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
Pekka Hamalainen’s Comanche Empire gave an alternative perspective of the colonial Southwest. The Comanche can be viewed as an empire even though their nomadic lifestyle may not have matched other imperial attempts occurring in the eighteenth century (2-4). This book made it clear that the Comanche people were capable of diplomatic relations and economic expansion that made them a good candidate to be a colonial power among other European nations. The Comanche people knew how to take advantage by expanding and benefiting from the other powers living around them. Hamalainen’s argument is valid because the Comanche people outlasted the colonial attempts of Spain and France in North America.
After reading the Comanche Empire, I gained a better understanding of the complex character of the Comanche people. Instead of describing the Southwest strictly through the lens of the European colonial powers, Hamalainen attempted to create a more dynamic picture of the Comanche way of life. These people may have been great horsemen and raiders, yet Hamalainen went even further to understand their cultural, political, and economic reasons for their actions. For example, the Comanche moved further into Spain’s Texas territory so they could have a good supply of grass for their horses (57). This and other examples helped me identify the human agency of the Comanche that is often disregarded in past history. The Comanche empire worked so well because it adapted to its changing environment and established a dominant presence in the early Southwest.
I also found that Hamalainen not only described a complex Comanche group, but he also clearly explained the Spanish perspective of the Southwest. Both the Comanche and the Spanish tend to be understood through stereotypes. What I read in these excerpts is that these two interacted with each other trying to find ways to live peaceably together. For the Comanche, trade and gifts were important aspects of their economic and cultural practices. The Spanish Governor Cachupin recognized the need to compromise by giving the Comanche gifts and returning captives in return for peaceful trading in Taos (53-55). While the Spanish did not colonize the Southwest to their best advantage, Cachupin demonstrated one instance where cooperation with the Comanche could lead to peaceful relations.
I agree with Alyssa and her discussion of cameo appearances in history. Native Americans have been set aside in written history and they only have an occasional presence in the story of American History. Hamalainen also explained that historians “have to turn the telescope around and create models that allows us to look at Native policies toward colonial powers as more than defensive strategies of resistance and containment” (7). Past historiography has placed the Native Americans on the outskirts of Southwest history. Hamalainen challenged that interpretation by presenting the Comanche as an empire that was a strong power in the west even before the United States reached them.
Hamalainen’s Comanche Empire provided a different approach than is normal for previous Southwest or American histories. It allowed me to see that the United States was not the only dominant power in North America. There were other colonial efforts in existence by Europeans and non-Europeans even before the United States became a country.