Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011
For years, scholars of Native American history have urged U. S. historians to integrate Indians into national narratives, explaining that Indians' experiences are central to the collective story rather than peripheral to it. They have achieved some successes in penetrating and reworking traditional European-American dominated accounts. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the field of colonial history. In fact, for several decades now colonialists have placed Native Americans at the center, seeing them as integral to imperial processes and as forces that simply can no longer be ignored. To omit them would be to leave out not only crucial participants but important themes. Native people occupied and owned the property European nations coveted. They consequently suffered great losses as imperialists bent on control of land, resources, cultures, and even souls applied their demographic and technological advantages. But conquest did not occur overnight. It took several centuries for Spain, France, the Netherlands, Russia, Great Britain, and eventually the United States to achieve continental and hemispheric dominance. Nor was it ever totally achieved. That 564 officially recognized tribes exist in the early 2000s in the United States demonstrates that complete conquest was never realized.
1 White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics, 1650–1815 (New York, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is just one of many examples of the marriage between the “New Indian History” and colonial history.
2 For a recent study of a strong, interior tribe that enhanced its power during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, see Hamalainen, Pekka, The Comanche Empire (New Haven, 2008).Google Scholar