blogspot visitor
The Wordy Shipmates Book Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

wordyshipmates.jpg
100 Books in One Year: The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell

Cannonball Read / Marra Alane

Book Reviews | January 9, 2009 | Comments (14)

(Publisher’s Note: For those keeping track at home, Marra Alane has pulled into third place in the Cannonball Read, right behind Prisco, who is clinging to a small lead over Sophie).

As I think I’ve already made pretty clear, I’m super gay for Sarah Vowell. I think she’s brilliant, funny, and has a singular voice when it comes to narrating historical subjects that may at first seem dull. Following the formation of the Boston Colony from its start in England to its splintering into the several factions, using primarily old court documents, John Winthrop’s diary, and a Brady Bunch episode, The Wordy Shipmates is a very witty and entertaining look at both the history of the Puritans as well as their own philosophies.

First of all, John Winthrop is a hell of guy. By today’s standards, he’s unbelievably harsh — he orders a man’s ears to be cut off and banished from the colony. However, he allows the man to stay until winter is over, which doesn’t go over well with some other colonists, who feel Winthrop was a bit of a pansy when it comes to punishment. However, he’s also pure of heart and truly believes in the brotherhood and selflessness of their religion to the point where his “City on a Hill” sermon isn’t some retarded Reagan line but something even I want to believe in. The line the Puritans are teetering on between outright treason of the British Crown and following their religious convictions is precarious at best — it’s a constant struggle to serve both the King and God. If religious friction is the kind of thing your interested in, it plays out like a melodrama; it’s fascinating.

As for the Puritans dealings with the Native Americans, it’s one of those situations where you understand what happened theoretically, and you know it’s horrifying, but when someone spells it out for you it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase white guilt. I mean, I have ancestors who settled the colonies. Which means I had ancestors who gave more than just smallpox blankets; I had ancestors who set a village full of innocents on fire and systematically shot the women and children who fled the inferno. As Vowell points out, it’s helpful to remember that these people are far closer to the Inquisition than the Enlightenment when it comes to the historical timeline; but still, it’s difficult to comprehend.

Which isn’t to say the Indians don’t do a fair amount of fucking themselves over. Each tribe is jockeying for supremacy, and the politics between them is both devious and fascinating — especially with Uncas, Metacomet, and the wars between the Dutch and English. Uncas, for example, wasn’t like the movie Last of the Mohicans portrays him to be — a lovable sidekick, but rather a manipulative, unctuous bastard who threw his own brethren to the wolves. He does these things not because he’s a bad man, but because he sees the writing on the wall, and realizes that the only way his people can survive is through the protection of the English. And even then, it’s pretty much hopeless. But hey, we named my high school after King Philip, so it’s all good.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. Details are here and the growing number of participants and their blogs are here. And check here for more of Marra Alane’s reviews.


← The Reader Review | Tron 2.0 News →





Comments

Sarah Vowell wrote a great portion of this in our marital bed. She did great work, but it led to our inevitable breakup and my commitment to a mental institution. You can come back any time, Sarah. I can't live without you!

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at January 9, 2009 8:13 AM

"Which isn't to say the Indians didn't do a fair amount of fucking themselves over"


You goddamn piece of shit Imperialist. No you insane bitch, America took a shit all over the Indians and are still shitting on them. You think you can let them run a casino and that is supposed to absolved you of your crime of damn near wiping them off the face of the earth?

Posted by: Pookie at January 9, 2009 8:45 AM

Nice review Marra.

It's good to see that Pookie is back to his old self. That nicey-nicey shit yesterday was really messed up.

Posted by: admin at January 9, 2009 8:50 AM

Pookie: Ummmm...Calm down a bit, honey. The settlers weren't the only ones wiping out indian tribes is all she's saying.

Great review Marra! I read this on vacation and absolutely loved it!

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at January 9, 2009 9:02 AM

These fucking guys opening up a big mouth always breaking my balls. If I say good morning I'm a fat hump, and if I say nothing I'm a douche bag. I can't win for nothing. You fucking people ain't going to have me to push around much longer. Pookie going to get his wings, and fly, so high, up into the sky.

Posted by: Pookie at January 9, 2009 9:15 AM

I'm sorry Jeremy, please forgive me for saying anything negative about those nice Christian settlers.

Posted by: Pookie at January 9, 2009 9:27 AM

I'm with Pookie on this one. Nothing, absolutely nothing, the native nations did in response to the arrival of the "settlers" (as we so euphemistically refer to them: they were foreign invaders) can mitigate by one iota what was done to them by successive waves of these "settlers".

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 9, 2009 9:58 AM

Great review, Marra! My favorite thing about Sarah Vowell's books is that the facts can stick with you and pop up quite unexpectedly. The "City on the Hill" section of this book was endlessly useful during the election, and the seeds of church/state separation in the Mass. Bay Colony helped build a peer's thesis argument.

Also, now I may need to reread The Partly Cloudy Patriot, at least the first chapter, to compare/contrast the 2000 inauguration experience and the 2008 inauguration experience. Spoiler alert: probably less egg throwing.

Posted by: foursweatervests at January 9, 2009 10:28 AM

Justify what happened to Native Americans? No, but maybe put it in historical perspective. I just finished reading The Shipwreck that Saved Jamestown, about the settlement of Virginia. The English settlers/invaders were originally encouraged to make peace with the Native Americans, war being bad for trade and all, and this being an expedition primarily designed to make the English sponsors rich on American natural resources, and secondarily to bring Christianity to the "heathens". Well, the Powhatans saw them as invaders, and weren't themselves so well disposed towards peace and brotherly love. They had longstanding disputes with other tribes, and this was just one more tribe on their turf. There was shitload of atrocities on both sides, some occasional peaceful trading, and then more atrocities, before the settlers finally had the numbers and strength to stomp all over them for good.

It's simply not useful to cast one side as villains and the other as victims in any depiction of history. Life is just never that black and white. Do I think Native Americans *deserved* to be almost exterminated? No, of course not, and I don't think I'm some casual apologist for Manifest Destiny. I just think it's fascinating that we can get a more in-depth and balanced perspective of what we have come to view as historical facts.

Posted by: Wednesday at January 9, 2009 10:48 AM

Pooks: Seriously, the settlers brought douchebaggery to a whole new level. I'm with you on that one. That being said, while they are responsible for most of the slaughtering of native tribes, there was also infighting between the tribes as well. All I'm saying is, while the settlers were primarily responsible for going about wiping entire tribes of people in the most brutal means possible, they weren't the only ones. The book explains this a little better, but hopefully you get the point.

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at January 9, 2009 11:08 AM

Paddydog - you're absolutely right. There is no justification for what whitey did to the Native Americans. However, it's important to remember that the Native Americans weren't 1960s hippies or children; there were many tribes and very complicated, complex politics and rivalries, just like their European counterparts. What I meant to say (and I'm sorry for being such a terrible reviewer) was that while the European invaders exterminated the tribes and no one can aplogize or explain that away, Sarah Vowell does a good job presenting the battling tribes; there was an intense layer of fear that colors the actions of the tribes, and they used the help from the Europeans to help further their own agendas and to do their best to protect their own tribes as much as they could.

Posted by: Marra at January 9, 2009 11:18 AM

Nothing, absolutely nothing, the native nations did in response to the arrival of the "settlers" (as we so euphemistically refer to them: they were foreign invaders) can mitigate by one iota what was done to them by successive waves of these "settlers".

Hold on there, I still have a lot of trouble digesting corn.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at January 9, 2009 11:35 AM

Marra:

Apologies; I wasn't commenting on your piece: I thought it was a great review of a book I thoroughly enjoyed. Mine was more of a general comment that people who say the native americans were violent and therefore there's blame to be shared are full of shit. The behavior of native peoples (which was incredibly violent and atavistic in many cases) should not be judged against the imperialist decision to land grab and eradicate populations considered inferior.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 9, 2009 12:03 PM

I'm with the Indians on this one. I think someone surmised that largely the only reason why the Pilgrims even managed to get a foothold on American soil was because of sailors who plied the area a few years before the Pilgrims hit land.

The sailors didn't kill the Indians, oh no, but I think smallpox did. That's why all those early American accounts are of miraculously discovering park-like forests cleared of underbrush and stashes of food in a largely depopulated land, all provided by a loving and sweet breathed God (and by loving, I meant jealous, and by sweet breathed, erratic on the best of days, and downright nasty on the worst). People were right, yes, that the Indians did fight back, but the remaining tribes (especially those under King Phillip) were literally starving to death and fighting for their very survival.

I know, I know, it's more nuanced by that, but Pilgrims were dicks, by and large. (And I'm looking at you, Mary Rowlandson, you racist bitch.)

Posted by: noah at January 9, 2009 5:56 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.