Title: Manifest Destiny apologist
Product review: I find the author's unqualified, and rather anectodal, anthropological conclusions about a 100 years out of date("barbarian" and "savage" aren't scientific terms). Rather than quoting primary sources so support his facts he seems to prefer re-interpreting them in his own bias; on occasion I happened to have read the source text and found he had grossly misrepresented it, which makes me very suspicious of the rest of his facts. The whole book is extremely biased in favour of manifest destiny - it often reads like a justification for destructions of the native peoples and their culture.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
