Rating: 
Summary: Worth reading
Review: As a lover of American History I have found this book to be an easy read, but yet full of stories and not "facts." It was entertaining and informative. I would highly recommend that you read this book to gain an understanding of our own history and why it is so important to defend our freedom and the ability to make choices.
Rating: 
Summary: freedom of speech?
Review: I am appalled at the ease with which some people can trash a work not on it's merits, but on the writer of the forward. This book is an excellent work with unbiased content. I'm also amazed that those supposed proponents of freedom of speech and association, (read liberals) are the ones on the attack. I guess these only apply when in agreement with there views.
Tuck in your tails liberals you're hypocrisy is showing!
Rating: 
Summary: History?
Review: I am in an 7th grade social studies and this textbook is the worst piece of garbage I have ever read. There is no relevant vocabulary, no glossary, lacks important facts, and is psuedo history.
Rating:
Summary: excellent!
Review: I don't usually write reviews, but I had to take a moment when I saw the numerous reviews from people who didn't appear to have even read the book (at least that's my perception after reading their segments)! This book is excellent - very well writen and insightful. Although for a histroy buff there wasn't anything really new to me, the fact that it isn't a hard-to-read tome makes it all the more accessible to the majority of readers... That said, it seems that several reviewers were put-off by the choice of a President and First Lady being chosen to write the "Forward". Whether we like George Bush or agree with his politics is not the point here. He is our President and will have a place in our history - which is what this book celebrates - The History Of US. If one can't get past the fact Bush and Laura wrote the forward and are offended such that as a result one doesn't read the book, I don't know how one can truly review it? Just a thought for you to consider as you read these reviews...
Rating: 
Summary: Buyer Beware.
Review: I doubt there's any US History textbooks more excitingly written for kids age 9-12 than Joy Hakim's. (Her series is the one used in one of the best private schools in Silicon Valley.) They're glossy and beautiful, and well-nigh irresistible. What an incredible shame. What's the problem? The problem is they contain a version of history so slanted as to amount to an utterly shameless propagandizing of children. I'm a liberal atheist, but, really, her books should be sealed into a time capsule, to entertain future historians. I assume Hakim simply doesn't know any better, but even a Marxist with a PhD in American History would blush a little to discover that a child reading this series would never suspect that close to 100 million innocent men, women, and children died under the yoke of socialist regimes, nor that a third of the world was plunged into an unnecessary grinding poverty for decades. On the other hand, they will learn, as they should, that National Socialism murdered six million innocents, and that the Ku Klux Klan 'grew hugely' in the 1920s. But they won't learn that any other serious totalitarian movements also grew hugely in the 1920s, or that five million innocents died under the rule of Lenin's first experiment in socialism in the 1920s. On the contrary, all anti-Communism in the twentieth century is presented as nothing better than a witch-hunt. Indeed, anti-communism is literally referred to as a 'witch-hunt,' several times. Come on. So, was the fight against Hitler's National Socialism a 'witch-hunt'? Why such a palpable double standard for twin evils? Hakim teaches children that while National Socialism was indeed a real and present danger, and even worth waging an unprecedented World War to fight it, on the other hand, international socialism, or Communism, was, as she tells it, never any real danger to Americans. For instance, there's a chapter on the HUAC hearings in which McCarthy is referred to as a 'liar' about a half a dozen times. The chapter literally begins with the opening sentence "Joe McCarthy was a liar." Sure, he's controversial, but the latest research by historians just doesn't back up Hakim's wild-eyed account of liberal anti-socialism in America as nothing better than a nefarious 'witch-hunt' conducted by 'liars' and oppressors. Totalitarian Communist Lillian Hellman is profiled as a hero, and the overall impression is given that none of these people really were Communists, but, instead, were all just as falsely accused as the supposed 'witches' of Salem. This conclusion is then used to prove the statement that Americans are a fundamentally paranoid people, who basically lose their marbles very once in a while. (See book "Not Without Honor." on McCarthy and PBS documentary on Salem to find out why even Salem wasn't actually paranoia after all, but a toxic crop of moldy rye.)
Rating:
Summary: Condemnations from those who have not read this book!!
Review: I have just now ordered the book and am sure I will love it; cannot say for certain until I've read it. But I am amused by the number of people who have submitted reviews who REFUSE to read it, then go on to slam it, because Pres. & Mrs. Bush have written the foreward. Is this not typical of self-blinkered liberals? They criticize and mean to censor that which they have not even read. Shouldn't the book be reviewed for its content by people who have actually read it, not by ideologues who condemn it without having read a word of it? The mere fact that it raises the shackles of those who don't want to be confused by facts means it is probably terrific.
Rating:
Summary: Condemnations from those who have not read this book!!
Review: I have just now ordered the book and am sure I will love it; cannot say for certain until I've read it. But I am amused by the number of people who have submitted reviews who REFUSE to read it, then go on to slam it, because Pres. & Mrs. Bush have written the foreward. Is this not typical of self-blinkered liberals? They criticize and mean to censor that which they have not even read. Shouldn't the book be reviewed for its content by people who have actually read it, not by ideologues who condemn it without having read a word of it? The mere fact that it raises the shackles of those who don't want to be confused by facts means it is probably terrific.
Rating:
Summary: Educational Enjoyment for the Whole Family
Review: I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the past, present, and future of American freedom. This book is a terrific read for parents and children alike. Hakim's narrative makes history come alive and the characters jump off of the page.
Rating:
Summary: Political partisanship is a detractor...
Review: I must agree partially with Maryland that having the first family introduce the book gives an aire of political partisanship and renders the work suspect. However, I must disagree with Maryland in that the book is well written for family use and it hits all the watershed events of American history. Ms. Hakim is fair to all races, creeds, and classes of society and accurately reflects the nature and character of the American spirit. But in the end, the introduction might very well alienate many of the liberals, socialists, and Democrats - those who lack an appreciation of accurate American history. A better choice might have been Arnold Schwartzeneger and Rosie O'Donnell.
Rating:
Summary: Regrets
Review: I should have recorded the TV airing of this series. As the producers are not going to offer the mentioned DVD set to general public purchase. Disappointingly the DVD set is only available to educational intructors in institutions of actual schools.
| 
