What kind of power do words possess?

Language is greater than the difference between "King Philip," and "Metacomet." Differences in societies and cultures may be mediated by a common language. Lepore discusses the power of words in their ability to move and to motivate the powers that define culture. She contends: "Writing about war can be almost as difficult as waging it and, often enough, is essential to winning it."[1]

How can we testify to this statement in truth?

I would agree that the writings of and about war may be essential to winning it, indeed, foreboding speech of conflict to come proved instrumental in the efforts of the militant Puritans of New England. It is interesting to note, however, that the white inhabitants of Plymouth Colony initially dismissed John Sassamon's words of warning regarding King Philip's plans "to engage all the Sachems round about in a warr."[2] Although dismissive, I believe that Sassamon's warning had some power to move the Puritan authorities. At the very least, it would arouse some suspicions in their minds. Would Sassamon's death have meant much to the Plymouth Colony if he had not given them some clue as to the intentions of King Philip and the Wampanoags?

The study that Lepore presents to us affirms both her theses on the importance of words in culture (especially in war) and the nature of language itself: to express emotion. In many ways, the study of any given history must give primacy to the language used, because this is the way in which history presents itself to us: through humanity's experience.


[1] Jill Lepore, The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity (New York: Vintage, 1998), ix.
[2] Ibid, 21.