Discussion Questions for the Comanche Empire – Readings in 19th Century American History

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

1. There are usually many stereotypes attributed to the Comanche and Native Americans in general. What was your original perception of Southwest history and the Comanche before you read this book?

2. How did this reading either enhance or change your understanding of the Comanche people?

3. What did you think of Hamalainen’s approach to the history of the southwest? Is it useful to start from the Native American perspective and look outward to the European colonists? Why or why not?

4. Would you describe the Comanche people as an empire after reading Hamlainen? Why or why not? What were some imperial qualities of the Comanche?

anubis2004

August 30, 2016 at 7:52 pm

Permalink

1. There are usually many stereotypes attributed to the Comanche and Native Americans in general. What was your original perception of Southwest history and the Comanche before you read this book?
a. Perception:
i. Personally, my southwest knowledge is limited to The Alamo in Texas, the Mexican-American War (which included the Southwest,) some early Spanish Empire atrocities against pueblo Indians and the final battles between the U.S. Cavalry and Apache. I knew the Comanche were in the region and gave the Euro-Americans a run for their money, but I never knew they played such a large role in the regions politics.
ii. I heard, in passing, that they played a larger role in the area than we are taught in school, but since none of my history books cared to focus on them, minus their final defeat by the US military, I assumed they were just another tribe fighting for survival against Euro-American invaders.
b. Stereotypes:
i. I assumed they were a branch of the Apaches, at times, a more vicious branch, but a branch nonetheless.
ii. As mentioned above, because they were never focused on, I assumed they were a pueblo peoples like the Zuni and Hopi, which I assume the Apache are/were? That they did their best to fight off the encroaching “white man” from the south (Spanish/Mexican) and east (US).
iii. I for one never expected the French to be involved whatsoever in Comanche politics, considering the French sold the Louisiana territory to the US in 1803 and were out of the picture henceforth.
iv. From my past studies on the Hopi culture, which also mentioned the Zuni and Navajo, I understood these Native Americans to be semi-docile. Not to say they didn’t have wars and such, but that their main focus was on living, religion, farming and trading.
1. These studies did say, though, that once the Navajo “invaded” from the Plains or from somewhere north of the Southwest, wars broke out between the “native” peoples of the area and the arriving Navajo, with the Navajo “technically” winning and etching out an area to live in and prosper.
v. The only facts I knew about the Apache were that they were great at guerrilla warfare, especially under the leadership of Geronimo, and that they were hard to pacify.
2. How did this reading either enhance or change your understanding of the Comanche people?
a. This reading completely changed my understanding of the Southwest. Heck, I never knew or heard of Comancheria or Apacheria before this paper/book. I understood the Southwest as only having spotted Spanish/Mexican outposts/colonies, the “native” pueblo cultures, Apaches, Comanches, and once the Americans arrived in-mass, post-Mexican-American War, the cavalry made semi-quick work subduing the “locals” except for Geronimo and some Comanche raids/attacks.
b. I never knew that there were Imperialistic Indian tribes in the Southwest, be it in their own fashion, and not based on Euro-American traditions. The Mississippian/Mound builder culture of the American South were also an Imperialist culture from a certain point-of-view, for they too spread their culture, religion, customs and knowledge, not only by force but by trade, very similar to the Comanche.
3. What did you think of Hamalainen’s approach to the history of the southwest? Is it useful to start from the Native American perspective and look outward to the European colonists? Why or why not?
a. I found Hamalainen’s approach handy and representative of a Native American historian. Not that starting from the Native’s POV is wrong or anything, I would have done it in a slightly different way. I would have added some history of the Old World as a reference, so my reader knew that as all of this North American migration and butting heads was happening, blank was happening in the Old World at the same time.
b. Hamalainen goes into this detailed history, pg 21 and beyond, on the ancestors of the Comanche and where they and their language came from, but nothing on what was happening in Spain/Europe/Old World, leading these cultures toward direct contact.
c. I do find that sometimes historians focus on one side or another, and never give a full and detailed history of the times. Historians sometimes forget to go HOLISTIC in their work, and that annoys me, because I like to know what’s going on in the years talked about, especially if it involves two or more different cultures.
d. With all that said, I like the way it was structured: Intro/what he’s going to talk about, History/Native POV, Euro-American interactions and reasoning’s. It goes from one part to the next relatively smoothly and progresses from stage to stage without leaving many lingering questions.
4. Would you describe the Comanche people as an empire after reading Hamlainen? Why or why not? What were some imperial qualities of the Comanche?
a. Personally, I would, because Comancheria, although not structured like a Euro-American empire, contained all the qualities of one.
i. “from 1750 to 1850, the Comanche were the dominant people in the Southwest, and they manipulated and exploited the colonial outposts in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and northern Mexico to increase their safety, prosperity, and power. They extracted resources and labor from their Euro-American and Indian neighbors through thievery and tribute and incorporated foreign ethnicities into their ranks as adopted kinspeople, slaves, workers, dependents, and vassals. The Comanche empire was powered by violence, but like more viable empires, it was first and foremost an economic construction.” (pg, 2)
b. Although not a typical imperial empire by Euro-American standards, its empire was a creation of itinerant nomadic bands who did not seek to establish colonies or direct rule over a subjected people. They sought informal rule, for cultural and military reasons. These Comanche bands and sub-bands formed an internally fluid but externally coherent coalition that was able to exert violence, diplomacy, extortion, trade, and kinship politics over a wide area more freely than the more rigid Euro-American empires. (pg, 2-4) “The Comanches… aim was not to conquer or colonize, but to coexist, control, and exploit.” (pg, 4) They ruled by keeping their empire “fluid and malleable.” (pg, 4) This enabled them to adjust, endure, rebuild, modify their economics when needed, and to fight and resist when threatened.

One thought on “Discussion Questions for the Comanche Empire”

anubis2004
August 30, 2016 at 7:52 pm

1. There are usually many stereotypes attributed to the Comanche and Native Americans in general. What was your original perception of Southwest history and the Comanche before you read this book?
a. Perception:
i. Personally, my southwest knowledge is limited to The Alamo in Texas, the Mexican-American War (which included the Southwest,) some early Spanish Empire atrocities against pueblo Indians and the final battles between the U.S. Cavalry and Apache. I knew the Comanche were in the region and gave the Euro-Americans a run for their money, but I never knew they played such a large role in the regions politics.
ii. I heard, in passing, that they played a larger role in the area than we are taught in school, but since none of my history books cared to focus on them, minus their final defeat by the US military, I assumed they were just another tribe fighting for survival against Euro-American invaders.
b. Stereotypes:
i. I assumed they were a branch of the Apaches, at times, a more vicious branch, but a branch nonetheless.
ii. As mentioned above, because they were never focused on, I assumed they were a pueblo peoples like the Zuni and Hopi, which I assume the Apache are/were? That they did their best to fight off the encroaching “white man” from the south (Spanish/Mexican) and east (US).
iii. I for one never expected the French to be involved whatsoever in Comanche politics, considering the French sold the Louisiana territory to the US in 1803 and were out of the picture henceforth.
iv. From my past studies on the Hopi culture, which also mentioned the Zuni and Navajo, I understood these Native Americans to be semi-docile. Not to say they didn’t have wars and such, but that their main focus was on living, religion, farming and trading.
1. These studies did say, though, that once the Navajo “invaded” from the Plains or from somewhere north of the Southwest, wars broke out between the “native” peoples of the area and the arriving Navajo, with the Navajo “technically” winning and etching out an area to live in and prosper.
v. The only facts I knew about the Apache were that they were great at guerrilla warfare, especially under the leadership of Geronimo, and that they were hard to pacify.
2. How did this reading either enhance or change your understanding of the Comanche people?
a. This reading completely changed my understanding of the Southwest. Heck, I never knew or heard of Comancheria or Apacheria before this paper/book. I understood the Southwest as only having spotted Spanish/Mexican outposts/colonies, the “native” pueblo cultures, Apaches, Comanches, and once the Americans arrived in-mass, post-Mexican-American War, the cavalry made semi-quick work subduing the “locals” except for Geronimo and some Comanche raids/attacks.
b. I never knew that there were Imperialistic Indian tribes in the Southwest, be it in their own fashion, and not based on Euro-American traditions. The Mississippian/Mound builder culture of the American South were also an Imperialist culture from a certain point-of-view, for they too spread their culture, religion, customs and knowledge, not only by force but by trade, very similar to the Comanche.
3. What did you think of Hamalainen’s approach to the history of the southwest? Is it useful to start from the Native American perspective and look outward to the European colonists? Why or why not?
a. I found Hamalainen’s approach handy and representative of a Native American historian. Not that starting from the Native’s POV is wrong or anything, I would have done it in a slightly different way. I would have added some history of the Old World as a reference, so my reader knew that as all of this North American migration and butting heads was happening, blank was happening in the Old World at the same time.
b. Hamalainen goes into this detailed history, pg 21 and beyond, on the ancestors of the Comanche and where they and their language came from, but nothing on what was happening in Spain/Europe/Old World, leading these cultures toward direct contact.
c. I do find that sometimes historians focus on one side or another, and never give a full and detailed history of the times. Historians sometimes forget to go HOLISTIC in their work, and that annoys me, because I like to know what’s going on in the years talked about, especially if it involves two or more different cultures.
d. With all that said, I like the way it was structured: Intro/what he’s going to talk about, History/Native POV, Euro-American interactions and reasoning’s. It goes from one part to the next relatively smoothly and progresses from stage to stage without leaving many lingering questions.
4. Would you describe the Comanche people as an empire after reading Hamlainen? Why or why not? What were some imperial qualities of the Comanche?
a. Personally, I would, because Comancheria, although not structured like a Euro-American empire, contained all the qualities of one.
i. “from 1750 to 1850, the Comanche were the dominant people in the Southwest, and they manipulated and exploited the colonial outposts in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and northern Mexico to increase their safety, prosperity, and power. They extracted resources and labor from their Euro-American and Indian neighbors through thievery and tribute and incorporated foreign ethnicities into their ranks as adopted kinspeople, slaves, workers, dependents, and vassals. The Comanche empire was powered by violence, but like more viable empires, it was first and foremost an economic construction.” (pg, 2)
b. Although not a typical imperial empire by Euro-American standards, its empire was a creation of itinerant nomadic bands who did not seek to establish colonies or direct rule over a subjected people. They sought informal rule, for cultural and military reasons. These Comanche bands and sub-bands formed an internally fluid but externally coherent coalition that was able to exert violence, diplomacy, extortion, trade, and kinship politics over a wide area more freely than the more rigid Euro-American empires. (pg, 2-4) “The Comanches… aim was not to conquer or colonize, but to coexist, control, and exploit.” (pg, 4) They ruled by keeping their empire “fluid and malleable.” (pg, 4) This enabled them to adjust, endure, rebuild, modify their economics when needed, and to fight and resist when threatened.

Comments are closed.