1) What is the author arguing?
The author is arguing that an Indian man is the same as any other white man walking down the street. The author believes that if he can just explain the ways of an Indian man the whites will open their hearts and see the Indians for who they really are, another human being. The author is trying to argue that the Indian people are very good people and deserve a chance, he wants to prove to all the whites that Indians are not "like a wild animal". The author is even more importantly argueing that the land beliongs to everyone and everyone on it is equal, he is arguing this by saying that he does not tell the whites what to do or where they can or cannot be or walk so he should not be regulated any of these either.
2) How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writers perceived character) with their argument?
The author appeals to logos because he knows his morals and he is doing the logical thing by not signing the treaty but also trying to ensure that no blood, nor white or Indian is shed. The author does not want any war of any kind he wants peace and simply to be free on the land his people have lived on for years, he is trying to show his audience that this land is more to his people than just land, he is arguing that he has his rights, he is looking out for the emotions of his people, as quoted from the text "... our fathers were born here. Here they lived, here they died, here are their graves. We will never leave." This is showing his compassion for the land and the deeper meaning that the land has to him and his people. This writer is simply trying to show the white audience that he is not trying to cause problems, that he is a man of kindness and serenity. Though these are true that does not mean he is going to give up his morals because he is stronger than that, that is what he is trying to show his audience about his character.
3) What is the historical significance/ relevance of this document?
This document has a large impact because before this speach was made when the General or whomever was sent to talk to the tribe the US Representative could come up with as wild of a story as possible and the things in the story could have never happened. Also this tribe is one of the very few tribes that stuck with their land no matter what, these events eventually led to the the Trail Of Tear.
4) Do you find the authors argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find his argument very convincing, I would not want to leave the alnd where my father was burried for people to walk all over his grave like he wasn't there. I think that the whites were being extremely selfish and disrespectful to the Indians, the whites had no right what so ever to take the land from the Indians. Additonally I have great respect for the Indians because in most cases the Indians did not use violence or shed unnecessary blood. Lastly as said in the reading "I did not want to come to this council, but I was hoping that we could save blood." to me this is saying that the Indians just wanted peace and equal rights, they wanted to keep there land and in my eyes the Indians were full of integrity, I feel as if even if they did do any wrong majority of the wrong doings was justified.
