Chief Tecumseh And Chief Seattle Speech

Document C Chief Luther Standing Bear, My People, the Sioux Source: Chief Luther Standing Bear, My People, the Sioux (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1929). “It did not occur to me at the time that I was going away to learn the ways of the white man. My idea was that I was leaving the reservation and going to stay away long enough to do some brave deed, and then come home again alive. If I could just do that, then I knew my father would be so proud of me.” 1. What does this statement infer about what the Native Americans felt was occurring?

Chief Joseph is the leader of the Nez Perce tribe. He led his tribe through many great accomplishments, although he had to end his success in a surrender. On October 5, 1877, Chief Joseph and to announce his surrender speech in the midst of a battle. In his famous speech, I Will fight No More Forever, Chief Joseph effectively uses appeals like ethos, logos, and pathos.

Tecumseh’s Speech to the Osages, which he is believed to have given to his fellow Native Americans around 1811, is extremely powerful and passionate. What makes his speech powerful is the fact that it is his response to the events carried out by the colonists toward the Native Americans, which included the stealing of their land and the killing of their people. This clearly has a large impact on Tecumseh and the audience, which is evident throughout the speech.

When the first colonists landed in the territories of the new world, they encountered a people and a culture that no European before them had ever seen. As the first of the settlers attempted to survive in a truly foreign part of the world, their written accounts would soon become popular with those curious of this “new” world, and those who already lived and survived in this seemingly inhospitable environment, Native American Indian. Through these personal accounts, the Native Indian soon became cemented in the American narrative, playing an important role in much of the literature of the era. As one would expect though, the representation of the Native Americans and their relationship with European Americans varies in the written works of the people of the time, with the defining difference in these works being the motives behind the writing. These differences and similarities can be seen in two similar works from two rather different authors, John Smith, and Mary Rowlandson.

description of native life are described in such a way as to emphasize some of

Tecumseh was a Shawnee Indian chief who had been born around 1768 near Springfield, Ohio. During the early 1800s, he started to oppose the United States, and attempted to create a confederation of Indian Tribes to rebel against the United States. One of the main reasons Tecumseh opposed the United States was the fact that white people were squatting on Native American land, and was forcing his people out. Although Tecumseh opposed whites, he knew how to speak their language. Tecumseh was described as a six-foot tall man with “fine” features. He had been rumored to be fluent in English, and most surprisingly, also in French. He also managed to turn his brother’s religious teachings into political movements in order to get his fellow Native Americans to support his movement. [Collins, pg 36-40]

Additionally, Royal gives clarification for Native Americans’ positive stereotypes. He explains, “ But this is far from modern concepts of ecology. Native Americans in fact overhunted deer and beaver even before the arrival of the white man, and did not seriously try to preserve the resources in the vicinity of their villages. As a result, the typical woodland village, having exhausted local soil and game, had to move on average every eight to 10 years” (Royal 47). Although the Native Americans did not destroy the environment like Europeans on such a large scale, they are not trying to protect the environment either. This opposes the stereotypes that Native Americans are model ecologists. Royal also examines the inhumane sides of Native American tribes. Royal reveals, “The

Sir Isaac Brock and Tecumseh may have had a strong alliance but together could not find a way to defeat the freedom-loving American people or it’s president, James Madison. These three men all had powerful leadership roles and largely affected the War of 1812 and changed the future of North America. Tecumseh, the Shawnee war chief, James Madison, the United States President, and Sir Isaac Brock, the British commander of Canada, all had dreams for the future, and the War of 1812 would determine which of these would come true. Tecumseh wanted to preserve the land for his people and get the white men out of the Shawnee’s lives. James Madison wanted the land in order to grow the United States, and be able to offer Americans more opportunities

Vance (1995) stated, “For nearly 500 years there has been a very oppressive, dishonest and manipulative message being voiced by the dominant white Angelo culture towards Native Americans, This has caused a great distrust, anger and conflicting attitudes for the Native American community” (p.1).

In order for Tecumseh to make his speech persuasive and influencing he puts together his speech and construct it like a typical Indian speech. First, he lectures his audience by producing a testimonial to the Great Spirit (l. 1-3). During the following part of Tecumseh's talk he states the big issue of the assembly and calls on the Osages to join up with his own tribe in order to outlast the hostility of the Americans (l. 4-7). He goes into detail on the historical facts and produces a short profile of the connection between the Natives and the Europeans, focusing on the dismissive development of the white's disrespect to the aboriginals (l. 8-21). Beside these historical interpretations Tecumseh gives a mythical approach when he refers to the Great Spirit and his backstory of creation (l. 22-25). The ensuing

"Their (Natives) present condition, contrasted with what they once were, makes a most powerful appeal to our sympathies…By persuasion and force they have been made to retire from river to river and from mountain to mountain, until some of the tribes have become extinct and others have left but remnants to preserve for a while their once terrible names. Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage doom him to

Among the great native tribes that called the Americas their home, none are as iconic in American culture than the Native Americans of the great plains. Among these tribes, there arose the Great Sioux Nation, one of the largest and most powerful of them all. They seem to have had a deep connection with and have held a gentle balance with nature that few cultures throughout human history have seemed to match; yet, history has shown that Native Americans didn’t quite have the same romanticized relationship with their environment that many depict. As Americans started to expand westward, there were few who were able to stand up to “manifest

It is also this depressing lost of Native Americans’ culture that has motivated them to never stop trying to return home. However, in the memory of the speaker’s dad, these Native Americans were just “swollen bellies of salmon coming back to a river that wasn’t there” (CR 123). Salmon have the nature of returning back to the place, where they were born in, to reproduce. Comparing the Native Americans to salmon, the author identifies the importance of their land to their nature. That is, losing the land is the same as losing their reproduction. Therefore, taking the land away for the modern developments, the western culture has ultimately become the nightmare for the Native Americans.

This can be seen when the Ponca Tribe received word that “the President told [them] to pack up—that [they] must move to the Indian Territory.” In the interest of the President, someone who did not govern over them, he was forcing the Indians to move out of their home. They were given land that was not suitable for anyone to live on and weren’t even paid for the land that was taken away from them. After some time, these Indians would come to find out that everything they’ve been lied to and that “The President said he knew nothing about it.” Even though they lost their homes, it was only the commencement of the hardships and adversities that were to surface soon. For instance, Americans forced the Ponca tribe from their land in Nebraska and made them take the long trek to their new home in Oklahoma all on foot. The travel alone, nearly eradicated the Ponca tribe and as said by Chief Standing Bear that, “Many died on the road. Two of my children died. After we reached the new land, all my horses died. The water was very bad. All our cattle died; not one was left.” The Ponca Indians were deceived to more than once and mistreated due to the fact that they were not considered people under the law of the United States and that America's expansion was more important than their rights as human

The defeat of the first United States army by a coalition of Native Americans is the focus in Collin Calloway’s The Victory with No Name. In this historical account, Calloway addresses what occurred on November 4th, 1791, when an Indian army consisting of a variety of Indian tribes, led by Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, ambushed the first American army near the Wabash River to protect themselves from American expansion of the Northwest Territory. The American army, led by Revolutionary War veteran Arthur St. Clair, was ill-equipped with men, horses, and weaponry, and ignorant about Indian whereabouts and tactics. Calloway organizes his argument by describing America’s desire for land, the invasion and settlement of Indian land, and the resistance formed by Native Americans. Calloway continues by illustrating the defeat of the American army and the aftermath of the battle between Native Americans and the U.S. By drawing on extensive historical evidence that illustrated the events before, during, and after the battle, Calloway presents a detailed historical narrative that challenges the idea that “winners write the history…even when they lose” and offers a narrative that shows both the Native American and the U.S. perspective, ultimately giving credit to the Indians for their victory. However, Calloway provides information that is irrelevant to his argument and the book, which makes it difficult to follow along throughout the story.