The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity

This book was a real joy to read. I put it on my wish list after seeing the author speak on C-Span. Her understanding of the scope, magnitude and ramifications of this early American war came across. As a matter of fact, it was more her passion for the information that drove me to get the book than the subject matter. Well, the book didn't disappoint. Her writing is very readable and she conveys a great deal of information in just a little space.I would be remiss if I didn't add that, as other reviewers have pointed out, she doesn't tell a linear history. That means that you, and I (I'm hooked on the topic now), will have to seek out other sources.

Warning up front, this is not a traditional history book. The book is insistently non-narrative, it doesn't even talk about how the war ends. The book recalls a 300 year history of the stories Americans have written down regarding the blood spilt by Puritans and Indians in 1675-76. There is even a brief section about what was written down on rocks by Indians. Instead of getting the author's 'version' of the story, we are invited to speculate on the patterns revealed by the evolving perspectives recorded for posterity. To give you a sense of what Lepore writes about, the book opens at the end of the war. We read the verbatim account of a 17th century Puritan eye witness to a ritual torture execution. The torture, performed by victorious Indian allies of the Puritans upon a defeat Indian captive, is probably familiar, if uncomfortable. Rather than investing the story with traditional emotional energy, Lepore asks, what is this pious Puritan doing watching and assenting to the torture? Why does the Puritan write it down? What guilt does the Puritan wash away? Is the Puritan enjoying himself?Again, this isn't a history. You won't find out who is right or wrong, who was brave and wise, or even a great deal about what happened. You might get a whole new perspective on 'war', though. The book is probably an excellent 'introduction' to American history. It certainly got me interested in 17th century Massachusetts. After reading 'the Name of War', I really wanted to know more events of 1675-76 and emailed the author (easily found via a web search) for a good 'history' to read. She suggested 'Webb's 1676, which was an equally excellent book. Of course, 1676 made me want to read another....

If you are looking for a narrative history of King Philip's War, you will not find it here. Instead you will find something much more interesting and more important: an intelligent analysis of the cultural issues that caused the war, caused it to be fought in the way it was, and caused it to be treated in contemporary writing as it was. It not only explicates how the New Englanders of the time "justified" their conduct of the war, and their conduct toward the Native Americans generally, but also reasons or speculates persuasively on how the Native Americans viewed the same events. Readers more familiar with the chronological "facts" of the war might find the book somewhat more accessible, but such knowledge isn't a prerequisite to understanding its purpose and argument. Even if one has little knowledge of the war's events, this book is a rich and insightful read for anyone taking it on its own terms. Be forewarned, however: many of the insights regarding New England's European ancestors are neither flattering nor inspiring.

Three centuries ago, New England Native Americans were forced into war with the English colonists who had been gradually destroying the native economy by stealing their land, interfering with their hunting, fishing, and farming, etc. The resulting war, known as King Philip's War, decimated the English population and very nearly rid New England of whites entirely. English technology and European diseases ultimately won out over theWampanoags and their allies; there was never again an "Indian threat" in New England. "The Name of War" recounts the struggle as told in English accounts; official documents, diaries, and letters. Author Jill Lepore makes the point that history is always written by the victor. What makes the retelling of King Philip's War so one-sided is the fact that the conquered, the Native American tribes, had no written language in which to tell their side of the story. Very few natives of that time could read or write English and, if they left any accounts of the war, they have never been discovered. Lepore goes on to show that what subsequent generations of Americans thought about the war was based entirely on the writings of the colonists and later, anglo scholars and writers. Their view of the Native American ranged from pagan devil-worshippers, as shown by the Mathers and other early religious leaders, to Noble Savage (Cooper) and finally, Vanishing American (The Curse of Metamora). These attitudes, calcified in books and plays, became the stones upon which later White treatment of Indian nations in other parts of the country were based. The final confrontation at Wounded Knee two hundred years after King Philip's War, had its birth in the earliest chronicles of the seventeent-century. This book is a must for all who want to understand the basis for the disastrous Indian-White relations of the last three centuries .For those of us who make a living through writing, the book reminds us of the power of words and theawesome responsibility authors have to use those words wisely.