Red Jacket And Tecumseh

Foreign Occupation through the Red Man’s Eyes Can two people sharing the same dilemma, fostered by the same external forces, reach completely different assumptions, attitudes, and reasons for a solution? A similar scenario to this question fell upon two prominent Native Americans, Red Jacket and Tecumseh, during the colonial occupation of the New World. Through their eyes, the surrendering of their land brought forth a mixed bag of emotions, ideologies, and generalizations. When analyzed as a group their shared plight shows commonalities between the two natives; however, at the personal level there are noticeable differences. Respectively, Red Jacket’s “Reply to the Missionary Jacob Cram” and Tecumseh’s “Speech to the Osages” shows the cohesion

Both writers believed the relentless encroachment of the settlers upon their native land was harmful to their people. Red Jacket and Tecumseh shared in the idea that their land was a given right by the Great Spirit and that the settlers were unjust and did not have the right to take their land. In Tecumseh’s writing it clearly states, “The Great Spirit made all things . . . [and] supplied these grounds with game, and gave them to his red children” (Hunter 233). Similarly, Red Jacket proclaims, “There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island . . . The Great Spirit had made it for the use of Indians” (Stone 230). Their shared belief was that the Native Americans, and not the settlers, had the rights and entitlements to the land. The shared generalization between the two indicates Native Americans were the true inhabitants of this land and distinguishes all others occupants as foreigners with no entitled rights of

Similar to Tecumseh, he uses terms like brother and friends to connect to his audience; however, in contrast to Tecumseh, his audience is not the fellow natives rather it is a white man. Only a short section of Red Jacket’s narrative specifically addresses the settlers’ negatively. He references the settlers giving alcohol to the Indians and the forcing their religious beliefs upon them (Stone 230). Instead of using direct insults and contempt, Red Jacket frames his arguments against religious assimilation through sarcastic questions. He inquires of the settlers, “If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it?” (231). Using sarcasm as his stylistic tool, he ultimately trumps the notion that the settler’s religion is good for all and without faults. Red Jacket’s subtle approach at calling out the settlers for their actions speaks volumes to his logic and reasoning. He concludes his speech stating, “We do not wish to destroy your religion, or take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own” (231). Red Jackets’ solution stems from the idea of coexistence and a mutual respect for one another and one’s religion, which is the polar opposite of Tecumseh’s idea of vengeance and extermination. Although each author’s audience, subject, and tone are different, their writings follow a similar formula or