Stylistic Issues

Since this is a general response and it's early in the year; and as such the content has not reached a point in which this sort of response would exclude some pertinent material, I feel as though it's nessecary to address this texts fatal stylistic flaws. The main flaw in this text is it's glaring and conistent generalities that permeate virtually any sort of logical, or linear thought process. It seems as though this author sincerely likes the sound of his or her own voice, espicially in conjuction with big words. Often times you can find the book randomly throwing out vocabulary which is either obscure (sometimes to the point of irrelevance) or never defined.
I will not quote the entire passage but basically from page 31 paragraph 3 and downward in that same paragraph the author essentially just talks a lot about something that could easily be explained in lamens terms. He or she seems to have the need to make simple things MUCH more complex then they really are. In this passage the author is talking about the myths this country has come to adore. Naturally, the author makes this sort of assertion "...Of course, we must suspect such a discourse and interrogate its operation, ideologies, assumptions and exclusions." Firstly, this presents two problems. Firstly, this implies that leaders using these sort of myths are doing so in almost a malicious manner in which to persuade otherwise disassimilated inviduals to join some sort of "american only" ideal. Secondly, and more importantly, it implies that anyone cared. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I wouldn't just assume everything being presented in front of me was true, espicially about undoubtably unverifiable facts considering the time period and those presenting the facts. It's truly mind boggling to me that anyone would read a text from one of original voyages to america and just accept it as absolute fact. I find this sort of text almost insulting. This author presents these sort of "revolutionary" skepitc notions about stories past in a manner which is purposefully hard to understand. What is difficult about doubting a 15th century account of an imperialistic adventure?
To be fair, I'm not sure if it's truly the author or if there really is that many naive people in this country, but long story barely shorter, this book feels like it's talking down to me about something I already know.