To build on your criticism, I also wish there had been more footnotes. For instance, the lack of footnotes that most disappointed me was when Arianrhood discusses of how people interpreted Greek and Middle Eastern thinkers. On page 49, she mentions Aristotle’s view that winds are “dry exhalations,” but there’s no footnote there for me to find out in which of his books he argues that. At least with her reference to the Middle Eastern scholar, al-Kindi, in that same paragraph, she includes a footnote. Of course, that footnote goes to a secondary source, an article by Arianna Borelli, not to a primary source.

Then, there are places where Arianrhood doesn’t elaborate enough in her footnotes. In chapter six, there’s a fascinating section on the European view of indigenous people. She writes,

“If diplomatic relations between Old and New World delegates at Durham House seemed cozy in early 1585, they were delicate. It was an easy descent from “barbarous,” “primitive,” and “savage”—no matter how “objective” the intent—into what we now call racism.19”

I’m curious what she means by “what we now call racism” and how that relates the words she mentions: barbarous, primitive, and savage.

Footnote #19, in my opinion, doesn’t provided enough information to help. It refers to early modern thinking about race and gender being fluid and gives examples of English people viewing native Americans in positive and negative ways (pg. 298). Unfortunately, the discussion of racism stops there. Neither in chapter six nor in her footnote does she elaborate.