Traces Henry Morton Stanley's three-year African expedition that was launched with the official intention of rescuing Emin Pasha; governor of the southern Sudan; in an account that reveals Stanley's secret agenda of territorial expansion.
#1217128 in Books W.W. Norton Co 1976-10Ingredients: Example IngredientsOriginal language:EnglishPDF # 1 .74 x 4.82 x 7.31l; #File Name: 0393008304369 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. JENNINGS ON IVASION/COLONIZATION ESPECIALLY IN PART IBy Peter LoebBoth Part I and Part II explain much of the ground covered elsewhere onlybetter.Especially of note: Part one about the character and expression ofinvasion/colonization is as applicable to the Zionist invasion ofPalestine. It was not intended as such but is at any rate among thebest summaries of these events (equally applicableelsewhere as Jennnings documents well). (Naturally adjustmentsmust be made as all historical events and processes are"unique" due to place; time etc.). Jennings analysis is soon target that he is often cited elsewhere.A great history; more than worth your time and careful scrutiny.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. a must readBy A. JohnsonFilled with a lot of information; very detailed that we certainly didn't learn in school. Much of it I had never read anywhere - the myths that comforted the European invaders and conquerors - and the American historians - are being exploded at last. I found it a pageturner; painful to read but gripping.3 of 5 people found the following review helpful. first part ok; second really disappointingBy guardian to the gate of foreverPart I 4 starsPart II 2 starsThe two parts of this book are very disconnected. The first part is generally much better giving a broad overview of Colonial-Indian relations throughout the 17th and 18th centuries from a variety of different colonies. Ideology of of Europeans for colonizing; trade between the two cultures and land deeds as well as other aspects of their relations. It's pretty good but discombobulated at times because it spans two centuries and almost all of the colonies. It's good information and well written though.Part two is kind of strange. Throughout part one he seems to be saying that the Europeans and Indians had a unstable symbiosis that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't Then in part two he seems to be saying that the English of New England were trying to conquer the Indians from (at least) 1636 to 1675. Now this is completely different than his first argument. For some reason he just changes his mind and says that the Europeans were planning an invasion. The evidence doesn't really support this. Maybe in the Pequot war; however he downplays the Indians role in the war and after the war he is reduced to saying whenever Massachusetts wanted peace that they were just waiting to slowly chip away at the Indians land. Maybe they actually wanted peace because they just didn't want to fight? Certainly a logical possibility that he ignores. He recognizes the inter-colonial rivalry but then has to find a way to dismiss it later and say that all the colonies were plotting against the Indians. Again this isn't supported by the facts especially after the Pequot war. He probably could have made a better argument if he had chosen Virginia or another place where there was much less cooperation between the Indians and Colonists. If you simply read the facts he researched without adding the authors bias you can easily see how he tries to sway the facts.Overall its not horrible but he gives you a bias view of New England Puritans seeing all laws and actions as ways of taking the Indians lands; instead of self defense or Puritan conviction.It's worth a read though just take his commentary on the second part as his own conjecture and only one way to look at the facts.
