Power and Representation

In my studies of Indigenous culture, the concept of linguistics constructing our understanding of reality has been prominent. Anthropologists sometimes argue the validity of equating language with cultural identity, but clearly, structuralist theorists see the truth behind this. Aboriginal communities,such as the Mi'kmaq from my own heritage, are endangered as nations because of loss of language, along with the more obvious and recognized reasons. The dominant culture in the Maritimes fails to realize the intrinsic connection that the Mi'kmaq have to their language, and their land, both of which are intertwined in their identity.
Language seems to be a superficial representation of a culture's actual understanding of itself and the world around it, with signifiers and the signified making up a good part of what is unseen. While watching the White House Correspondent's Dinner remarks on Youtube this week, I noticed much of what was left unsaid by Barack Obama in his pointed counterattack on Donald Trump. A significant power struggle was evident here as well, represented by Trump's financial acumen pitted against Obama's status of being one of the world's most powerful men. Trump has undoubtedly made some trouble for the President, and could be further disruptive, but as Seth Myers pointed out, Obama is the leader of "the most powerful/poorest nation" in the world.
This power dynamic appears to deny Foucault's premise that power comes from below. In the United States, power is particularly associated with wealth. It is unusual to see what we might consider a 'powerful' poor person.
There is a point to be made, though, for the shifting nature of power relations between the dominant culture and Aboriginal Nations both here and in the States, in which an apparently compliant culture chooses to exert its power subtly, for the most part, as opposed to doing it overtly. "Power" is defined by the culture discussing it, as is every concept.