Customer Reviews

Empire Of Fortune

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is the third in a series by the author. The first one, entitled "The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest," deals with the Puritan conquest of New England. The second one, entitled "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire: The Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Tribes with English Colonies," deals with colonial/Indian relations up to the the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744. This third book picks up the story from there and goes through the French and Indian War. Each can be read separately, but once you've read one, you will want to read them all.

If you are looking for a book that breathes new life into an old subject, then this book is for you. The purpose of this book, according to the author, is to correct "a record that has been badly botched in previous accounts by 'authoritative colleagues.'" Thus, Jennings wants to destroy old stereotypes and myths, some of which have been perpetuated for more than a century and a half.

Jennings talks about the politics of the day, and the why's and wherefore's of historical events. He deals with all the familiar historical figures, but sheds new light on them and their motives. He defends the oft-maligned Quakers and attacks those who have given them a bad name, exposing their agendas. Jennings wants the reader to see both the Red Man and the White Man as human beings who sought their own interests, and often places historical events in that light. He especially goes out of his way to demonstrate that Indians were rational beings who often manipulated White and Red alike to obtain their ends. He exposes the poor scholarship of revered authors, such as Parkman, the Beards,and Boorstin. Jennings sees Parkman as "a racsist of the venomous type" and a disciple of Social Darwinism, a theory he was willing to distort his sources for in order to substantiate.

The book is impeccably written and researched, and boasts a wonderful bibliography. The author's approach is one of ethnohistory and rejects "the concept of race as fallacious and vicious." Instead, he follows "the example of modern anthropologists by using the culture concept" as his basic tool of analysis.

Jennings often writes in catagoric terms, and does not fear documented, bare-knuckled criticism of others who have written in this field. Although he can come across as a self-proclaimed superauthority, the reader will do well to remember that he believes that "[a]ll histories are interpretations by writers predisposed by personal experience and cultural imperatives, and prone to human error." It was not his intention to write a definitive history. His primary goal was to "open the field rather than close it" to a new method of interpretation.

Although he is willing "to acknowledge error when it is demonstrated," he "can be pretty firm when error is only asserted." Anyone who tries to demonstrate Jennings' errors had better go well-versed in primary sources and prepared to take a few lumps.

This is an excellent climax to his 'Covenant Chain' trilogy. This work and the books that preceded them are instrumental in attempting to revise two hundred years of historical tradition. This is not a narrative work of military history. This is investigative reporting of the past. It is challenging, in your face, and above all passionate. This is a great book for someone familiar with the French and Indian War and is looking for a different perspective on the intertwining of Anglo and Native cultures.

The late Francis Jennings's trilogy consummates his life work of creating an accurate, humane view of colonial Indian-European relations. This is clearly not an operational history, so readers hoping for a full military narrative must look elsewhere. EOF is adequate on battles, but its strengths are political-miltary affairs, the Seven Years' War's global context, and nuanced description of indigenous societies facing unprecedented challenges. It robustly brings to life many dynamic personalities, and is very blunt, even harsh--but not unfair--toward historians (Gipson, Boorstin, Bailyn and especially Parkman) fostering ethnocentric biases about early America. Eradicating errors isn't always pretty. The author also confirms Quakers' crucial role in ending Pennsylvania's frontier war. Government and academia sometimes treated Jennings shabbily, in person and in print, which helps explain his combativeness. But an immense body of recent research mostly confirms his approach. He ranks among the great scholars of colonialism, albeit through writing rather than training historians a la Bailyn. To gauge his influence, compare A. Vaughan's early "New England Frontier" with his later work. Thanks for fighting the good fight, Fritz.

This is a good, well written and valuable addition to French and Indian War literature. Not only is it a fresh look, it is a refreshing one. There is amazing detail here about people and places other historians only mention in passing. The focus in on the land, how it was apportioned or stolen, depending on your point of view, and of conflicting, contentious, self interest. At risk was an Empire, not only the one that the French, English and Native Americans wanted to control among themselves but also the one that respective Native American interests and tribes sought to influence and dominate within their own race.

This is really as good as it gets. Be prepared for a very complete, meticulous read. The third book in a trilogy about pre Revolutionary War America, Francis Jennings has written a winner, an absolutely excellent history of colonial and Native American cause and effect.

The author clearly has done his research and "digging" when it comes to the facts. Then how come he is so bitter? Jennings spends too much time not only disputing almost every other book about the French and Indian War, but also "wrestling to the ground" any thesis in opposition to his own! He comes off sounding bitter, cranky and unattractive. His glosses over the military aspects of the war as if these details are beneath the serious historian--why? It was a war after all! It is not a bad reference book but as far as read-don't bother.

Unfortunately the book comes across as extremely cranky. Yes, cranky. The author's tone is self righteous, fussy and cranky, and he looks down his nose at all things military in a distaining way. As if the French and Indian War could be interpreted without the military aspect! For a much better read, try Fred Anderson's "Crucible of War," just published.

Jennings is a historical revisionist interested more in asserting his views than presenting a balanced and complete history of the period. Focusing primarily on the political struggles within Pennsylvania's colonial government, he goes into great detail to praise the Quakers and their majority in the colony's assembly while reviling their political opponents. Jennings glosses over the major events of the French and Indian War unless they support his main argument.

Jennings uses an interesting writing style that includes first person evaluation of facts especially when he is trying to hammer home his point. His attempt to portray the Quakers as entirely good while their opponents as entirely evil creates a great deal of skepticism. Some of his arguments are ludicrous. For example, he goes to great length to describe the pacifistic efforts of the Quakers to bring a negotiated peace with the Indians that successfully led to the Treaty of Easton. Thanks to the Quakers and their wholesome designs, the Indians were removed as a threat that allowed the capture of Fort Duquesne and the war to be won.

Jennings holds professional British officers and regular troops in contempt. He has nothing good to say about this lot and according to him their contribution to the war was negligible. There are a couple of exceptions like Bradstreet who really was an Acadian provincial skirting the outskirts of the professional officer core and Forbes, who could be forgiven because of his fair dealings with the Quakers.

A great deal of references is included by Jennings to support his arguments. However, he has a tendency to present provocative allegations without foundation. Examples of these include James Wolfe's brutality and Daniel Webb's cowardice.

Jennings' book is a frustrating read for anyone seeking a comprehensive coverage. No doubt his points have some factual foundation but these are unfortunately lost because his overt bias undercuts his assertions.