Customer Reviews

The Slacker's Guide to U.S. History: The Bare Minimum on Discovering America, the Boston Tea Party, the California Gold Rush, and Lots of Other Stuff Dead White Guys Did

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

Let me start this out by saying that I enjoy edgy, raunchy, sarcastic humor, such as that found on the Daily Show or the Simpsons. So unlike some of the other reviewers, it's not the mere presence of racially related or sexual humor that offends me. Such remarks do become offensive when they are not actually humorous, have no real connection to the issue at hand, or merely repeat tired old stereotypes.

For example, in regards to racial humor, the authors write of John White, the governor of the Lost Colony of Roanoke: "Long before poor and desperate Mexican parents began smuggling their pregnant daughters into the United States in an attempt to secure American citizenship for all of their underachieving family members, John White, an English-born artist, was writing the "illegal alien to full citizen in three easy steps!" playbook." While the connection between modern day immigrants and the early settlers is certainly there and ripe for satire (neither being "real Americans" so to speak), this particular joke doesn't even make any sense. There was no equivalent of modern immigration law during colonial times - i.e., White's ability to govern the new colony, or even move there, had nothing to do with his daughter giving birth on American soil. (If there is some hidden connection, the authors certainly don't explain it.) A successful example of racial satire is the Chapter on the Mexican War, in which the authors paint Americans in the then Mexican controlled territory of Texas as the unwanted invaders using the same type of language that current day Americans often use to describe Mexican immigrants today. Unfortunately, most of the use of racial humor I read is of the former category, not the latter.

The sexual humor also misses the mark. Of Patrick Henry's family, the authors write: "The Henrys were a demanding family. It was in their blood. John Henry demanded sex on a regular basis and his wife was happy to accommodate. The byproduct of their frequent encounters was eleven children, including the favored Patrick Henry." Huh? Why would the authors randomly make such a joke? It was the late 1700s - there was nothing unusual about having such a large family.

The humor is also stunningly unoriginal. There were dozens of jokes about Mexicans trying to sneak into the U.S., the French being effeminate and cowardly, and the British being pasty and having poor teeth. Writing about the outcome of the Revolutionary War, the authors say: "Recently, it has been speculated that the British have sought revenge against the United States with attempts to make us watch Hugh Grant movies and soccer games. However, quick-thinking Americans have struck back by stealing many generations of English chefs and dentists, causing an epidemic in England of poor teeth and horrible food." There's nothing wrong with putting a new twist on these jokes and using them once in awhile (see "The Big Book of British Smiles" in the Simpsons episode where Lisa gets braces), but merely repeating over and over that the French are gay and cowardly isn't merely just unfunny, it's outright lazy.

However, all of this could be forgiven if the book was factually accurate or served as a good review of American history. It is neither.

In regards to factual accuracy, for example, about Christopher Columbus the authors write: "Columbus dreamed of proving to those still in doubt that the world was in fact round by sailing confidently due west to reach the Spice Lands recognized as valuable trading outposts for European monarchs." What? Columbus was interested in a faster route to the Spice Lands to increase profits and later, after realizing he had reached new lands, he was interested in plundering and spreading religion. Most educated people at the time already knew the world was round.

In addition, sometimes the style made it difficult to parse out the truth from the jokes unless you already have a good working knowledge of American history, basically defeating the purpose of the book. For example, the authors joke of Ann Putnam, one of the chief accusers in the Salem Witch Trials: "Years later, Ann came clean and told TMZ.com that many of her accusations were false." Clearly the part about TMZ is a joke, but is it true that she later said her accusations were false? Conceivably that could be true or not true, and it's not clear from the text whether it is or not. You would only know from your previous knowledge or consulting another source, in which case, how helpful can this book be?

You'll notice I haven't included any examples from beyond the Civil War. That's because I couldn't make it through the book that far. If you need to review your history, you would be far better off with a "boring" textbook, free of factual inaccuracies and wince-inducing jokes.

First off, thank goodness I got this book from the library and didn't spend good money on buying it. I love history and I love funny stuff, so this should have been right up my alley. Unfortunately, it is not funny, and the history is so off that parody fails.

The authors think that my just putting in tasteless comments about sex, sex, sex, and sex, something becomes funny and/or witty. Try this: "Paul Revere was a half-French colonist who at the time of his midnight run need to get laid." No, not funny. Try again. "Martin Luther King Jr. may have been a black man, but he shared the same sexual fantasies as most of his Caucasian male counterparts." You get the idea.

Just avoid this book and your life will be a lot happier and more fun.

I realize this "book" is intended as humor. On that score, it fails miserably. But, worse, the publisher should be held responsible for such racist idiocy as these authors' comment about Rosa Parks as "Rosa Parks knew the wages paid to her as a black woman would never afford her the opportunity to drive the car of her dreams, a converted Crown Victoria cop car pimped out with twenty-two-inch rims and aftermarket hydraulics." Martin Luther King's 1963 march on DC is called "A Black Man's Wet Dream." And about Malcolm X, we get this: "he was famously told by his 'white is better' educator that his goal of becoming a lawyer was 'no realistic goal for a n....' (I refuse to type that word, though the author's use it). "Malcolm quickly embraced the wise advice he received and lost interest in school."
They even make a joke out of slavery being a "good investment."
This is disgusting, beneath contempt and a thinly veiled attempt to pass off racist White Supremacy as "humor". Adams Media should be ashamed.

This is so funny. Obviously tongue in cheek smart aleck humour. Hyperbole just for laughs. Anyonw who tries to read this as "History" will be defeated utterly by the writers funny recitations of the motives of historical figures. Loved tat Paul Reveres ride was a door to door search for a willing woman etc. i got this for free. best money i never spent! if your a fan of stupid funny movies like Dum and Dumber or anything ever made by Mel Brooks you wont regret not spending a dime on this book. I laughed alot as I read it. By the way, I read alot. From Dostoevsky to Tolkien to dum military space opera baloney. This book isn't as funny as the great Patrick Mcmanus but it made me laugh quite a bit. Joe Bob sez check it out!

I started reasonably optimistic about this book, despite a truly sophomoric introduction. "That's okay," I thought. "I'm open to a weak warmup act." But it really went downhill from there.

A few lines into the Columbus section there was a blatant factual error. Columbus was not fighting a continent of flat-earthers. The issue was that people who could do the math felt that Columbus was overly optimistic about how long it would take to get to China and Japan by traveling west. As it turned out, they were correct and Columbus was lucky. So it was obvious that the authors didn't burden themselves with much research to try to create a factual book with a light-hearted presentation.

Then came the first Mexican Immigrant joke. Then another. Then (since it was on my Kindle) I figuratively threw the book across the room. The book is crap, the authors are racist twits, and I wish I had purchased the paperback version because then I would at least have something to line the birdcage. As it is, I have a part of my life I'll never get back.

It had a good intro, but then he just started making up his own history. And yes, sometimes history isn't exactly exciting, but neither is life. This author feeds into the idea that school must be fun at the expense of truth in order to learn. Well, work isn't exactly fun, either, so get over it. Either you like history or you don't, and making up history isn't really going to change that.

I can't read this book. This book is offensive, inaccurate and not funny. The author tries so hard to be funny it just ruins it. If I had actually paid for this I would demand my money back! A good case for read the reviews! Wish I had!

This book pulls you in with a somewhat interesting description. I got it because a freebie. When you read it, is hard to understand, it was written by someone with a very dirty mind (i had never seen so many history facts compared to sexual things, most of the facts were wrong for that matter) I don't see how this could possibly adequately help some one learn hisyory. It was also very offensive partly because it insulted lawyers and my father is one, it insulted the state where I live (Kansas) and I'm sure there were other things that I would been insulted about but I stopped readung it once it started insulting the midwest. Do not waste your time with this attrocity!!!!

A terrible attempt at a humerous survey of history. It fails to be either funny or remotely a history. For an accurate and funny history of the US see Larry Gonick's cartoon guides to history

Not funny and factually inaccurate. Got this title for $1 and it wasn't worth the price even if it had been free.