their luck at these riches.