This is yet another offering in the Landmark series, which is usually pretty good, but in my opinion, as a historian, this is one of the more problematic ones, for a number of reasons. The primary problem with this particular volume is the manner in which it portrays the indigenous peoples that the Black Robes, as the missionaries were called, encountered and interacted with.
In addition to describing the explorations of the famous - or infamous, depending - Jesuit missionary and his journey down the Mississippi River, this book, perhaps more so than any other Landmark series offering I've read so far, also provides an opportunity to discuss the problematic and controversial role such figures played in American history, as well as the manner in which the people being written about are described and depicted.
A fair bit is known about Marquette's life, including prior to his arrival on the shores of the Americas. The book's content is primarily derived from his original journal, which, curiously, remained unread in a Jesuit archive in Montreal for nearly 200 years. As the book notes, his companion Joliet's writings were lost when his canoe overturned, but he was interviewed at a later date about what he had seen on the journey.
Jacques Marquette, born in France, studied to become a Jesuit at age 17. He was assigned to New France in 1666 as a missionary, first to Trois-Rivieres on the Saint Lawrence River. His famous journey is known as the Joliet-Marquette expedition, which entailed a perilous sojourn down the then-largely-unknown Mississippi River (which he termed the Riviere de la Conception).
Marquette and fur trader companion Louis Joilet came within about 435 miles of the Gulf of Mexico, but the group turned back at the mouth of the Arkansas River for fear of capture and probably certain death at the hands of the Spanish should they actually reach the Gulf. After traveling back upriver, the group then famously spent the winter on the site of what would become the city of Chicago, reportedly the first Europeans to do so.
As stated in the book, Marquette, shortly after the conclusion of his expedition, in about May, 1674, became gravely ill, suffering from a bout of severe dysentery, which he had apparently contracted on the journey. The book seems to suggest that it was a disease transmitted by mosquitoes, but this notion is largely unsupported. Apparently recognizing that his chances of recovery were slim, Marquette prepared his notes for publication and established a mission at Kaskaskia.
He died en route at age 37 in what is now Michigan, in May, 1675. After his death, he was buried near the site where he died, but his remains were later disinterred and brought to the chapel at Mission Saint-Ignace in 1677. Unfortunately, the chapel was destroyed by fire in 1706, but the grave was discovered in 1877 and a marker erected in 1882.
Not surprisingly, Marquette has become a more controversial figure in the last few decades, more for his missionary activities which sought to convert indigenous people from their native traditions and spiritual beliefs to Christianity, than for his explorations. As one publication noted, "like all social movements and the imperfect institutions that shape them, such initiatives inevitably leave mixed legacies: possible contributions, but also ethnocentric bias, misplaced intentions, and masked self-interest."
Notwithstanding Marquette's personal views, which many have noted were genuinely motivated by his deep religious convictions (as the book notes, he was encouraged even by his Jesuit superiors to view natives as Christian brothers), he is credited, for good or for ill, with ushering in the first non-native settlements in the North American interior, which allowed further inroads of Christianity, and many argue, rampant exploitation and eventual genocide, of native peoples.
It's also important to note, which the book fails to do, that the explorers did not actually "discover" the Mississippi River, of course, nor were they even the first Europeans to encounter it. Hernan de Soto crossed it more than a century prior to the Joliet-Marquette expedition, but the 17th-century travelers did document their findings and make rudimentary maps for others to follow. They also made it widely known that there was indeed a waterway which reached from the Great Lakes all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, if not the Pacific Ocean. This knowledge eventually had a dramatic impact on the settlement of the North American continent, which was finally recognized as a large land mass rather than a narrow strip of land between Europe and the far-flung Orient. As a result of Marquette and Company's venture, French officials, and later, the explorer LaSalle, built an elaborate network of trading posts in the region, primarily for the purpose of resource extraction - which had far-reaching consequences.
That said, there are some problems with this volume which leave me struggling to find a way to approach in a positive light. The material, which, as noted, is biased at best and outright insulting at worst. Perhaps its greatest contribution is that it offers the opportunity for discussion among older and younger readers - in that way, it can serve as an early lesson about literary criticism and how to "deconstruct" a text, which, as a former instructor, I can state with certainty is a sorrowfully-lacking skill. If there is a silver lining, it is that the book can allow enlightened readers to discuss the attitudes and biases of previous generations with young readers, emphasizing that our ideas and understanding of both events and the people involved in them change over time, as we learn more, including about ourselves.
That sentiment applies pretty much across the board for this series, in fact: I wish that the books took a more neutral tone with regard to many of the figures and events they portray and describe rather than to simply label the figures as "heroes," which is decidedly simplistic, and often just inaccurate. For example, in this instance, the author of the foreword refers to Father Marquette as "a real hero, greater than those created by fiction," but, rightly, many would disagree, as the exploits of missionaries have been re-examined by new generations of scholars who have revealed a more complete account of these figures. That allows readers, even young ones, to decide for themselves, and to engage with both sides of the story, which is also frequently lacking in the series, so to get it, you'll have to use some supplemental material which is more recent.
The greatest sins in this volume, which are markedly more numerous than other books in this series, frankly, revolve around the way in which native people are described and depicted. I acknowledge that much of the content may simply reflect the opinions and experiences of Pere Marquette himself, as documented in his journal - but that should be made far more clear to readers, especially young ones - that these are just the opinions of a European Jesuit missionary, an outsider and a foreigner, expressing beliefs and opinions from a decidedly one-sided perspective.
For example: the book repeatedly depicts indigenous peoples as dirty and unhygienic. "Cleanliness" is relative, especially in pre- or early-modern times, of course, but the notion that Native Americans were less hygienic than Europeans of the same period is blatantly false. This sentiment reflects a clear lack of understanding of native practices and cultural mores. Many tribes had a tradition of bathing in a river or lake every morning- come rain, shine, or blizzard - as cleanliness was so highly prioritized. In fact, one of the primary criticisms of white Europeans by natives the world over, in fact, including East Asia, was their lack of personal hygiene. It was not uncommon for a European woman to wash her hair a few times a YEAR - but one would have to read the opposing side of the story to know that, and the book certainly doesn't make any mention of it. It was also not uncommon for Europeans, especially the more radical Protestant groups, to NEVER remove all of their clothing, even for washing, so they relied mostly on "sponge bathing" rather than immersion in water, a tradition which would have been detestable and unthinkable for many native people.
The book also portrays native peoples as ignorant, superstitious and impulsive - almost animalistic, who killed each other off for the most insignificant slight - who believed in monsters, "demons" and all manner of supernatural forces. Recall, however, that the events described in the book were occurring at about the same time that the European Witchcraze was going on, when untold numbers of innocents - men, women, children, and even animals like dogs and cats - were being jailed, tortured and slaughtered for an unfounded belief in "demons" and the supernatural. The Salem Witch Trials, now widely acknowledged as one of the most shameful episodes in American history, had not even occurred at the time of this expedition. So much for superstitious, savage natives and their primitive beliefs in the supernatural.
The book also recognizes, but from a very biased perspective, the conflict which legitimately occurred between traditional indigenous practitioners and beliefs and European interlopers. The book repeatedly calls native healers "medicine men," and likewise portrays them as ignorant, superstitious and hostile to Europeans, who are depicted as the saviors, which, as a descendant of indigenous ancestors, is insulting, to say the least. Another example: the book proffers the notion, which may be a fictional rendering - and, if so, all the more infuriating - that all Marquette needed to do was to bathe and spoon feed the poor, sick Indians in order to "cure" them - because the natives were so backward that they were incapable of anything but the most rudimentary measures in caring for their own. Another example cited was the Jesuits putting their knowledge of Western "medicine" into practice to set a broken leg.
This suggestion just flies in the face of physical evidence. Native peoples pre-contact were skilled healers, to judge from indigenous naturopathic traditions and practices, which often displayed a high degree of sophistication in the use of medicinal plants and other natural remedies. Native Americans even used medical devices like crude syringes: sharpened, hollowed bird bones attached to an animal bladder to inject fluids into the body, sometimes to irrigate wounds, but also for ear cleaning and even enemas. Recall that one of the primary methods of "cure" among Europeans of the day was bleeding - meant to balance the body's four "hunours," an ancient Greek, but thoroughly debunked and discredited theory of disease - a practice which killed a number of historic figures, probably including George Washington, among many others.
European doctors, whose training was often minimal and ad-hoc, at best, were also rather fond of using deadly poisons, including lethal heavy metal compounds such as arsenic and mercury in medicines. Native American healers used far more effective methods than their European counterparts of this period for many treatments, such as the use of capsaicin, derived from chili peppers, for pain relief, a method which has even experienced renewed popularity in recent years, and jimsonweed as a topical analgesic. They also used sun screen, which was made from sunflower oil and sap, mouthwash, made from goldenthread, and medicines from more than 2,500 native plants. So, the European medical tradition of the day was not exactly something to be held in any particular esteem. Compared with European alternatives, give me boiled willow bark tea for a headache, any day!
Archaeological evidence also demonstrates the degree of sophistication of pre-Columbian peoples' techniques in wound care, including for the treatment of fractures, amputations, and even brain surgery, pre-European contact. Granted, not all tribes and cultures practiced these treatments, but portraying natives as utterly incapable of caring for their own sick is condescending and blatantly inaccurate. And, of course, it goes without saying: Marquette couldn't save himself from his bout of dysentery, and neither could any other European doctor.
And the natives' practice of chanting, singing and invoking the divine to aid in healing? That's called prayer - something that Europeans, certainly the Jesuits, engaged in also.
The book simply portrays natives, to put it bluntly, in an inferior light compared to the Jesuit missionaries come to save them, in both body and soul. For example, it was certainly not typical of native culture to leave those who fell behind to die, or to horde food and not share resources with their fellows during hard times, despite what Marquette may have reported. Regarding the event where he describes giving a handful of corn to one of the natives, whom he described as suspicious and initially unwilling to accept it: the book asserts that it was because it wasn't the "Indian way" to share food with companions. I'm highly dubious about this claim: in any event, there's no way to know for certain - the individual may have simply been wary of accepting something from a stranger, specifically a European.
Marquette may have learned six indigenous languages - to what degree of fluency is also questionable - which is laudable, but a deep understanding of native culture and beliefs was manifestly lacking, at least to judge from what's described in this short volume. I want to stop short of calling him an outright liar, or of exaggerating or fabricating events to either promote his and his superiors' ultimate agenda, for the nefarious purpose of enhancing their own power, position or reputation, or even out of unconscious confirmation bias, but neither am I prepared to simply accept his statements at face value. As stated, Marquette and his like were singularly concerned with converting people to their way of thinking and behaving, so it was in his best interest to play up the idea of the natives as savages in need of salvation, so I am unconvinced that his account of the various groups, which were not monolithic or homogeneous in any event, is an accurate depiction of what these cultures were really like.
And, as with many of the other Landmark books I've read so far, numerous terms found throughout are also dated and not infrequently insulting. It's nowadays thoroughly unacceptable to refer to indigenous peoples ("Indians" is fraught enough) as "wilderness savages." The highly insulting term "squaw," which I've written about previously, is also seemingly used interchangeably to describe any "native woman." I acknowledge, however, that this book is a product of its time, but these various issues should be explained to modern readers. Despite the shortcomings, I still think, due to the books' accessibility, engaging narrative and presentation of important events in our country's history, they are still very worthwhile, even for young readers, if with some adult guidance to add much-needed balance, perspective and occasionally, as here, accuracy, to the authors' statements. Remember: there are almost always (at least) two sides to every story.
As a last point: there's a Canadian film (1991) entitled "Black Robe," which is loosely based on Marquette's experiences, if you want the live action version of what his journey may have entailed ... but a word of warning: it is absolutely NOT for children (and many adults may find the material excessively graphic, so be forewarned). It tells the story of a Black Robe Jesuit missionary tasked with founding a mission, who must rely on a group of Algonquins to guide him through 1,500 miles of untamed wilderness. It's adapted from a 1985 novel of the same name. Spoiler alert: there are (almost) no survivors.
In addition to describing the explorations of the famous - or infamous, depending - Jesuit missionary and his journey down the Mississippi River, this book, perhaps more so than any other Landmark series offering I've read so far, also provides an opportunity to discuss the problematic and controversial role such figures played in American history, as well as the manner in which the people being written about are described and depicted.
A fair bit is known about Marquette's life, including prior to his arrival on the shores of the Americas. The book's content is primarily derived from his original journal, which, curiously, remained unread in a Jesuit archive in Montreal for nearly 200 years. As the book notes, his companion Joliet's writings were lost when his canoe overturned, but he was interviewed at a later date about what he had seen on the journey.
Jacques Marquette, born in France, studied to become a Jesuit at age 17. He was assigned to New France in 1666 as a missionary, first to Trois-Rivieres on the Saint Lawrence River. His famous journey is known as the Joliet-Marquette expedition, which entailed a perilous sojourn down the then-largely-unknown Mississippi River (which he termed the Riviere de la Conception).
Marquette and fur trader companion Louis Joilet came within about 435 miles of the Gulf of Mexico, but the group turned back at the mouth of the Arkansas River for fear of capture and probably certain death at the hands of the Spanish should they actually reach the Gulf. After traveling back upriver, the group then famously spent the winter on the site of what would become the city of Chicago, reportedly the first Europeans to do so.
As stated in the book, Marquette, shortly after the conclusion of his expedition, in about May, 1674, became gravely ill, suffering from a bout of severe dysentery, which he had apparently contracted on the journey. The book seems to suggest that it was a disease transmitted by mosquitoes, but this notion is largely unsupported. Apparently recognizing that his chances of recovery were slim, Marquette prepared his notes for publication and established a mission at Kaskaskia.
He died en route at age 37 in what is now Michigan, in May, 1675. After his death, he was buried near the site where he died, but his remains were later disinterred and brought to the chapel at Mission Saint-Ignace in 1677. Unfortunately, the chapel was destroyed by fire in 1706, but the grave was discovered in 1877 and a marker erected in 1882.
Not surprisingly, Marquette has become a more controversial figure in the last few decades, more for his missionary activities which sought to convert indigenous people from their native traditions and spiritual beliefs to Christianity, than for his explorations. As one publication noted, "like all social movements and the imperfect institutions that shape them, such initiatives inevitably leave mixed legacies: possible contributions, but also ethnocentric bias, misplaced intentions, and masked self-interest."
Notwithstanding Marquette's personal views, which many have noted were genuinely motivated by his deep religious convictions (as the book notes, he was encouraged even by his Jesuit superiors to view natives as Christian brothers), he is credited, for good or for ill, with ushering in the first non-native settlements in the North American interior, which allowed further inroads of Christianity, and many argue, rampant exploitation and eventual genocide, of native peoples.
It's also important to note, which the book fails to do, that the explorers did not actually "discover" the Mississippi River, of course, nor were they even the first Europeans to encounter it. Hernan de Soto crossed it more than a century prior to the Joliet-Marquette expedition, but the 17th-century travelers did document their findings and make rudimentary maps for others to follow. They also made it widely known that there was indeed a waterway which reached from the Great Lakes all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, if not the Pacific Ocean. This knowledge eventually had a dramatic impact on the settlement of the North American continent, which was finally recognized as a large land mass rather than a narrow strip of land between Europe and the far-flung Orient. As a result of Marquette and Company's venture, French officials, and later, the explorer LaSalle, built an elaborate network of trading posts in the region, primarily for the purpose of resource extraction - which had far-reaching consequences.
That said, there are some problems with this volume which leave me struggling to find a way to approach in a positive light. The material, which, as noted, is biased at best and outright insulting at worst. Perhaps its greatest contribution is that it offers the opportunity for discussion among older and younger readers - in that way, it can serve as an early lesson about literary criticism and how to "deconstruct" a text, which, as a former instructor, I can state with certainty is a sorrowfully-lacking skill. If there is a silver lining, it is that the book can allow enlightened readers to discuss the attitudes and biases of previous generations with young readers, emphasizing that our ideas and understanding of both events and the people involved in them change over time, as we learn more, including about ourselves.
That sentiment applies pretty much across the board for this series, in fact: I wish that the books took a more neutral tone with regard to many of the figures and events they portray and describe rather than to simply label the figures as "heroes," which is decidedly simplistic, and often just inaccurate. For example, in this instance, the author of the foreword refers to Father Marquette as "a real hero, greater than those created by fiction," but, rightly, many would disagree, as the exploits of missionaries have been re-examined by new generations of scholars who have revealed a more complete account of these figures. That allows readers, even young ones, to decide for themselves, and to engage with both sides of the story, which is also frequently lacking in the series, so to get it, you'll have to use some supplemental material which is more recent.
The greatest sins in this volume, which are markedly more numerous than other books in this series, frankly, revolve around the way in which native people are described and depicted. I acknowledge that much of the content may simply reflect the opinions and experiences of Pere Marquette himself, as documented in his journal - but that should be made far more clear to readers, especially young ones - that these are just the opinions of a European Jesuit missionary, an outsider and a foreigner, expressing beliefs and opinions from a decidedly one-sided perspective.
For example: the book repeatedly depicts indigenous peoples as dirty and unhygienic. "Cleanliness" is relative, especially in pre- or early-modern times, of course, but the notion that Native Americans were less hygienic than Europeans of the same period is blatantly false. This sentiment reflects a clear lack of understanding of native practices and cultural mores. Many tribes had a tradition of bathing in a river or lake every morning- come rain, shine, or blizzard - as cleanliness was so highly prioritized. In fact, one of the primary criticisms of white Europeans by natives the world over, in fact, including East Asia, was their lack of personal hygiene. It was not uncommon for a European woman to wash her hair a few times a YEAR - but one would have to read the opposing side of the story to know that, and the book certainly doesn't make any mention of it. It was also not uncommon for Europeans, especially the more radical Protestant groups, to NEVER remove all of their clothing, even for washing, so they relied mostly on "sponge bathing" rather than immersion in water, a tradition which would have been detestable and unthinkable for many native people.
The book also portrays native peoples as ignorant, superstitious and impulsive - almost animalistic, who killed each other off for the most insignificant slight - who believed in monsters, "demons" and all manner of supernatural forces. Recall, however, that the events described in the book were occurring at about the same time that the European Witchcraze was going on, when untold numbers of innocents - men, women, children, and even animals like dogs and cats - were being jailed, tortured and slaughtered for an unfounded belief in "demons" and the supernatural. The Salem Witch Trials, now widely acknowledged as one of the most shameful episodes in American history, had not even occurred at the time of this expedition. So much for superstitious, savage natives and their primitive beliefs in the supernatural.
The book also recognizes, but from a very biased perspective, the conflict which legitimately occurred between traditional indigenous practitioners and beliefs and European interlopers. The book repeatedly calls native healers "medicine men," and likewise portrays them as ignorant, superstitious and hostile to Europeans, who are depicted as the saviors, which, as a descendant of indigenous ancestors, is insulting, to say the least. Another example: the book proffers the notion, which may be a fictional rendering - and, if so, all the more infuriating - that all Marquette needed to do was to bathe and spoon feed the poor, sick Indians in order to "cure" them - because the natives were so backward that they were incapable of anything but the most rudimentary measures in caring for their own. Another example cited was the Jesuits putting their knowledge of Western "medicine" into practice to set a broken leg.
This suggestion just flies in the face of physical evidence. Native peoples pre-contact were skilled healers, to judge from indigenous naturopathic traditions and practices, which often displayed a high degree of sophistication in the use of medicinal plants and other natural remedies. Native Americans even used medical devices like crude syringes: sharpened, hollowed bird bones attached to an animal bladder to inject fluids into the body, sometimes to irrigate wounds, but also for ear cleaning and even enemas. Recall that one of the primary methods of "cure" among Europeans of the day was bleeding - meant to balance the body's four "hunours," an ancient Greek, but thoroughly debunked and discredited theory of disease - a practice which killed a number of historic figures, probably including George Washington, among many others.
European doctors, whose training was often minimal and ad-hoc, at best, were also rather fond of using deadly poisons, including lethal heavy metal compounds such as arsenic and mercury in medicines. Native American healers used far more effective methods than their European counterparts of this period for many treatments, such as the use of capsaicin, derived from chili peppers, for pain relief, a method which has even experienced renewed popularity in recent years, and jimsonweed as a topical analgesic. They also used sun screen, which was made from sunflower oil and sap, mouthwash, made from goldenthread, and medicines from more than 2,500 native plants. So, the European medical tradition of the day was not exactly something to be held in any particular esteem. Compared with European alternatives, give me boiled willow bark tea for a headache, any day!
Archaeological evidence also demonstrates the degree of sophistication of pre-Columbian peoples' techniques in wound care, including for the treatment of fractures, amputations, and even brain surgery, pre-European contact. Granted, not all tribes and cultures practiced these treatments, but portraying natives as utterly incapable of caring for their own sick is condescending and blatantly inaccurate. And, of course, it goes without saying: Marquette couldn't save himself from his bout of dysentery, and neither could any other European doctor.
And the natives' practice of chanting, singing and invoking the divine to aid in healing? That's called prayer - something that Europeans, certainly the Jesuits, engaged in also.
The book simply portrays natives, to put it bluntly, in an inferior light compared to the Jesuit missionaries come to save them, in both body and soul. For example, it was certainly not typical of native culture to leave those who fell behind to die, or to horde food and not share resources with their fellows during hard times, despite what Marquette may have reported. Regarding the event where he describes giving a handful of corn to one of the natives, whom he described as suspicious and initially unwilling to accept it: the book asserts that it was because it wasn't the "Indian way" to share food with companions. I'm highly dubious about this claim: in any event, there's no way to know for certain - the individual may have simply been wary of accepting something from a stranger, specifically a European.
Marquette may have learned six indigenous languages - to what degree of fluency is also questionable - which is laudable, but a deep understanding of native culture and beliefs was manifestly lacking, at least to judge from what's described in this short volume. I want to stop short of calling him an outright liar, or of exaggerating or fabricating events to either promote his and his superiors' ultimate agenda, for the nefarious purpose of enhancing their own power, position or reputation, or even out of unconscious confirmation bias, but neither am I prepared to simply accept his statements at face value. As stated, Marquette and his like were singularly concerned with converting people to their way of thinking and behaving, so it was in his best interest to play up the idea of the natives as savages in need of salvation, so I am unconvinced that his account of the various groups, which were not monolithic or homogeneous in any event, is an accurate depiction of what these cultures were really like.
And, as with many of the other Landmark books I've read so far, numerous terms found throughout are also dated and not infrequently insulting. It's nowadays thoroughly unacceptable to refer to indigenous peoples ("Indians" is fraught enough) as "wilderness savages." The highly insulting term "squaw," which I've written about previously, is also seemingly used interchangeably to describe any "native woman." I acknowledge, however, that this book is a product of its time, but these various issues should be explained to modern readers. Despite the shortcomings, I still think, due to the books' accessibility, engaging narrative and presentation of important events in our country's history, they are still very worthwhile, even for young readers, if with some adult guidance to add much-needed balance, perspective and occasionally, as here, accuracy, to the authors' statements. Remember: there are almost always (at least) two sides to every story.
As a last point: there's a Canadian film (1991) entitled "Black Robe," which is loosely based on Marquette's experiences, if you want the live action version of what his journey may have entailed ... but a word of warning: it is absolutely NOT for children (and many adults may find the material excessively graphic, so be forewarned). It tells the story of a Black Robe Jesuit missionary tasked with founding a mission, who must rely on a group of Algonquins to guide him through 1,500 miles of untamed wilderness. It's adapted from a 1985 novel of the same name. Spoiler alert: there are (almost) no survivors.
