In her book, The Name of War, Jill Lepore asks in the intro "can it be a fair fight when only one side has access to those perfect instruments of empire, pens, paper, and printing presses?" she also says that "war is a contest of injuries and interpretation." She emphases greatly the importance of the written word and how those who control the words control the interpretation of the war. Later in the book she says that "ritual cruelty is a symbolic language that can be 'read' and then 'translated'" The English obviously controlled the pens, paper, and printing presses, but the Indians controlled their own form of the printing press in symbolic acts of violence. In the very last act of the war the English, instead of using a "perfect instrument of empire," participate in a symbolic act of violence by displaying Philip's head on a pole. The English forsake their "civilized" form of communication of the printed word. This is one of many incidents where the English prove themselves to be just as "barbaric" as the Indians.
So did the English "win" or "loose" the war? Because in the end, they proved they were no different than the peoples they so strongly wished to oppose and wasn't that what the war was really about?
No comments:
Post a Comment