Scan barcode
pipn_t's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Lots of good information, I feel like in many ways this book is still relevant to today in many ways. A few chapters flummoxed me a little, like the one on ancient astronauts and Velikovsky. The tone was fairly academic, but the author has a fun sense of humour that popped up here and there that was enjoyable.
tamtasticbooks's review
challenging
medium-paced
2.5
The first third of this book is very interesting, covering the history of oppression among Native American peoples and some of how Christians view time and history versus how Native Americans do.
Thus concludes all the positive things I would like to say about this book. The highlights of the rest of my feelings:
-This book was written in the 70s and I believe that a lot of the thoughts in this book are hard to apply past that time period.
-The chapter(s) dealing with Velikovsky and his very unproven theories (and how Deloria treats them as fact, and how you're stupid if you don't give them value) were the tipping point for me. Ridiculous theory, and it didn't validate any of his arguments anyway.
-Speaking of arguments, I couldn't tell you what Deloria's thesis is in this writing. It is scattered, and some of the things that might be his thesis, he contradicts multiple times.
-Deloria treats Christianity as a monolith. And I wasn't alive in the 70s, so I can't speak for what Christians as a whole were like/doing/etc. But! There are a few things that (at least now) are not very true that are said about Christians and their beliefs and I had a hard time getting past that. Some things, I absolutely agreed with him on. Some things, I don't think I'd ever been raised to believe as a Christian myself. So though that was interesting to see someone's sorta outside view on, it felt very heavy-handed.
This was maybe the most disappointing read I've had. I expected something that had a thorough critique of Christianity and the way most Christians in America seem to have neglected what Native Americans have historically upheld-the value of land and community and being in harmony with the environment and the spiritual, and ways that that has impacted the Native people, and proposing a better way that aligns with the people born on the American land.
There can still be value found in the book. However, it left a bad taste for me and I wouldn't recommend it whole-heartedly, or even half-heartedly.
Thus concludes all the positive things I would like to say about this book. The highlights of the rest of my feelings:
-This book was written in the 70s and I believe that a lot of the thoughts in this book are hard to apply past that time period.
-The chapter(s) dealing with Velikovsky and his very unproven theories (and how Deloria treats them as fact, and how you're stupid if you don't give them value) were the tipping point for me. Ridiculous theory, and it didn't validate any of his arguments anyway.
-Speaking of arguments, I couldn't tell you what Deloria's thesis is in this writing. It is scattered, and some of the things that might be his thesis, he contradicts multiple times.
-Deloria treats Christianity as a monolith. And I wasn't alive in the 70s, so I can't speak for what Christians as a whole were like/doing/etc. But! There are a few things that (at least now) are not very true that are said about Christians and their beliefs and I had a hard time getting past that. Some things, I absolutely agreed with him on. Some things, I don't think I'd ever been raised to believe as a Christian myself. So though that was interesting to see someone's sorta outside view on, it felt very heavy-handed.
This was maybe the most disappointing read I've had. I expected something that had a thorough critique of Christianity and the way most Christians in America seem to have neglected what Native Americans have historically upheld-the value of land and community and being in harmony with the environment and the spiritual, and ways that that has impacted the Native people, and proposing a better way that aligns with the people born on the American land.
There can still be value found in the book. However, it left a bad taste for me and I wouldn't recommend it whole-heartedly, or even half-heartedly.
three_martini_lunch's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
isabelphares's review
4.0
Very insightful to how Natives views their treatment and standing with colonialism. Definitely gives White Americans a lot to think about and take accountability for how they still enforce white supremacy and colonialism today.
While the book takes a harsh stance against Christianity, something I can’t really blame the author for, it is very interesting to read about religion that does not center God/gods with relations to humans.
However, the book reads like a textbook. I would say it isn’t very accessible to all readers.
Also, definitely recommend the 50th anniversary Harvard Divinity Panel along with the read.
While the book takes a harsh stance against Christianity, something I can’t really blame the author for, it is very interesting to read about religion that does not center God/gods with relations to humans.
However, the book reads like a textbook. I would say it isn’t very accessible to all readers.
Also, definitely recommend the 50th anniversary Harvard Divinity Panel along with the read.
bjayfogg's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
dbg108's review
2.0
I wanted to love this book - and did - for the first 100 pages. Then Deloria jumps the shark and advocates for ridiculous theories on the rise of religion. Readers, pick up Rene Girard after you read the first 100 pages of this book.
noahbw's review
3.0
I used sections of this in my thesis — which I obviously appreciated and found useful — but I’ve just now read the rest of the book, and I’m disappointed with a lot of it. Much of my frustration, I think, is due to the age of the book — I think Deloria needed to write this way in 1971, and although he may not disagree with what he said, I imagine he could have written differently now. While not unfair or untrue, his critique of Christianity is very broad (pointing to the way that Christianity appears as a monolith), and is not interested in distinguishing between what Christianity typically does and the underused resources within the tradition that would counter the problems he rightfully points to.