Title: Poor history lesson
Product review: I had to use this book in an undergraduate course. It is extremely biased and the author on many instances goes way over the line into editorializing. It is a poor example of true history but an excellent example of revisionist history. In chapter 9 the author states " But in history we care as much about what people believe to have happened as we do about the literal truth". Any time a historian puts as much emphasis on tales as much as fact they are on thin academic ice.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
