God is Red is both a very important American book, and also a hard book to trust. Vine Deloria Junior's take is a breath of fresh air and a needed challenge against the United States and Christianity's history and actions, but his insistence on fringe theories and pseudo-science, coupled with sometimes spurious scholarship means you need to check his sources or get a second opinion before you take his word on the matter. 

Take for example his reference to the Walum Olum, a fake history of the Deleware tribe. In the 90s after this book's release, it became the opinion of the anthropological community that the book was a hoax created by a botanist and antiquarian. On this occasion, Vine Deloria is wrong not due to his own fault. But, much of the rest of the book's scholarship is questionable due to things within his own control. Most of one chapter is spent explaining how ancient astronauts are just as legitimate theory of world creation as any other ("Natural and Hybrid Peoples"). Another chapter important to the book "The Spatial Problem of History" has much of it spent detailing the pseudo-scientific theory by Velikovsky of how planetary movements are tied to religious books' creation stories. 


Yet, as you noticed, this is a four star review. Like many great and important works which challenge foundational views, they will be filled with creative attempts by the author to get at the foundational problems of things which will sometimes fail and other times succeed.  And when they do succeed, they achieve way more than most technically perfect works will. 

God is Red is a book which seeks to take away the power of narrative from Christianity in a way little explored in mainstream America. While his criticisms of Christianity hit similar notes as Atheist ones, the tribal perspective shines a light on issues that Atheist criticisms have been unable to achieve. As secularization in the west occurred, philosophy of history became a subject used by the likes of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault. Deloria's ability to focus on land and spatial problems, along with non-anthropocentricism, shows a startling new perspective that direly needs a place in philosophy departments. 

Another problem of the book is his lack of definitions and sometimes inconsistency in criticism. Deloria used multiple interpretations of early Christian history. In some cases he took a religiously accepting route of Bible stories being true. In other cases Jesus desires Israel to be liberated from Rome and his followers when not seeing him resurrected, create a mythos surrounding him and the end of the world. Does Vine believe Jesus didn't have powers to resurrect himself but God can speak to Moses through a burning bush and part the red sea? The book contains a few of these central inconsistencies that Deloria could have cleared up if he gave his opinion in a more straightforward manner and defined certain concepts clearly. 

Much of the good aspects of this book are much better put into words by Deloria, so I recommend reading it instead of looking to reviews to explain it. He covers so many subjects, but the main criticism of temporal history and Christianity should be read by all Americans interested in religion, native rights, philosophy, and history.