Customer Reviews

The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (Norton Library)

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

 

 

Francis Jennings' first book, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest was path breaking when released in 1975, a book of "angry, forceful prose [that] still touches readers a quarter century after its publication," according to his 2001 obituary in the newsletter of the American Organization of Historians. In fact, Jennings himself was known for his "irrepressible" devotion to debunking the myths of Native American history of the colonial period, particularly the works of Francis Parkman. As his eulogizer Frederick Hoxie notes, Jennings early on insisted that "America began not with "discovery" but invasion," a belief which set "himself apart from those who viewed the fate of the continent's indigenous people as somehow inevitable or natural." The polemical The Invasion of America was the first in what Jennings called his "Covenant Chain Trilogy," with The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire (1984) and Empire of Fortune (1988) finishing the set. As Hoxie states, The Invasion of America (and most of Jennings' other writings) was a "frontal attack on the generations of scholars who, he argued, had internalized the racist language of the seventeenth century and overlooked the violence and brutality of European settlement." As another reviewer writes, "this is a strong, angry book," the prose of which is characterized by "the author's controlled outrage at what happened and at the misconceptions, distortions, and even lies he sees in the treatment of the period by other historians."

A brilliantly-written, well-researched and incredibly impassioned telling of the European conquest of North Eastern America. My only complaint would be that after around 300 pages, the author's anti-european/pro-indian sentiments become a little wearing.

It seems to be a standard orthodoxy these days that 'colonialism' was a bad thing, and that, possibly, European settlers didn't acquire the continent without a spot of realpolitic, but in the mid-70's, when this book was written, it probably opened a few eyebrows. The accounts of just how quickly the pilgrim fathers took to aggressive expansionism against local tribes certainly made *my* stiff upper lip twitch a little.

Francis Jennings' Invasion of America is still usefull reading, but... In the half of 70s' it was almost revolutionary work, and many (not only) historians looked at this as at nearly sacred text. But I think, that Jennings „adversary's" - i. e. Vaughan's - New England Frontier is more balanced view of Puritan - Indian relations in the 17th century.
Jennings book is divided into two different parts. First is thematical (and I think better), and second chronological. Author tries to apply the research done in the first part to the 17th century New England (second part). Jennings offers many interesting ideas, often highly provocative. He shows, for example, how the contention between single New England colonies (especially between Massachusetts and Connecticutt) influenced their Indian policy.
Book has two weak points, of which the second is essential. 1) Jennings' approach, especially in the second part, is not ethnohistorical, although he (in the first chapter) praises this historical subdiscipline. He focuses almost exclusivelly on Puritan policy toward Indians, and largely omits Indian actions. 2) He looks at Puritans from the perspective of 70s' of the 20th century through the eyes of a radical (left-wing ?) intelectual. So he finds nearly all Puritan actions toward Indians as bad. Their only goal was to conquer Indians and their land. They were real imperialists. He absolutely excludes the possibility, that Puritan actions could have been motivated by sincere conviction, for example, that they are just trying to help Indians (missions) or to protect themself (Pequot war; actions toward Narragansett and Eastern Niantic tribes in the 40s'and 50s'). I think, that this too much revisionst and sceptical approach is wrong. Historian should look at actions of his „heroes" through the perspective of time they were living.
In spite of above said, I think this is still an important book (not only) on New England history in the 17th century.

Book offers analyses based on thorough interpretation of primary sources.
It is a seed book portraying the event of European conquest on the North American continent. The magnitude of the underlying falsehoods that American history is based upon are what the reader walks away with after digesting this work.
The list of sources contained in the work are worth the price of the book

The beauty of this book...the author, though angry, uses the angry energy in a focused, forthright and definitive way. The result is an informative and detailed look at history that most may be surprised to read. Jennings analysis of the events is told in a story-like form, so that the reader is enlightened, then slowly taken in by the intrigue and intriging mischief of the day. Another title for this research could have been {the art of puritan warfare}. The author tells of the barbaric, imperialistic, and destructive engagements with the Irish as a prelude to the western invasion. This invasive group of people had plenty of practice. Word of advice, read slowly, don't miss anything...Fantastic Work...

I've been reading this book in the library along with other colonial American books and I have to say this is the least balanced of them all. Jennings view of the colonists is no better than 19th century historians views of the American Indians. His notions of Puritan conquests are almost completely unfounded. Just how was the Pequot war a Puritan conquest anyway? The Mohegan's and other smaller tribes in the area got just as much benefits from their destruction as the Puritans did. And his idea of King Philips war as a 'second Puritan conquest' also has no basis in fact, neither does his claims against John Eliot.
Every book I have read about King Philips war (Americans forgotten conflict, name of war, Civil war in New England) discredits Jennings notion.

Jennings deserves credit for his research, it is very throe and many other books use Jennings as a source. If you read the facts Jennings lays out, without his anti-colonial opinions you will see how little his opinions make sense.

For example, his opinion that the colonists were looking to conquer the Narragansetts right after the pequot war, which based on the evidence doesn't make sense. If the colonists wanted to they could have easily joined forces with the Mohegan's and attacked, however they negotiated and backed the Mohegan's defenses and kept peace in the region. Also Massachusetts backed the Narragansetts. So if the colonies wanted a 'conquest' of the Indians, than why would they all back different tribes? Why not back the tribes loyalist to them and play the tribes against each other? This could have been done but didn't happen. The facts do not support Jennings statements and raise more questions.

One part I looked at closely was Jennings talking about the formation of New Haven colony since I actually read the records Jennings used. While it is a little suspicious, Jennings forgot to mention how the quinnipiac Indians wanted protection against the Pequots and he didn't take into account the 'free gifts' given to the Indians which could certainly be considered as a type of payment. If you read the same account (which are from the same primary sources) in Vaughan's book you'll learn that the Indians who they slaughtered were Pequot fugitives on the run and not Quinnipiac Indians. Since the quinnipiac Indians wanted protection from New Haven colony against the Pequots, it seems unlikely that quinnipiac Indians were scared by the English into selling their land as Jennings suggests.

Also his bias' aren't very scholarly. In chapter 10 he states, "Seventeenth Century European culture is as much dead and gone (thank goodness) as is seventeenth century Indian culture." This (thank goodness) is very snide and just shows how he views the Indian culture as superior to that of the European. keep in mind he was just talking about culture here, is it really his place to judge that one culture at a time is better than another? Are we now judging cultures of different centuries based on events in one part of a continent?

Vaughan's Puritans and Indians is a much better balanced account of the relationships between the English and the Indians (and he uses mostly Primary sources). Warpaths: Invasion of North America is another balanced account of early New England. Read either of these books instead of this anti-colonist, revisionist, judgmental garbage.