They didn't cover next to anything that Sakai covered in Settlers in my history classes; for damned sure. Let's hear about why you find it to be 'a bad book'; because the only 'critique' I ever hear about it seems to be coming from aggrieved settlers who don't like what they're reading from an accountability standpoint; and I want to see if you're any different to that trend.
Been there, argued that, not wasting the electrons again. Go away.