Chief Joseph was a famous Native American chief who lead some of the Nez Perce

speaking peoples in what is now north western Oregon. Chief Joseph became an important
historical fgure of the mid to late 1800's for his dealings with the "white man", as many
natives of that time would have called them. This essay will use speeches and other words
from Chief Joseph to analyze three questions that arise about the famous Nez Perce
speaking Native American. What tones are expressed in Chief Joseph's speeches, and what
does that tell us about the United States at the time? What was one of the many rights that
Chief Joseph mentioned that his people should have, and how does that relate to our
constitution today? Finally, What were two ideas Chief Joseph had when dealing with the
white man, and how would those two tactics ease tensions between natives and Americans
at time?
The given source for this assignment, Chief Joseph Speaks, shows Joesph's tone in his
speeches very well. To put it simply, Chief Joseph spoke simply, humbly, and frankly.
However, Joseph also was willing to speak in a matter-o'-fact tone in order to defend the
rights of his land and his people. It isn't a bad thing at all that Chief Joseph spoke in this way,
but one has to admit that when you think of Native Americans, that is generally how they
spoke at the time; rightly so because they are a people who deeply care about their culture,
land, and family. We can see a perfect example of this from the following lines spoken by
Chief Joseph, regarding the history between the Native Americans and the white settlers:
"The frst white men of your people who came to our country were named Lewis and Clark...
They brought many things which our people had never seen... They talked straight and our
people gave them a great feast as proof that their hearts were friendly... All the Nez Perce
made friends with Lewis and Clark and agreed to let them pass through their country and
never to make war on white men. This promise the Nez Perce have never broken."([TEXT:
Chester Anders Fee, Chief Joseph: The Biography of a Great Indian, Wilson-Erickson,
1936.], WEB SOURCE: The West Film Project and WETA,
2001, http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/six/jospeak.htm). From this short
paragraph of simple sentences, we can see that Chief Joseph was a simple man who was
wise in his years and was proud of his heritage. Though simple, Chief Joesph always spoke
efecdtively and advocated the security of the Nez Perce. This tells us that though the United
States may have been a simpler nation at the time, there were still issues in daily life, and the
economics of sharing land that was not originally inhabited by U.S. citizens.

Two rights of the Native Americans that Chief Joseph whole-heartedly wanted can be
divulged from these two statements: "I only ask of the Government to be treated as all other
men are treated. If I cannot go to my own home, let me have a home in a country where my
people will not die so fast.", and "...We shall be all alike -- brothers of one father and mother,
with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all." (Ibid). All that
Chief Joseph wanted for his people was the freedom to move about his native land; being a
constructive member to the 1800's American society, and the right to be treated like equal to
the white man; under one unifed government. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the white
man was not very fair to the people who originally inhabited this land. The fact that our
ancestors denied the natives these two simple rights, shows a malicious will to hypocritically
go against the very ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under the constitution, we are all
said to have certain, unalienable rights; these include life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Today in American society, we very much have the freedom of life liberty and
happiness. We can choose where to live, where to eat, where to work, and how we will
contribute to this land. When one looks back at Chief Josephs statements above, we can see
the similarity. The Native Americans were here frst, no arguments, but our ancestors pushed
them out of their own land. Natives had every right to say "No, we do not want to share the
land. We want all foreigners out of the land we rightfully own.", but we can see that Chief
Joseph didn't think that way. He said that we should all try to live under one government,
even though the white man had no business taking native land in the frst place. Think how
you would feel if your way of life, liberty, and happiness were suddenly stripped away from
you.
Now, look at the quotes that have been put into this paper. Though Chief Joseph
directly expressed ideas on white and Indian relations, those quotes also show solutions to
the tensions between the white settlers and the Native Americans. Take, for example, the
simple idea Chief Joseph expressed when he said "...one country around us and one
government for all" (Ibid). If the settlers and the Native Americans would have been able to
function under one government, there wouldn't be the negative stigma there is today when it
comes to relations between the U.S. government and the nations of Native Americans. Look
at the U.S. today; we have immigrants from Mexico, China, Russia, India, South America,
Europe, Africa, and from practically every nation in the world. Granted, things are not perfect,
but we seem to have no problem now sharing our land with the peoples of the world. Why
couldn't the U.S. government and the Native Americans come under that kind of agreement
200 years ago? No solution can solve all tensions between two peoples, but the United
States of America is not strictly made of British-Colonials in the present day. Rather, we have
a melting pot of many cultures that has come together to make this nation be a thriving frst-
world country. If only our ancestors could have seen the potential from sharing the land with
the natives. Secondly, Chief Joseph suggested open trade between the white man and
natives when he talked about how Lewis and Clark came to infuence the natives.
Remember, Chief Joseph essentially stated that the settlers helped the natives with new
technology, and the natives helped the settlers with supplies and essentials to cultivate the
land; i.e horses, crops, guides, etc. There was a willing to help each other at frst, but as
history yet again shows, once the settlers found gold, forests, precious ores, and other
materials, the greed set in and the open trade stopped. The settlers found they were
technologically advanced while the natives found that they could still fght with savagery. In
my opinion, neither side is right when it has to come to war. If the two peoples could have
continued to share and help each other advance, then we would have a more native friendly
nation today.
Many opinions prevail, and many fngers are pointed at who started the Native
American vs. "White man" war for land. We can see though that both sides are to blame.
Chief Joseph was a perfect example of someone, though severely mistreated, who was able
to adapt to the changing of time, and was willing to work with the new people looking for a
land to call home. Someone that high in a society who had a complacent and helping view
towards settlers should show that not all Native Americans were "savages" who murdered
and scalped the innocent settlers of a new world. Likewise, the example of Lewis and Clark,
and the famous Thanksgiving Feast should show that not all settlers were greedy, murderous
individuals who took advantage of innocent people who were only living on the land they
rightfully owned. Both the settlers and the Native Americans had both good and bad
individuals who were willing to help each other, or help murder each other; therefore neither
side should take the blame. This paper has shown, through the example
of Hinmatowyalahtqit (Chief Joseph's true, and rightful name), that the United States could
have been a very diferent place if things in history had just run a little smoother. In the end,
we today are not ideally diferent than Hinmatowyalahtqit and the Nez Perce speaking
people.