Struggle for independence and liberty
author, in this article, argues about the struggle for independence and liberty. McGillivray was a son to a Scots-Irish immigrant, who had come to America in 1738, marrying a Creek woman after becoming a trader. The rich lands in which the Creek people had inhabited were encroached by the frontiersmen, prompting McGillivray to resist this move, thus causing repulsion between him and the government. He had written a letter saying to his friend of how he was having a feeling that he would be assassinated by the government of Georgia for fighting for his land to preserve the noble cause of defending his home (Nash 1979).
According to the author, the determination to fight for human rights is caused by certain pressures. McGillivray, being red, had believed that there was a need to preserve political liberty for his people of Northern America as well as fighting to safeguard their ancestral land inherited by their ancestors. He, therefore, decided to walk in the lanes of the fallen heroes being commemorated in the Bicentennial year. McGillivray had drawn a lot of inspiration from one patriot called Thomas Peters, who was once a slave and sold to British masters. He started revolutions and fight for his human rights, championing for equality for all people of all races (Nash 1979).
According to Nash, Peter worked with pother fighters to establish a free black colony in West Africa called Sierra Leone. They were championing the return of the captured slaves back to their motherland. They were successful in their mission, as many enslaved blacks were shipped back to Sierra Leone. It was for this reason that Peters was seen to deserve a commemoration of the revolution in America as he fought for human dignity as well as social equity (1979).
The author further shows us the need to fight for a cause and mission. Many Afro-Americans in the 1770s had to take a side to pursue their quest for freedom, as opposed to the freedom of their nation. It was by this view that many blacks learned not to depend on the white societies for their liberty, but to grab the available opportunity for self-liberation. They, therefore, took advantage of wars to free themselves, either choosing to be given liberty or death. In many circumstances, a rebellion was done individually and not collectively (Nash 1979).
According to the author, the American Revolution was necessary. There was another man, who was a Mohawk, known as Joseph Brant by the English communities, but his native name being Thayendanegea. He was a contemporary to Thomas Peters but in another region. His sister was married to William Johnson, who entered American colonies the same year Alexander McGillivray’s father has become a trader. Thayendanegea fought together with William Johnson against the French in 1755 at Crown Point and later helped the colonists to battle against Indian insurgents who aimed at defeating the British soldier from encroaching their cousins in America from the Ohio country as highlighted by Nash (1979).
The author brings forth the idea that no matter the means one chooses, the end must be purposeful and similar. Thayendanegea thrived between two worlds, both white and red, surviving bilingually and bi-culturally. He later came to understand that despite his trading alliance, his people were being overwhelmed by the increasing numbers of white colonists that were driving his people from the New York lands. He, therefore, made diplomatic missions to Ohio and Iroquois spreading the message of liberation, finally, therefore, sparking on the British side in 1777 as Nash points out in the article (1979).
The author thus shows that no matter the position one takes, if the course is right, motivation is generated to others. Thayendanegea’s story also brought motivation to the Indian’s American Revolution. It aimed at political independence and territorial defense. The Indian tribes had resulted to share with the enemies of America to forge a resistance movement, with many instances of tribes putting their long differences aside and joining hands to fight for a common goal as discussed by Nash (1979).
This article thus brings out two heroes of the land. Thayendanegea fostered intertribal cooperation in the war through his diplomatic tours while Alexander McGillivray was organizing the Creek’s resistance against the Georgians and South Carolinians who were land-hungry. According to the, their lands were their breath and life, and any instance of parting with them caused them to part with their blood, thus the need to fight for them. These two were thus exemplars of pan-Indian resistance, who gave rise to new generations (Nash 1979).
Despite all the fight though, setbacks set in that served as lessons. The history books fail to record the names of many revolutionary leaders who were dominant figures in the revolutionary era in Indian society, as those in the white society like Washington, Hamilton, and others. In the end, Indians were losers disastrously in the American Revolutionary war as they were abandoned by their allies in the war. The red and black people in these lands thus fought for their natural rights, against white revolutionaries but lost bitterly. The only thing they won was the history that was passed down to future generations as founding principles (Nash 1979).
In my own opinion, the fight for justice is a course that is not for the fain-hearted. This process requires determination and the self-drive, knowing at the end that there will be positive fruits. Sometimes wars and revolutions do not turn out as expected but at least one can make a statement to the oppressors as in the case of the Indians. Despite losing the wars in past times, their leaders are determined to still fight for their land and their place they call