Rate this book

El Imperio Comanche (2011)

by Pekka Hämäläinen(Favorite Author)

4.13 of 5 Votes: 4

ISBN

8499420796 (ISBN13: 9788499420790)

languge

English

genre

History & Biography

publisher

Península

review 1: Okay, I'll get this out of my system first: skip chapter 6. There, that's better.It's not often that I read a book that fundamentally changes my sense of a major part of American history, especially not in one of the areas I read a lot in. PH's reconsideration of the history of the southern plains and Southwest does just that. The basic argument is clear: in order to understand the history of the region she (he? Finnish names confuse me) focuses on the areas encompassing Texas, New Mexico and extending both north and south, concentrating on the 18th and 19th centuries. The way I was taught the story, it focused on the struggle for dominance between Spain, France, the United States and the Republic of Texas. If the Comanche appeared at all, it was as a savage tribe imp... moreeding the march of European conquest: what PH refers to as the "barrier hypothesis." Toss that one in the dumpster.What PH shows is that Comanche were in fact the controlling presence in the story. Not simply warriors and raiders, they constructed a complex multi-ethnic, economically diversified society capable of manipulating the other players in the game for its own needs. It was far more important for settlers around San Antonio or the pueblos around Taos to accommodate the Comanche than Mexico City or Washington. The Comanche formed alliances with various powers (Native and European) at various times; by the early 19th century they pretty much ran the joint. As PH argues, the key is recentering our attention to the interior and rethink events from there. It's a brilliantly executed book, one that illuminates all sorts of moments. To cite just one example, she argues convincingly that the American victory in the Mexican war happened in large part because the Comanche had already routed Mexican defenses. Equally fascinating and convincing is PH's discussion of the decline of the Comanche power, which took place in two waves: the first caused in large part by economic over-expansion and drought; the second by the ascendency of American military power in the 1870s.Back to chapter six. The one clunker, and it's not trivial, is PH's superficial treatment of Comanche culture. In the rest of the book, she deals very nicely with sources that are pushing their own agendas: Spanish bureaucrats and governors, trappers, captives. IN chapter six, she goes simplistic, relying on reports from white outsiders who very clearly don't understand the difference between various Native cultures. She glides over Comanche religion in a couple of superficial pages. I don't know the literature on Comanche culture in any detail, but I do know that any treatment that purports to reflect the internal dynamics needs to know something about how the Comanche themselves understand the story. Oral tradition is key to that. It's not a minor glitch because the image of the comanche in chapter 6 reduces them back to stereotype. PH contradicts herself on the nature of Comanche slavery and the question of hierarchy within the tribe. It's just a mess.On a more general level, while I'm convinced of PH's argument, I'm not convinced that what they had was an "empire" in any meaningful sense. In the epilog (which is a nice overview in general), she defends the phrasing, but to my mind undercuts it every two or three sentences. The Comanche relationship with the ethnic groups (Native and European) they incorporated into the tribe differs so starkly from that of the Brits or Romans (take you pick of other clear empires) that what's left doesn't feel imperial at all tome. The key to Comanche relations with the world, as PH makes clear, was in kinship, fictive or otherwise. Not in simple domination. I'm guessing that a deeper understanding of the culture would result in a clearer sense of the differences.Despite the quibbles, this is a major work of Native, Western and American history.
review 2: I became interested in the Comanches after reading Empire of the Summer Moon, a bestseller last year about Comanche chief Quanah Parker and the last few decades of the tribe's nomadic life on the Southwestern grasslands. Unlike Summer Moon, which was written by a journalist, Comanche Empire begins at the beginning, when the tribe first appears on the scene as a distinct group in the 17th century. Written by a history professor, it is focused on their political and economic dominance in the region and spares us the grisly details of their violence so prominent in Summer Moon. Comanche Empire is more like a textbook, calm and thorough, while Summer Moon is a popular account drenched in blood.After reading Summer Moon, I had an opportunity to visit Palo Duro Canyon in Texas, the site of the Comanches'"last stand" as an independent people, now a state park. In the park's visitor center bookstore, Summer Moon was conspicuously absent and I asked why. The staff person explained that a descendant of Quanah Parker had told them it contained factual inaccuracies and the park management decided not to stock it. A review of Summer Moon in the Austin Chronicle calls it "awkwardly romanticized," relying on "wispy strands of Comanche social history." However, Summer Moon got me interested and led me deeper, so it was helpful in that way. I'd barely heard of the Comanches before that, but their role in the history of the West was major and totally fascinating. less

Download links for: El Imperio Comanche

Advertising