48 pages • 1 hour read
Jill LeporeA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
Philip is shot dead by an Indian soldier under Benjamin Church, dragged from a swamp, and beheaded with his body cut into quarters and hung on separate trees. The Indian who shoots him receives one of Philip’s hands, which he thereafter keeps preserved in rum. Philip’s head is displayed on a post at Plymouth during the town’s Day of Thanksgiving and remains on the post for decades. Today, many of Philip’s possessions—his war club, bow, belt, and bowl, among others—reside in museums; it’s possible most of them are fakes.
Years later, Increase Mather’s son, Cotton, removes the jaw from Philip’s still-displayed head; in this way, “he put an end to Philip’s blasphemy (literally, his evil utterances)" (174-75).
Philip’s forces might have won the war had they not been fighting a simultaneous rear-guard action against an incursion of Mohawks from the west. Disease and starvation also plague the Algonquians. No treaty is signed, and the war devolves into occasional raids that persist, off and on, until the French and Indian Wars of the 1750s. “King Philip’s War never ended because, in a figurative sense, it was the archetype of all Indian wars to follow" (177). Restoring the settlements takes 30 years; in 1707, some rebuilt Connecticut towns are destroyed again.
War mementos become highly prized, including hats, belts, and body parts of enemies. Both Indians and English like to receive the heads of slain opponents; Indians sometimes wear necklaces of fingers taken from dismembered settlers. Algonquians believe that decapitating someone prevents them from entering the paradise of the afterworld; they put settlers’ heads on poles to frighten and discourage the colonists. English soldiers sometimes respond by replacing the heads with those of Indians.
Important war anniversaries are remembered in printed almanacs. As the years go by, raids diminish, war memories fade, and colonists resume their peacetime behaviors, many of which are condemned by clergymen who worry that settlers may once again be tempted to fall away from good behavior or, worse, imitate the practices of the Indians.
In 1681, the war long over, Rhode Island passes a law to prevent settlers from shooting wantonly at Indians. Most of the remaining Algonquians remain in their homelands—many as servants, many in hiding—but others move to nearby tribes in safer areas or leave New England altogether.
Those who remain adopt English habits, including land ownership, and organize their communities around churches, but these are run by sachems who help them retain the old traditions. “Their culture was neither English nor Algonquian, but a combination of the two" (185). By the mid-1700s, however, most Natives have become even more English, their houses more colonial, their languages largely forgotten.
Some Indians marry blacks, further blurring the distinction between peoples. In the 1800s, their descendants tend to be counted as black by census takers, strengthening the notion among whites that the Indians have disappeared.
In late 1775, as the American Revolutionary War begins, preachers and agitators commemorate the centennial of King Philip’s War by claiming that the British are even more savage than were the Indians. Original accounts of the earlier war—including the books by Rowlandson, Hubbard, and Church—are reprinted as stories of patriotism.
New England Indians fight alongside the Americans, but most Natives, including the Iroquois, fight for the British. After the war, New England Natives find themselves tossed in with the Tory Indians, their lands taken, their rights restricted. Many whites believe the local Indians have become extinct, but they remain, unnoticed.
Colonists speak and write about King Philip’s War in ways that burnish the settlers’ cause, overwhelming any Native viewpoints. As late as the 1930s, however, Narragansetts tell a story of Philip’s men stealing the dead leader’s head and burying it “between Taunton and Mt. Hope, … no one knows its resting place" (190).
From its 1829 premier until at least 1877, the play Metamora; or, the Last of the Wampanoags is among the most popular productions of the 1800s. It depicts Philip, or Metamora, as a noble but tragic hero. The story resonates with audiences, especially in the 1830s, when Native American groups are forcefully expelled from their homelands in the Southeast. Upwards of half of these groups die along the “Trail of Tears” under President Jackson’s “Indian removal” program.
The success of Metamora and its star, Edwin Forrest, spawns imitations. Many of them, along with Metamora itself, are considered schmaltzy by the critics. “King Philip fever” takes the nation: towns are named for Metamora, biographies are written, nursery rhymes are sung about him, and his purported relics turn up.
Much of the hubbub comes from a national reconsideration of the colonists’ treatment of the Indians. Washington Irving’s essay, “Philip of Pokanoket,” describes the Indian leader as a hero to his people but abused by the English. Irving condemns the original settlers’ self-serving antipathy toward the Algonquians, specifically the anti-Indian writings of Increase Mather. Irving’s essay is widely reprinted during the Metamora craze.
While 1775 colonists remember King Philip’s War as a battle against Indian oppression and a dress rehearsal for the Revolutionary War, Metamora depicts the Indians as the aggrieved party, waging their own struggle against foreign tyranny and oppression from English invaders.
Forrest wants to create an independent American literature and theatre. His style, plain-spoken and passionate, differs greatly from that of the English theatre. Metamora and Forrest contribute to America’s growing sense of itself in the 1800s. Ironically, “Forrest was most American when he played an Indian" (200).
Forrest feuds with English actor Charles Macready, whose sophisticated, highbrow performances remind Americans of everything they think is wrong with Britain. The feud culminates in a riot outside the Astor Place Opera House in New York City that results in 22 deaths and 150 injuries.
Forrest researches carefully the Indian character in creating the role of Philip. He reads from the novels of James Fenimore Cooper and Washington Irving, studies the artwork of Paul Revere, and peruses the writings of Hubbard and Church. One of his sources is a close friend, Choctaw Indian Push-ma-ta-ha, whom he admires for his unfettered, raw masculinity, by contrast with what Forrest views as a feminizing European influence on American urban life, manners, and dress. There is a possibility that Forrest and Push-ma-ta-ha may have been romantically involved.
Contemporary critics generally admire Forrest’s performance but complain that Metamora whitewashes the Indian’s cruel behavior in war and depicts the settlers as entirely in the wrong. In Augusta, Georgia, where the Indian controversy is being resolved by exiling them, audiences boo and hiss at Philip’s angry diatribes against white settlers; subsequent ticket sales quickly tail off.
Cherokees, under their leader Sequoyah, develop a writing system, set up a democratic local government, wear European clothing, own farms, and even maintain slaves. Their concerns are heard in the US Supreme Court. New Englanders especially admire and support the Cherokee nation. Most abolitionists and many white authors argue that Indians should not be removed but instead remain where they are and become more assimilated into the European American way of life around them.
Many Americans begin to lament the disappearance of Indians from the Northeast and regret that the Indians are about to exit as well from the Southeast on a forced march, yet few argue that they should give back the lands taken by their European forebears.
Many Americans in the early 1800s, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall among them, admire Philip but excuse the first settlers' conduct toward the Algonquians. They deplore the current treatment of the Southeastern Indians, suggesting that perhaps the present generation can do better.
President Jackson argues that the fate of Southeastern Indians, like that of the New England Algonquians, is historically inevitable, and that forced relocation is the civilized answer. Most Americans support Jackson's view. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court sides with the Indians against the state’s Indian removal project, but Jackson sidesteps the decision by federalizing the program.
In 1833, Metamora plays in Boston, where Penobscot Indians attend a performance; after Philip’s death scene, they chant a funeral dirge. Penobscot and Wampanoag Indians still living in Massachusetts petition the state for self-government and redress of property losses. William Apess, a Pequot Methodist minister, campaigns for the local Indians and, at Mashpee, Massachusetts, joins Wampanoags who detain a white man for removing wood from Indian acreage. Apess spends a month in jail, but the “Mashpee Revolt” becomes famous.
In public speeches, Apess warn that Indians will continue to resist, sometimes violently, if they aren’t treated fairly. Apess recites the Lord’s Prayer as translated into Massachusett, and he likes to quote Philip, though there remains no record of the dead warrior’s words beyond the allegations of witnesses or the inventions of playwrights and poets.
In 1847 a spoof of Metamora is staged in Boston. Philip dies multiple times but keeps getting back up, finally crying out, “Confound your skins, I will not die to please you" (221). The play pokes fun at Indian stereotypes: among other things, Philip says “Ugh” a lot, and his wife’s name is Tapiokee.
By the 1860s, Indian plays, including Metamora, have declined in popularity. As conflicts increase with Natives out West, the age-old contempt for indigenous peoples undergoes its own revival. By the 1880s, American audiences will watch Buffalo Bill’s Indian shows, but people generally regard the Natives as relics.
On a large, flat rock on the shore of Mount Hope Bay, Rhode Island in 1835, an etched inscription made of strange symbols is discovered. At first, many believe it is an artwork left behind by Viking explorers in 1007 CE. Later investigations note that the inscription bears a close resemblance to Cherokee letters that spell out the sounds of the Wampanoag phrase “Metacomet, Great Sachem.” This rock is either a linguistic attempt to connect the popularity of King Philip with 1830s efforts by Native populations to retain their homelands, or is a hoax perpetrated by over-eager archaeologists.
During the past few decades, Indians have campaigned for their cultural and political revival. Some, the Narragansetts, for example, attain federal recognition as nations; some thrive as money rolls in from reservation casinos. Like the original colonial quest to preserve Englishness, Native Americans today attempt to protect and enhance their own Indianness.
Sometimes an ethnic group will object when outsiders from the nearby dominant culture criticize or appropriate the minorities’ customs. In the early 1800s, Americans, still touchy about their former colonial rulers, bristle when Britain’s poet laureate Robert Southey proposes to write an epic poem about Philip. One American commentator considers it offensive that the English, “so extremely ignorant of this country, of its character, manners, and government, and in many instances even of its geographical divisions" (197), should presume to understand American Indians. Anger toward the English presumption to comment on American Indians might seem ironic to the Natives involved, since it is their own culture that is being fought over by outsiders.
Nineteenth century attitudes toward Native Americans are a mix of sympathy for their plight and relentlessness about national destiny. Contemporary Americans felt bad that Manifest Destiny resulted in the slaughter of entire populations, but they also felt that such a result was inevitable and even necessary. Unwinding the massive immigration of Europeans onto Native lands would be impossible, and finding ways to live side by side go nowhere while appropriation of aboriginal homelands becomes a cottage industry. White settler populations swell beyond those of the Natives, and European-style military weaponry proves superior.
To this day, white Americans often claim proudly that some of their ancestors are Indian. Cherokees have especially inhabited much of the American nostalgia for Native blood. Perhaps these boasts reflect, once again, a somewhat romanticized respect for Native Americans that reflects a yearning for connection first made public in the play Metamora and still forms part of the American character. The majority’s attitude toward Natives combines admiration, curiosity, condescension, guilt, and the uncomfortable suspicion that an entire people has been ignored and pushed aside, a people who would have lived with, contributed to, taught, and been friends with their white neighbors, had those neighbors not been in such a rush to take all that they surveyed.
Recent Native activism has made strides in increasing awareness of, and respect for, Indian cultures and their rights to ancestral lands. Not all efforts are successful, however: The Penobscots, having begun their campaign in the 1830s, attain upwards of 300 square miles of reservations in Maine, while the Wampanoags, Narragansetts, and others of Massachusetts have reserved only a few square miles.
Indian clergyman William Apess, defending the right of Natives to protect their land and traditions, blazes a trail of activism that anticipates civil rights leaders of the twentieth century, including the Reverend Martin Luthor King, Jr. King’s works take their cue from an earlier protester, Mahatma Gandhi, who makes a stand against English cultural and political dominance of India in the early twentieth century. Gandhi’s campaign to protect traditional Indian culture in the face of encroaching European-style modernism parallels the Algonquian attempt in the late 1600s to protect their threatened way of life from being overwhelmed by the English.
The curious case of the Mount Hope rock, a possible symbol of Indian activism, remains an unsolved mystery. Many intriguing theories have been proposed. Perhaps, however, the rock simply has been tagged, in the early 1830s, by a Wampanoag student of the Cherokee language—the only formal written system among Native Americans—who practices his homework by etching Cherokee letters that sound out what would, in the Wampanoag dialect, translate to “Metacomet, Great Sachem.” King Philip’s fame is, at that time, revived and honored on stage and in print; perhaps the student simply has the great historical figure on his or her mind. Scholars since then could have read more into the rock than the inscriber intended. The real answer, buried in time, may forever elude us.
By Jill Lepore