Midterm

📚 LESSON OUTLINE: King Philip’s War & Identity (Jill Lepore, The Name of War)

I. Introduction to the War

• King Philip’s War (1675–1676) = conflict between:

  • English colonists (New England)

  • Native American groups (especially Wampanoag, led by Metacom/“King Philip”)

• One of the deadliest wars per capita in American history

• Result:

  • Massive destruction of towns

  • Death of King Philip (1676)

  • Enslavement/sale of Native survivors

II. Causes of the War

A. Land & Expansion

• English wanted more farmland → expansion into Native lands

• Property = identity for English settlers

B. Religion & “Civilizing Mission”

• Puritans believed they were:

  • Chosen by God

  • Bringing Christianity to Native people

• Created:

  • Praying towns

  • Missionary efforts (John Eliot)

III. Identity Conflict (CORE THEME)

This is what your essay is about.

English Identity:

• Christian

• Literate

• Agricultural (fenced land, ownership)

• “Civilized”

Native Identity:

• Oral traditions

• Communal land use

• Different warfare style

• Cultural autonomy

➡ War becomes a fight over “who belongs” and “what it means to be civilized.”

IV. Key Events

1. Murder of John Sassamon

• Native convert who worked with English

• His death escalated tensions

• Lepore argues literacy played a role in his death

2. Warfare Differences

• English:

  • Organized militia

  • Large battles

• Native groups:

  • “Skulking war” (guerrilla-style attacks)

3. Great Swamp Massacre

• English attacked Native stronghold

• Killed many (including women/children)

• Shows brutality of English warfare

4. Captivity Narratives

• Mary Rowlandson:

  • Captured ~12 weeks

  • Viewed experience through religion

V. Consequences

• Native communities destroyed or enslaved

• English identity strengthened

• War reshaped early American identity

VOCAB SHEET

OVERVIEW: WHAT IS “THE NAME OF WAR”?

Jill Lepore argues that language shapes war.

Key Idea:

• The way people describe war = how they understand it

Examples:

• English used words like:

  • “savage”

  • “barbaric”

• These labels:

  • Justified violence

  • Strengthened English identity

➡ War is not just physical — it is also a battle over meaning and identity

FULL ESSAY (College-Level, Your Style)

Prompt:

How was King Philip’s War a war of identity?

King Philip’s War was not simply a conflict over land or resources, but a deeper struggle over identity between English colonists and Native American groups. As Jill Lepore argues in The Name of War, the violence of the war cannot be fully understood without recognizing how both sides defined themselves in opposition to one another. The war ultimately became a fight over religion, land, culture, and ways of life, making it a war of identity as much as a physical conflict.

One of the most significant aspects of this identity conflict was religion. The English Puritans believed that their colonization of New England was part of a divine mission to spread Christianity and “civilize” Native peoples. Through efforts such as the creation of praying towns and missionary work led by figures like John Eliot, the English attempted to reshape Native identity into something that reflected their own values . However, many Native Americans resisted these changes, viewing them as a threat to their traditions and autonomy. This religious divide reinforced the idea that the two groups were fundamentally different, and even incompatible.

Land and agriculture also played a major role in shaping identity during the war. For the English, land ownership was central to their sense of self. They believed in private property, fenced fields, and permanent settlements. In contrast, Native Americans used land more communally and did not define ownership in the same rigid way. As English settlers expanded and claimed more territory, they not only took land but also imposed their understanding of how land should be used. This created tension and reinforced the belief that Native ways of life were inferior or uncivilized.

Differences in warfare further highlighted this divide. The English fought in organized militias and preferred direct, large-scale battles, while Native Americans often used what the English described as “skulking war,” a form of guerrilla warfare . The English viewed these tactics as dishonorable and used them as evidence of Native “savagery.” However, this interpretation reveals more about English identity than Native actions, as it reflects their own expectations about how war should be conducted.

Language itself became a powerful tool in shaping identity during the conflict. Lepore emphasizes that the words used by the English to describe Native Americans—such as “barbaric” or “cruel”—helped justify extreme violence against them. By defining Native Americans as fundamentally different and inferior, the English were able to reinforce their own identity as civilized and morally justified. This process is especially evident in events like the Great Swamp Massacre, where the killing of non-combatants was framed as necessary and even righteous.

Finally, captivity narratives such as Mary Rowlandson’s account further illustrate how identity was constructed during the war. Rowlandson interpreted her captivity through a religious lens, seeing her suffering as part of God’s plan . Her narrative reinforced English ideas about themselves as chosen and morally superior, while portraying Native Americans as part of a threatening and unfamiliar world.

In conclusion, King Philip’s War was a war of identity because it forced both English colonists and Native Americans to define who they were in relation to each other. Through religion, land use, warfare, and language, the English constructed an identity based on superiority and civilization, while casting Native Americans as the opposite. This conflict over identity not only fueled the violence of the war but also shaped the development of early American identity in lasting ways.