Is it Red Face vs. White Face, or Red faces and White faces? Chief Seattle, in this oration to Governor Stevens, discusses the comparatives and differences between these two conglomerations of people using rhetoric devices such as similes, concession, repetition, and tone. Through the use of these devices, Chief Seattle sets in his purposes of both warning the White Faces that although they hold the current power, and although the Native Americans want to live as one, that they have some power as well, and show his fellow brothers and sisters that although they may be weak now, not only in numbers but in strength, that they have power and might and the ability to eventually seek revenge on those who do them injustice. Seattle begins his oration by using a simple sentence, which allows for the audiences to in a way set the tone of the possibility of a simple, fast, harmless speech, which was the intention of Seattle. “My words are like the stars that never change”, this simile was used to ignite the idea that his words will remain as constant as the never changing stars, and that they will remain constant with his beliefs and never change or become impacted by the outside world. When Seattle refers to the president as “the great chief at Washington” it is an act of concession to the white men, by not only calling him a chief, but a great chief it is a huge sign of respect and a great sign of concession to their power. The simile “great chief at Washington can rely upon us with as much certainty as he can upon the return of the sun” shows the amount of trust that Seattle is hoping for. To most, it is apparent that white men strongly believe that the sun will rise every day without fail, and will always return to brighten the day a... ... middle of paper ... ... a final fear, to change the light, airy, comparative, brotherly tone to one of fear, fright, and anticipation. “Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless”. This quote is the final line of the oration; it summarizes the intent beautifully using diction to its advantage. Its the final warning, the final threat to say that all they wanted was respect and kindness, the constant concession throughout the piece was deliberate in making the audiences believe that these people were weak and powerless, but the last line is a clear statement of ethos and power.
It is a beautiful day in the area modernly known as southern Mississippi. The birds are chirping, the plants are growing, and the sun is shining. The day starts off like any other in this Native American community. The women began to tend the fields and the men are preparing for the next hunt. Suddenly, many strange figures appear at the entrance of the village. These figures appear to be men but these men are far different from any Native Americans they have seen. In the beginning, these men appear to be friendly and even exchange gifts with the local groups. Not for long these relationships began to change these white men began to disrespect the local chiefs and began to dominate the lands. Interaction of this kind was common along the Native Americans and the European settlers, however, it is not exact with every Native American group.
Rhetor’s since the days of Aristotle and Isocrates have been using their rhetorical situations to deliver messages with a sense of urgency and persuade others to see their point of view. In 1933, Luther Standing Bear published his book “Land of the Spotted Eagle”. In this book, he talks about the terrible conditions under which his people live and how it needs to change. He speaks specifically to this in the excerpt “What the Indian Means to America”. Here he is referencing the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Standing Bear talks about how the European Americans caused these disasters and how the Native American could be the solution to these problems. He uses his rhetorical situation to try and convince the American government to listen
The depiction of Native Americans to the current day youth in the United States is a colorful fantasy used to cover up an unwarranted past. Native people are dressed from head to toe in feathers and paint while dancing around fires. They attempt to make good relations with European settlers but were then taken advantage of their “hippie” ways. However, this dramatized view is particularly portrayed through media and mainstream culture. It is also the one perspective every person remembers because they grew up being taught these views. Yet, Colin Calloway the author of First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History, wishes to bring forth contradicting ideas. He doesn’t wish to disprove history; he only wishes to rewrite it.
of Native American Culture as a Means of Reform,” American Indian Quarterly 26, no. 1
Nevertheless, in the author’s note, Dunbar-Ortiz promises to provide a unique perspective that she did not gain from secondary texts, sources, or even her own formal education but rather from outside the academy. Furthermore, in her introduction, she claims her work to “be a history of the United States from an Indigenous peoples’ perspective but there is no such thing as a collective Indigenous peoples’ perspective (13).” She states in the next paragraph that her focus is to discuss the colonist settler state, but the previous statement raises flags for how and why she attempts to write it through an Indigenous perspective. Dunbar-Ortiz appears to anchor herself in this Indian identity but at the same time raises question about Indigenous perspective. Dunbar-Ortiz must be careful not to assume that just because her mother was “most likely Cherokee,” her voice automatically resonates and serves as an Indigenous perspective. These confusing and contradictory statements do raise interesting questions about Indigenous identity that Dunbar-Ortiz should have further examined. Are
The stress of this caused their once coveted friendship to wither and morph into an ill hatred. The English began a campaign of the demonization of Native Americans. The image of Native Americans was described in Red, White, & Black as friendly traders who shared a mutually beneficial relationship with one another. Evidently, a very different image started to appear when land disputes arose. The new illustration the English painted was that Native American people were “comparable to beasts” and “wild and savage people, that live like heards of deare in a forrest”. It was sudden change of heart between the two societies that supports Waterhouse’s claims of the changing relationship of the English and Native
The dispute over whether Native American mascots should be used as a team symbol dates back to the 1970’s (Price 2). People differ on the basic issue, but there is a more important underlying principle. It is called freedom. Determining whether or not someone is harmed by a practice can reveal whether that practice can or should be morally justified. Wherein lies the truth about exercising the use of American Indian mascots? The reality is that they cannot be morally justified. The certainty is not ascertainable by way of any comparison to other similar phenomena. No such comparison can be made as none exits. Then, are not the only relevant voices those of the Indians themselves? If so, the truth regarding this imagery can only be discovered by conferring with the groups that are depicted. Only those portrayed should have a voice. Or at the very least, be heard louder and more clearly than those who are not mirrored in the representations.
Banks, D., Erodes, R. (2004). Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement. Ojibwa Warrior. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://www.oupress.com/bookdetail.asp?isbn=0-8061-3580-8
With hope that they could even out an agreement with the Government during the progressive era Indian continued to practice their religious beliefs and peacefully protest while waiting for their propositions to be respected. During Roosevelt’s presidency, a tribe leader who went by as No Shirt traveled to the capital to confront them about the mistreatment government had been doing to his people. Roosevelt refused to see him but instead wrote a letter implying his philosophical theory on the approach the natives should take “if the red people would prosper, they must follow the mode of life which has made the white people so strong, and that is only right that the white people should show the red people what to do and how to live right”.1 Roosevelt continued to dismiss his policies with the Indians and encouraged them to just conform into the white’s life style. The destruction of their acres of land kept being taken over by the whites, which also meant the destruction of their cultural backgrounds. Natives attempted to strain from the white’s ideology of living, they continued to attempt with the idea of making acts with the government to protect their land however they never seemed successfully. As their land later became white’s new territory, Indians were “forced to accept an ‘agreement’” by complying to change their approach on life style.2 Oklahoma was one of last places Natives had still identity of their own, it wasn’t shortly after that they were taken over and “broken by whites”, the union at the time didn’t see the destruction of Indian tribes as a “product of broken promises but as a triumph for American civilization”.3 The anger and disrespect that Native tribes felt has yet been forgotten, white supremacy was growing during the time of their invasion and the governments corruption only aid their ego doing absolutely nothing for the Indians.
The mascot of the Cleveland perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as a savage being tamed by settlers. Baseball, an American institution, is guilty of disgusting racism. This blatantly racist symbol must strike an angry chord with contemporary Native Americans, whose past overflows with examples of cultural abuse. On the hat of each player, an Indian with swollen red face and stupid slaphappy grin appears in an expression of gloating jubilation. All his facial features are exaggerated, and an erect feather ...
One of the hardest realities of being a minority is that the majority has a thousand ways to hurt anyone who is part of a minority, and they have but two or three ways to defend themselves. In Sherman Alexie’s short story The Toughest Indian in the World, Roman Gabriel Fury is a member of the Native American minority that makes up less than two percent of the total United States population (1.2 percent to be exact). This inherent disadvantage of being a minority, along with various cultural factors, influences the conflicted character of Roman Gabriel Fury and his attitudes toward the white majority. Through his use of strong language, demanding tone, and vibrant colors, Roman Gabriel Fury is able to reveal his complex feelings about growing up Indian in a predominately white world.
In 1893, Simon Pokagon spoke at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition. He was a prominent tribal leader who was known for this speech. So much so, it was printed and turned into an informative pamphlet. The speech encompassed American history and it’s push Westward, detailing the destruction of the Native lands and culture forever. He begins by telling the crowd about how he cannot celebrate with them in this great big new city, because it reminds him of all that was lost. Pokagon states, “where stands this “Queen City of the West” once stood the red man’s wigwams;” (Page 32). A bold statement follows about how nature was plentiful, until pale face came with their
In Thomas King’s novel, The Inconvenient Indian, the story of North America’s history is discussed from his original viewpoint and perspective. In his first chapter, “Forgetting Columbus,” he voices his opinion about how he feel towards the way white people have told America’s history and portraying it as an adventurous tale of triumph, strength and freedom. King hunts down the evidence needed to reveal more facts on the controversial relationship between the whites and natives and how it has affected the culture of Americans. Mainly untangling the confusion between the idea of Native Americans being savages and whites constantly reigning in glory. He exposes the truth about how Native Americans were treated and how their actual stories were
Louise Erdrich’s short story “American horse” is a literary piece written by an author whose works emphasize the American experience for a multitude of different people from a plethora of various ethnic backgrounds. While Erdrich utilizes a full arsenal of literary elements to better convey this particular story to the reader, perhaps the two most prominent are theme and point of view. At first glance this story seems to portray the struggle of a mother who has her son ripped from her arms by government authorities; however, if the reader simply steps back to analyze the larger picture, the theme becomes clear. It is important to understand the backgrounds of both the protagonist and antagonists when analyzing theme of this short story. Albetrine, who is the short story’s protagonist, is a Native American woman who characterizes her son Buddy as “the best thing that has ever happened to me”. The antagonist, are westerners who work on behalf of the United States Government. Given this dynamic, the stage is set for a clash between the two forces. The struggle between these two can be viewed as a microcosm for what has occurred throughout history between Native Americans and Caucasians. With all this in mind, the reader can see that the theme of this piece is the battle of Native Americans to maintain their culture and way of life as their homeland is invaded by Caucasians. In addition to the theme, Erdrich’s usage of the third person limited point of view helps the reader understand the short story from several different perspectives while allowing the story to maintain the ambiguity and mysteriousness that was felt by many Natives Americans as they endured similar struggles. These two literary elements help set an underlying atmos...
Momaday makes me view language in a new way. He has forced me to think about how I speak and treat each word with respect so that I am able to grasp the picture it paints. And I now believe that every word can have a picture if placed correctly, whether it be obvious or merely a color associated with an emotion. The way in which some people abuse words and let them become only the words on a questionnaire is horrifying. It’s as if they lose an emotion, their speech being monotonous and drab. Momaday stresses these points and I feel he has a right to show the revere with which Native Americans regard words and the inconsequence with which many white people view words. If the reader is willing to open their mind’s eye to see the beautiful picture words can paint, Momaday has achieved what he wanted to, as well as brightening the life of that reader.