This is a stunning piece of historical analysis, that I read with three hats on. The first, as a descendent of colonists who refuses to believe the simple myths and hierarchies of colonial history – the ideas of the superior Europeans and primitive indigenous peoples.
More importantly, though, I've read it as a tale the exposes the fragility of Empire in that it unpacks and exposes not only the utter dependence of early European/English colonists in America on the skills, knowledge, and relationships with (indigenous) Americans, but also the multi-layered character of their relationships: social, sexual, economic, religious, and so forth, along with all the conflicts these involve. Important elements come through making clear that the native-newcomer boundaries were far from clear and 'solid'. We see dissident puritans in New England in closer relationships with the Narragansett people than they were with other puritans in Plymouth, for instance. The stand-out chapter for me was the second to last where Kupperman explores ways that both Indians and English sought to incorporate their others, leading to a subtle and nuanced analysis of various liminal and interstital individuals, including an insightful if tantalisingly brief reading of Pocahontas (BTW – probably a nickname, and certainly not any of her 'real' names) and others who did not fit into either cultural world. She also makes the vital point that we so often miss in the turn to social and cultural history, and with it a tale of the fatal dispossession of native peoples, that colonialism was an economic project – ventures such as Jamestown and other English colonies in America were company ventures designed to make money for their investors, while others were also havens from religious intolerance, rather than projects primarily to take a superior European civilisation to the new world.
As a historian, however, the stunning thing about this book is Kupperman's use of sources. She starts from the premise that the only way colonists could know most of what they know about the world they write of is if the natives told them, so the colonists' sources can be read to reveal indigenous knowledge, voices, and experiences. It is a simple assumption that leads to some quite brilliant re-readings of the usual sources (John Smith, Thomas Harriot, and so on) to reveal the experiences of indigenous Americans. I am in awe of her grasp of the range of voices in the sources.
This is postcolonial history as it should be: the other includes the English colonists; the analysis addresses, as equally as possible, native and newcomer experiences; the tale told gets beyond the self-justifying narratives of colonial success to see the fragility of settlement, where the utter dependence of newcomer on native is so much more that the romantic Thanksgiving myths, alongside the deep-seated distrust and fear; the mutual incomprehension of each others mores, that in some cases led to avoidable war. It is, in short, a tale of colonialism as experienced by two groups of people, each of whom attempted to manage the experience in the way they new best and to ensure their own survival.
This is close to the finest piece of historical analysis I have read in years.