They're Pretty Eurocentric..#textbooks

I personally really liked the reading and I think his argument is convincing.  In a way, I'm not surprised or appalled by how he admitted how eurocentric history is presented to students in this country.  I think that's mostly because of how I grew up. I've always wondered why there was focus on European history and why almost all of my teachers were so outwardly..proud of it (that's the best word I can think of right now.)  I think I just liked his argument because it's kind my perspective on how history was always presented to me, so my reaction to this was that it was a good argument. 
I think Bentley and Ziegler do what Loewen says most history textbooks do, but they don't fluff it up like the examples in his argument.  Bentley and Ziegler pretty much assumed the reader has already heard about Christopher Columbus and they don't really reiterate his famous story.  They do say that his voyages had "momentous consequences" which is pretty accurate but vague.  In a way, they kind of try to side step stereotypical history textbooks but they aren't that much better than most authors. 

Do I Buy It? Hmm...

No, I don't buy Menzie's argument that the Chinese were in the North America first.  Throughout the video, I was convinced that all his evidence was vague enough for him twist it to fit his theory.  I understand that he is trying to prove a point but most of this evidence seemed like they were mere assumptions that can't really be proven wrong.  He blatantly says what he thinks without really proving it.  The information before his statements act like they're supposed to prove his point, but they don't really.  Like when he was talking about a merchant, he said that the merchant had to be DiConti and all the information before it alludes to it.  However, there is no proof that the merchant was DiConti.  I also don't believe the maps he was using to find the islands.  They are probably really old and unreliable and those drawings may not be entirely accurate.  It seems like mere coincidence that the map drawing and the present-day drawings look similar.  I also don't believe what is submerged in the water.  I can't see what it is in the video and I don't know what it is.  And I am convinced that Menzie probably has no idea either, except he hopes it can help his theory. I guess I mostly don't buy his argument because he seems  a little bit desperate to prove his theory.