Manifest Destiny-ism

I chose to read Chief Seattle’s speech because I feel like that aspect of American history is often overlooked. We talked about nationalism in class yesterday; I feel like a more appropriate “ism” for the United States is manifest destiny-ism. Some positives came from that belief, but negatives did as well, about 250,000 of them. That’s a guestimate of how many Native Americans were killed to further manifest destiny. When put into that particular rhetorical situation, one can understand why Chief Seattle sounds downtrodden and skeptical in his speech.

Chief Seattle was writing to two different audiences: first, the United States, and second, his own people. The difference between audiences explains some of the rhetorical devices he uses. He uses many analogies and comparisons between the red man’s way of life and the white man’s. These comparisons assure that both audiences will be attentive to his speech, and both will glean the intended result.

For his own people, Chief Seattle’s comparisons ensured them that even though they seemed defeated now, their legacy would live on “with the returning hosts that once filled and still love this land.” This gave his people hope even in the face of impending encroachment on their lands and reservation living.

For the United States’ people, Chief Seattle’s comparisons gave them confidence that this group of Native Americans would give up their lands without resistance. He said that “it matters but little where we pass the remainder of our days. They are not many. The Indian’s night promises to be dark.” The comparison with night helped the white man see that the Indian’s struggle was over. But for the Indian, the comparison with night promised a new day even in the face of manifest destiny.