LAUSR

key characteristics of the “Indian” were assimilated into the British sense of self, so, too, were these objects. Although “Indian” weapons increasingly signified indigenous violence, and thus their Britishness had to be disavowed, these objects eventually became symbolic of British masculine prowess. The minor quibbles I have with Richardson’s work more generally are less about his analysis and argument and more about my own curiosity and interest in some of the fascinating issues he raises. In particular, I would have liked to discover more about the hybridity of material objects from North America and how and why this hybridity was obscured by collectors (perhaps we will see more work on this in the future). There are two other issues that I would have been curious to hear Richardson’s thoughts and analysis on. Firstly, why did the image of the North American “Indians,” in particular, prove so productive and malleable for British writers, compared to, say, other groups such as the Ottomans? Secondly, to what extent are eighteenth-century representations gendered? Richardson makes a clear case for interpreting British representations of “Indians” as symbolizers of masculinity, but what about British representations of indigenous women? Do these representations, if they exist, perform different cultural work? Despite these minor criticisms, Richardson’s work demonstrates just how varied and rich eighteenth-century representations of North American “Indians” were. While the “Indian” as a representational figure had, since first contact, always been multivalent and employed to critique European culture or justify certain political or religious persuasions, Richardson nonetheless rightly highlights the complexities, fluctuations, and increasing malleability of these representations in the eighteenth century. Richardson’s analysis moves beyond the majority report, to illustrate that British representations of North Americans were neither one dimensional nor consistent, but in fact could be adjusted to support a range of differing views on the meaning of colonialism and the pitfalls of civilization and consumerism, issues that became increasingly important to the British sense of self in the eighteenth century. Perhaps Richardson’s most important conclusion, however, is his reminder that whether romanticized or demonized, representations of indigenous peoples were undoubtedly instrumentalized; their beliefs, cultures, and thoughts were ventriloquized to serve European notions of self-identification. This was a process that began at the beginning of European overseas expansion, and it continues to be a troubling aspect of how indigenous peoples and their cultures are treated by the Westernized world today.