Rhetorical Analysis Of Indian Removal

Indian Removal, a controversy that dates back to America’s founding, has had its supporters and its critics. In 1877, the American government forced the Wal-lam-wat-kin band of the Nez Perce Indians to move from their lands and into an Indian reservation. Their chief In-mut-too-yah-lat-lat, whom Americans address by Joseph, traveled to Lincoln Hall in Washington, D.C. two years later to advocate for Indian freedom as conditions in the reservation worsened. His goal was to convince American government leaders to put an end to the deportation of Indian tribes from their homelands and treat Indians as citizens, with equal rights and obligations. Chief Joseph’s speech is very successful in persuading his audience of his thesis through its usage …show more content…
Therefore, Americans should have the capacity to treat Indians equally, as well. Familial terms such as “brothers” when referring to Indians and Americans make him sound inclusive, virtuous, and not accusatory (Joseph 5). His benevolence makes the audience more inclined to side with him because he seems to have no ulterior motive. Ethos in his speech mainly stems from his position as a respectable representative and chief of his people, which makes his audience more likely to take his concerns seriously. Furthermore, because Joseph speaks from personal experience, his perspective is more credible. Joseph’s lack of logical fallacies and his use of evidence to support his thesis, examples of logos, make his point of view plausible to the audience. Outside of the three rhetorical techniques, however, other persuasive strategies can also be identified. Universal truths, which are abundant in Joseph’s speech, appeal to the audience’s accepted values, and he adds reasoning to connect them to his point. Additionally, his lists of “free to” and “[g]ood words” are examples of repetition (Joseph 5). The former, a list of empty promises, emphasizes the injustices the Indians have endured at the hands of Americans. Members of the audience are then compelled to feel guilt or shame for their immoral actions. Hypocrisy in the rights Americans preach reveal themselves …show more content…
As it multiplies in size, Americans need space to live and resources to maintain their daily welfare, which is why Indian land is so valuable. American government leaders do not want to sacrifice the living conditions of their citizens to assist Joseph’s tribe. If Chief Joseph has the opportunity, he should present sharing space as a reasonable solution. Having boundaries for Indian territory would be acceptable so long as the size of the territory could comfortably sustain its Indian residents. Americans and Indians would have equal space proportional to population, and all people would be able to live in healthy conditions. Following Joseph’s response, American government leaders might then address Chief Joseph’s request for an Indian territory in Bitter Root Valley by asking if he or his tribe would be able to buy the land. Chief Joseph, in response, should argue that the American government actually ought to give the region to his tribe. The area should be compensation for the land they lost, especially since Joseph’s tribe has never accepted any payment or annuities like the other Nez Perce Indians. His audience might counter Joseph’s argument by insisting that the United States government should not treat tribes which have resorted to warfare with generosity. Joseph’s response should be that, since slights and crimes committed by Americans were often what drove Indian tribes to violence, they deserve to be like