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.
Jalaynn, You made some very good points throughout your analysis on how Chief Joseph appealed to logos, pathos and ethos throughout his speech. As you said, I too think that this document was very significant in the course of history. As Chief Joseph was explaining that his own father had dealt with white settlers before and resisted signing any treaties, it seemed to me he was rightly following in his footsteps. These people stood their ground as long as they could without being removed by force, and they did not retaliate. I found that very admirable, just as you had mentioned, they sought peace with one another not war; I think that’s much more honorable then to bring about war. I think that by following his father’s example, Chief Joseph not only exemplified peace, but also honor and reverence for tradition that their people cherished. I do not think that the white settlers understood their traditions or beliefs and therefore could not comprehend the depth of meaning behind their ways of life and choosing to remain in their land. One of the most interesting things of all that the Chief mentions is when he says “The white man has no right to come here and take our land. We have never accepted any presents from the government. Neither lawyer nor any other chief had the authority to sell this land. It has always belonged to my people.” Many people believe that entitlement is a given if there is money involved. The lack of respect that the settlers had for these Indians was remarkable, and they believed that they had the God-given right to take over any land they wanted too, they just so happened to use a piece of paper to cement it. In the end, even though the Indians resisted, they were still forced to leave. I can only imagine how betrayed and distraught they must have felt. Something they fought so strong for still ended in disappointment and much loss.
ReplyDeleteNice summary! I absolutely agree that Chief Joseph was trying to argue that there was no difference between him and a fellow person regardless of skin color and that the land they “shared” should be shared with everyone.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this as well as our textbook, I honestly haven’t been too surprised in regards to how resistant the Native Americans were. For people foreign to your land to come in and declare that that land is now theirs is absolutely ridiculous. I’m guessing the reason more Native Americans didn’t resist was due to fear of superior technology and eradication. It’s mentioned in the reading that when whites looking to trade with the tribes brought weapons, that they would often scare the women and children, “They brought guns with flint stones on them, which frightened our women and children” (pg. 25 of the primary document). Chief Joseph’s father seemed to actively and consistently resist regardless of what was presented before him though. According to the passage he even goes to the extreme of putting up poles indicating where his tribes land was, “In order to have all people understand how much land we owned, my father planted poles around it and said: ‘Inside is the home of my people –the white man may take the land outside. Inside the boundary all our people were born. It circles around the graves of our fathers, and we will never give up these graves to any man’” (p. 26 of the primary document).
In regards to the actual speaking, the first thing that rang to me was Manifest Destiny. The god given right that Americans deserved all of the land they wanted in America due to their “superior culture”. It’s sad and pathetic in my opinion that Chief Joseph had to explain to his fellow whites why Native Americans were fellow human beings. You really get perspective on how far we’ve come as a society and culture (in regards to equality). Just looking at our textbook and our past TA’s and CDL’s it’s obvious that ex-slaves along with others (such as Native Americans) were facing hate and discrimination. Ironically in a very sad and depressing way, everyone got their own “equal” slice of hate, big or small, “By 1870, more than 63,000 Chinese immigrants lived in America, 77 percent of them in California. A 1790 federal statute that limited naturalization to ‘white persons’ was modified after the Civil War to extend naturalization to blacks. But the Chinese and other Asians continued to be denied access to citizenship. As perpetual aliens, they constituted a reserve army of transnational industrial laborers that many saw as a threat to American labor,” (pg. 610-611 of our textbook). To me, it really seemed like no one was exempt from discrimination and that for me has given me immense insight into a lot of the problems and issues that existed in regards to racial equality.
Jalynn, you have answered the questions to this text analysis very well. You have explained what the author is arguing with very good points from the text, such as he is trying to prove to all whites that Indians are not “like a wild animal”. Great points were given in logos, pathos, and ethos. Chief Joseph appeals to logos because he knows his morals and because he does not sing the treaty that would have given the land of his father and ancestors to the white people. He knew that signing the treaty was doing wrong and going against his father’s will because his father refused tremendously to sign the treaty. When it comes to pathos, he talks about his land, the land where he was born, where his father and ancestors died, were their graves are and that they will never leave. The love for his land goes beyond the white men needs. Chief Joseph was a man of peace and all he wanted was to keep his land because he had the right to be there. He did not need anything from the white people nor did his people. I will agree with you that his argument is convincing because I wouldn’t want to leave the land that my father and grandfather worked so hard to maintain.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis of the document, Jalaynn. You've made some good points in regards to the speech's appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to add that the whole document itself is an appeal to logos in a way. Besides Chief Joseph's logical reasoning behind not signing the treaty, this is also one of his final attempts to educate the white people on his tribe's culture, values, and the reasoning for not moving to a reservation. As he stated, "I want the white people to understand my people".
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the idea that he was defending the emotions of his people, Chief Joseph was also trying to make the white people feel certain emotions about his tribe's predicament. When he begins his story of his tribe starting with the colonization of the area, he tries to appeal to the white's understanding side by recounting their experience with Lewis and Clark. "They talked straight, and our people gave them a great feast, as proof that their hearts were friendly. These men were very kind." After he attempted to establish some friendlier themes, he continued with the tribe's history and told the white's of their outlook on the events they caused, hoping to create empathy for their (the tribe's) situation and understanding.
Just like you said, Chief Joseph was a kind man with strong morales. He even states in the first paragraph, "I have been asked to show you my heart". Throughout the document, his passion for this issue shows through. As he explains the story of his tribe, he fiercely defends his father's teachings, his father's decisions for the tribe's land, and his reasons for not violating his father's past decisions. The chief had good intentions in his honest approach to the recounting and debate of the treaty. Unfortunately, the white's did not appreciate it, and eventually the tribe had to move off the land for good.
Hi Jalynn! You have some great answers to the text analysis. I agree with you in so many parts. I also feel that the Indians were asking for respect. He was asking for sympathy and an open heart that their homes and lives were being taken for granted. It’s true! They should respect them despite who they may be. I liked how you also mentioned him not signing the treaty as part of your logos. He uses logos throughout his speech, like when he states “It has always belonged to my people” as he talks about the land. It was also mentioned about how he grew up with values with what their tribe believes in, thus mixing along emotion appeal as well. Chief Joseph was a quite powerful stating that they would not want to initiate any war, but that they would fight to keep it the way it’s always been. I also believe this speech was significant because it gives the Native American’s view of settlement and how they were treated. Like most of us has said and repeated, they showed their place and how they feel that have every right to live in a place they’ve always belonged to. I also agree that this was very convincing. He used so much of his knowledge and “common sense”, along with values. It is true that Chief Joseph showed lots of passion in his speech, and morality as he didn’t ask for war. He had lots of credibility as well. The white Americans were truly unfair to them, and this speech would’ve influenced me to make a change.
ReplyDelete-Jasmine