Newell explains the reasons behind, execution of, and ramifications of King Philip’s War. She wrote, “King Philp’s War, 1675-76, represented a watershed in Indian-English relations and the Native American experience on many fronts.” Ultimately, pressures placed on Native societies by British expansion created resentment. Furthermore, British demand for ever increasing numbers of forced laborers along with diminished power by once dominate Native groups exploded in violent conflict. This struggle for power is what differentiates Dr. Newell’s book from others covered in this paper. In the other monographs, there was clear intent to place power with one group over the other. While each details conflict as a result of that fight, Dr. Newell not only writes on that struggle but makes it central to her …show more content…
For the most part, all add to the conversation, although each is also flawed. Namely, all of the books are guided by bias of their writer. Good history is about discovering evidence, writing about those findings, and letting the facts lead to conclusions. Bad history is starting to write from a certain perspective and using evidence to support preconceived beliefs. When scholars write good history, it resonates and comes through the pages like sun through the clouds. Dr. Christina Snyder, professor of history at Indiana University, is such a scholar. Namely, she breaths a breath of fresh air into the historiography of indigenous slavery and the struggle over power in her book, Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America. From the beginning, she separates herself from others historians who have written on the topic when she wrote,” the standard historical narrative tells is that bondage was an American aberration. Restricted in time and space,”. Compared to the other monographs covered in this essay, she does not try and place power in one groups hands over