Helen Hunt Jackson's Argument Analysis

Words: 1406
Pages: 6

Native Americans were the first people to live on the continent formerly known as the New World. When European nations discovered the continent, they set out to claim lands and expand their empires. When the United States had achieved its independence, it set out to expand over the continent. This is known as Manifest Destiny, and Americans felt they had a right to take every inch of the continent. This expansion first started in 1787 with the Northwest Ordinance, and continued until 1890 with the end of the Plains Indian Wars and the Battle of Wounded Knee. The native people naturally did not want to give up their lands, and this brought them into conflict with the American government.
The Native Americans had a negative relationship
…show more content…
The argument presented by Helen Hunt Jackson relies greatly on pathos; she write about how the natives have been mistreated, and relies mostly on appealing to the emotions of the reader. But she has presented no tangible evidence — like statistics, accounts of each and every tribe being betrayed, etc — to support her argument. This weakens her argument because it is now just based on emotion. Chief Seattle had a strong argument because he was a person being directly affected by the decisions of the white men. The case for the government and native relations in the past was not very arguable because it is widely known that the natives suffered greatly at the hands of white people and the US government during their thirst for lands. In present times, it can be argued that the natives are not getting as much aid as they should, but is obvious that the relations have gotten much better over the last few decades. Both of the articles that argue about native americans in present times are convincing because they provide tangible evidence to back up their claims. They also provide the facts and do not side toward one side or another because they argue for both. The articles read are overall, provide adequate evidence to back their claims, though some need more tangible evidence to make the argument