Author: Dr. Shrout

Andrew C. Lipman’s article regarding the constantly shifting nature of early coastal interactions between native Americans and European colonists reveals an interesting insight into duel discovery. Lipman’s discussion focuses on the murder of Englishman John Oldham, his accused assassins, and the mystery of the incident itself. I found the article to be very informative on the early relations between the colonists and the native tribes, even as Lipman uses the term “indian” to describe the indigenous tribes throughout his article. The focus of John Gallop, an English skipper, and his vived description of Oldham’s gruesome remains also caught may attention as Lipman later elaborates on Gallop’s dislike for indigenous people due to the death of his son during King Philips war. The actual story of how and why Oldham was murdered may be lost, but the incident would become another motive for the Pequot War between English colonists and their native allies against the Pequot tribe. Though I found it fascinating that it was later discovered that the Pequot had nothing to do with Oldham’s murder. Conspiracies and racial tensions surround the bloody encounter, as Lipman further elaborates in his article. Through the incident we learn that European colonist underestimated native nautical knowledge which would prove troublesome during the Pequot war, such as when the Mohegens would use their canowes (for their warriors, captives, and refuges) and out maneuver the English ships on the River of Connecticut. Europeans hiring natives on their ships for navigation and translations was also an interesting aspect to the article as it shed some light on to how some natives could have commandeered Oldhams vessel after his death, though not for a long period of time.

Overall, I found Lipman’s article to be an engaging look into early interactions between to vastly different groups of people and how any disagreement could instantly result in bloodshed and war. Even though there was no clear answer to the case of john Oldham’s murder, the story surrounding the incident was even more informative on early colonial life in the Americas.

…read more

This week’s writing assignment starts off with a gruesome tail of a violent exchange between the English and natives. The purpose of this demonstration and the reading in general is to show the underlying factors that contributed to poor relations between them. One key factor is the idea of mutual misunderstanding, where relations turn sour between two parties as a result of both misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the other’s actions, intentions, etc. Many of the locations of native populations were desirous of the Europeans for prospective colonies, trade, and military advantage. While this did not provide justification for some of the Europeans actions and attitudes toward the natives, it did provide some motivation. Leading up to the Pequot War, natives were found to be particularly helpful to the Europeans, proving themselves better navigators in many ways. Their canoes maneuvered easier and faster than those of the English, which proved advantageous when fighting the English. At the same time, the larger sailing vessels of the Europeans had advantages of their own. Classmate Tram Hua points out that one of the main points is to highlight competition between the Natives and English. While this was certainly a key point in this reading, I think it is a smaller piece of a larger picture, being the Europeans’ much more urgent competition with each other. The reading reinforces this idea, explaining that “War with the Pequots would help the English extinguish the Dutch West India Company’s easterly claims in a way that war with the Narragansetts would not” (page 290). Relations and interactions between natives and Europeans often result from mutual misunderstanding. More often than not, Europeans would then capitalize on these situations not only establishing themselves as the dominant party with the natives, but also gaining advantage over their European rivals.

…read more

In Murder on the Saltwater Frontier, Andrew C. Lipman explains how the the murder of John Oldham directly impacted the relationship between European settlers and Native Americans. While relationships between the two groups were originally intended as cultural exchange (Lipman, 282), tensions increased and violence escalated as Europeans and Native Americans took prisoners and destroyed ships. Oldham’s 1636 death and John Stone’s 1634 murder eventually led to the Pequot War (Lipman, 270). The stories and interpretations of these killings eventually changed over time, contributing to the rising animosity between the two groups. Viktoriya Shalunova stated in her post that from Oldham’s murder, “colonist’s started a two year war with the Indians that included the killing, dismembering, and enslaving of Indians.” I found this argument interesting and detailed, as the rising tension between Native Americans and Europeans are graphic and stem from small incidents that grew over time.

Shalunova’s point reminds me of Lipman’s concluding paragraph that states that Oldham’s murder was advantageous in allowing Puritan settlements to gain economic, military, and commercial dominance (Lipman, 294). When Lipman discusses the territory of the Puritans as a “landless borderland that was far too fluid and shifting for their liking” (Lipman, 294), this reminds me of John Gillis’ Islands of the Mind. A land without borders contributes to the perceived exoticism of the New World, and as a result of this mysticism, European psychology about settlement and normalization was amplified with the murder of John Oldham. What was originally an open-and-shut case, the killing of John Oldham and its tellings represent the convolution of truth over time that leads to the vague yet powerful hatred between Europeans and Native Americans.

…read more

1. The experiences of female African slaves in the Atlantic
2. The roles of women as a whole in the Atlantic
3. The different experiences and roles of slaves as a whole in the Atlantic

…read more

Like many other tales of murder, the death of John Oldman seems simple; Oldham ended up in a watery grave and justice was quickly dispensed to those who killed him, launching the Pequot War. However, the tale of his death, which is much more complex, begins with a century long conflict that had been going on between Indians and Europeans (pg. 273). Lipman emphasizes that in order to properly understand both Oldman’s murder and the conflict between the two groups, one must look to the sea.

Although there were other reasons for the conflict, the Europeans for centuries had considered themselves the “lords” of the sea, while the Indians had just been ignorant bystanders (pg. 274). In fact, not were the Indians cartographic and geographic knowledge of the region more sophisticated than that of the Europeans, many times their vessels also were, so much so that the European often copied and stole Indian canoes (pg. 280). This led to resentment from many Indian groups towards the Europeans. This resentment was exacerbated by European reliance on Indian navigation and knowledge of coastal areas. On several different occasions, Europeans took Pequots hostage to use them as guides (pg. 283). European’s view of their own supremacy combined with resentment and distrust from the Pequot changed diplomacy between the groups and made them resentful of each other.

My colleague Tram Hua suggests that the rivalry between Indians and Europeans was one of the main points that the author made, which I agree with. While the author mentions the actual death and killing of Oldman, the bulk of his argument is about the conflicts and the lack of diplomacy leading up to the war. Furthermore, he highlights the importance of the sea and the conflicts it created between the two groups.

…read more

This article touches on the death of John Oldham and all of the related events and details that were associated with his slaying. The article starts by talking about the actual event and the discovery of his body. The article then goes into discussing those that were involved in his death. The rest of the article is simply giving some historical context before the author finally gives their opinion on the matter as to why Oldham may have been slain.

One of the more interesting points that the author brings up is the fact that Native Americans were not just bound to land, but also took part in maritime activity. For me, this point was interesting as in my previous exposure to Native Americans they have always been depicted and discussed as if all native groups were land locked. In a way, this highlights how many people, ignorantly, believe that native peoples had far inferior technologies and cultures and that it was not until the arrival of Europeans that native peoples were able to become more “sophisticated”. Diana Tran brings up a very similar point in her post and even says that “Natives were constantly painted as barbarians or non-advanced people”.

Another interesting thing that this article highlights is the concept of Competition between nations which has been discussed in class before. In the reading, there is mention of the English and the Dutch being competitive in their pursuits of trade with the native peoples. This sort of competition or fighting over resources, such as trade, were not uncommon in the Atlantic and, were in fact, a major driving force of it.

…read more

…read more

The article Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldman by Andrew C. Lipman seeks to explain the causes of the Pequot War. Traditional literature paints Native Americans as land dwelling people who generally stayed off of the water. I assume the perception that they were not seafaring people comes from their lack of grand ships, similar to those that carried the Europeans across the Atlantic. This article shows that they were in fact capable of travel on the sea and were skilled navigators. Although they did their travel in small ships and row boats, they were able to use the seas to create an inter-tribe trading network. A popular belief is that the Native Americans lived on the land and the Europeans came from the sea. This establishes a barrier between land and sea that divides the two groups of people. The existence of a sea trading network not only proves that Native Americans were capable of traversing across the water, but it erases the rigid border between land and sea that has divided the cultures for so long. “Saltwater Frontier” was a fantastic term used by Lipman to describe this interactive area. He explains the use of this phase, “The phrase ‘‘saltwater frontier” is meant to evoke the fluid, shifting, and stormy quality of colonial and Native relations in the area” (272).

…read more

In this week’s article by Andrew Lipman, “Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: Death of John Oldham”, the North American coastline and its array of trade networks and players are put on display. The focus of the article is largely built around the death of John Oldham and the proposed start of the Perquot War. However, as Lipman points out it was not as cut and dry as it appeared. There are clues within the accounts of Oldham’s death and they give insight into the real factors that played a part in his fateful last voyage (270). Nothing is ever as it seems and upon reading this article you see that this is not just another colonist vs native American battle regarding breach of territory.

While Matt Everett states that it was “two competing forces of friction that led to deteriorated relations”. The forces within the North American coastline expanded beyond just the two typical forces: colonist vs native American. An interesting internal hierarchy is seen within the usually clumped together category of native Americans. The article does well in displaying this hierarchy, as “…the two largest powers in the region, the Pequots and the Narrangansetts looked to expand their respective orbits of subordinate villages” (286). Under these two heads of power, were the Manisses, and the Mohegan sachem Uncas which would often send many gifts of tribute in recognition of their hierarchical power. However, these subordinates were not content with their places among the “totem pole” and sought to make a difference. It was the quest for independence that led to the breaking of the hierarchy and it is “out of this climate of political instability and economic jealousy” that the plan to kill Oldham appears to arise (286).

At first assumption and based off of minimal knowledge of the Atlantic and all it entailed, one would assume that it was the English and Dutch colonizers that the term political instability and economic jealousy referred to. Yet, it was the native Americans that had established a working political system along the coastline and had done so long before the trade industry began on the North American coastline. These inhabitants of the new land known as America were in their own way very intelligent and capable individuals and groups, not the commonly depicted savages. In fact contrary to the English’s thought that the Indians were bound to the land and could not compete with them at sea, “newly arrived foreigners had to admit that they often lacked the skills that Indian waterman had developed in their frequent small-craft travel” (281). Likewise for the Indians and their ability to command the coastline, “Europeans could sometimes seem [as] unseaworthy companions” (281). The Indians were incredibly talented out on the water and in some cases surpassed the English in skills, however this is not how they are always painted out to be. Indians were actually so good in the coastal water that “Native people … served as the colonist’ de facto Coast Guard” (276) and helped rescue many castaways and colonists that were shipwrecked. Yet not all Indians on the North American coastline were as heroic and rather were after personal gain. Even the Pequots, though “conspicuously clean of Oldham’s blood” (284) were after territorial expansion and defense of their lands.

This leads to the discussion of the start of the Peqout War. Because the common assumption was to think that the native Americans were incapable of meeting the abilities of the colonists, it led to statements like Richard Hakluyt the elder;”the English’s prowess on the water would always give them a clear advantage over the Natives” (274). The arrogant thinking that colonizers were the best and could do as they pleased, essentially led to the death of John Stone. On a mission he captured two Pequot men and held them hostage and made them act as guides in order for him to make it up the river to his destination. Needless to say he was attacked and punished for his acts (283). Ultimately the start of the war did not begin with the death of two colonizers (John Oldham and John Stone), it was “that the English chose to go to war with the Pequots, just as they easily could have chosen to go to war with the Narragansetts” (291). The Pequots were a more sizable Indian power and had more resources and goods to be taken, which is why they made such a good target for the English. It was a political choice that proved to be all for the English’s gain. So while the death of John Oldham was one of hierarchical rebellion in order to make an independent name among the native Americans, the Perquot War was on of English politics for economical and territorial gain.

Lipman, Andrew C. “Murder on the Saltwater Frontier: The Death of John Oldham.” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9, no. 2 (2011): 268-294. https://muse.jhu.edu (accessed on September 25, 2016).

…read more

At first glance this article the Murder on the Saltwater Frontier by Andrew Lipman seem like a mystery-suspense murder story of John Oldham. In July 1636 John Gallop accidentally discovered a mutilated death body of John Odham at Block Island. The person responsible for Mr. Oldham’s murder was quickly revealed. But it was not the end, hundreds of Indians was killed, dismembered, or enslaved by English colonists looking to avenge Oldham’s murder (p, 270). John Oldham’s murder and Captain John Stone’ murder in 1634 were use as an excuse to launch the Pequot War.

Andrew Lipman stressed that the debate of whether the murders of John Oldham or Captain Stone caused the Pequot War was not important part of this article, but the rivalry between the Europeans and the Native Americans is. I agree with David Zamarripa-Shippey when he stated that an important argument of this article is to “refute the Eurocentric view that Europeans held naval and navigational supremacy over Native Americans.” While it cannot be denied that the Europeans held many superior strengths. The Europeans were arrogant when they did not consider the Natives to be nautical peoples (p, 273). In fact, the Indians had a long traditions of seagoing. Unlike the Europeans, they were good swimmers, they knew how to predict the weather patterns, even their canoes were much more efficient than the Europeans’.

…read more