Quote
The Chief Seattle Speech that Wasn't
Yes, there was a Chief Seattle. And, by all reports, he was a very fine fellow indeed. But, no,he did not say: "The earth is our mother."
In fact, the earth-mother quote is just one of many ecological observations, widely attributed to Chief Seattle, that are pure, unadulterated myth - and relatively recent myth at that. Try these:
* "We are a part of the earth and it is part of us." Chief Seattle might have believed this, but there is no evidence he ever said it.
* "Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste." Yuk! No Way.
* "I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train." Get serious. Chief Seattle never left Puget Sound, so he never saw a railroad, nor a buffalo - dead or alive.
For at least a generation, local historians and Native Americans have been trying to correct these and other myths surrounding the native patriarch who gave Seattle its name. But myth dies hard. Especially a myth that serves the ends of a vibrant environmental movement.
Here, according to Seattle's Museum of Science and Industry, is what is known: In 1854, an aging Chief Seattle attended a reception for territorial Gov. Isaac Stevens, who was trying to buy Puget Sound lands from the Indians. The chief, who spoke no English, delivered a speech, which supposedly was translated by pioneer Dr. Henry A. Smith. And in 1887, Smith published the speech in a Seattle newspaper.
"There was a time when our people covered the whole land as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea covers its shell-paved floor," Seattle was reported to have said in his native Duwamish language. "But that time has long since passed away...I will not mourn over our untimely decay, nor reproach my paleface brothers for hastening it, for we too may have been somewhat to blame...
"Our dead never forget the beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its winding rivers, its great mountains and its sequestered vales, and they ever yearn in tenderest affection over the lonely-hearted living, and often return to visit and comfort them...
"Every part of this country is sacred to my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove has been hallowed by some fond memory."
And so forth. Nice speech. But even that translation is questionable, at best. Smith claimed to speak Duwamish, but it's a difficult language and he had only been in the Northwest for a year. So his fluency was dubious.
Still, Smith's has been the authorized version, accepted by local historians from Clarence Bagley to Roger Sale.
Then, some 20 years ago, comes the "green" version, with Chief Seattle waxing eloquent, and at great length, about the earth mother and the buffalo and contaminating one's bed. Sometimes it is a letter from the Great White Father, who happened to be Franklin Pierce. Sometimes it is a poem.
In 1974, the speech droned from the mouth of a Chief Seattle statue at the Spokane World's Fair. It has been reprinted hundreds, perhaps thousands of times in books, films posters and brochures, published by groups ranging from Friends of the Earth to the Southern Baptists.
Skeptics cried foul. In 1975, Janice Krenmayr wrote an article for The Seattle Times, warning that "Chief Seattle must be turning over in his grave." Bill Holm, curator at the Burke Museum, pleaded for environmentalists to step forward and admit they had made it up.
But myth is more resilient than history. It persists. Where did it come from? It took a West German historian named Rudolph Kaiser to figure that out. A student of the American Indian, Kaiser tracked it down to an environmental film documentary that was aired on national television in 1971. The script had been written by Ted Perry, an East Coast scriptwriter who composed the new version, composed that soupy prose about rotting buffalo, and attributed it all to Chief Seattle.
So what's the difference? The unauthorized version is a passionate call to ecological responsibility, a plea to halt the slaughter of an animal Chief Seattle had never seen. It reads like it was written by a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club - which it was.
The original speech was something else again. Chief Seattle was a strong and well-respected leader who helped smooth the transition in Puget Sound from native control to Western control. Unfortunately, he did that by accepting promises of compensation – promises made by people who didn't keep promises very well.
Chief Seattle valued the land not because it was inherently sacred, but because it was the dwelling place of his ancestors, MOHAI says. His speech was essentially a surrender to the advance of Western civilization, an invasion his people could no longer resist.
http://www.rossink.com/2008/04/articles/mother-nature/the-chief-seattle-speech-that-wasnt/
motherfucking godfucking DAMN it.
There was NOT a "Chief Seattle".
There was a motherfucking CHIEF SEALTH and fucking honkies couldn't be bothered to pronounce it correctly.
that is all.
also, for what it's worth, western Washington is the one place I've seen in america where the indians ended up with some of the choicest real estate around.
Well sure, because they enthusiastically sold out to the White Man. Noble savages my ass.
Quote from: Brotep on December 16, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
Well sure, because they enthusiastically sold out to the White Man. Noble savages my ass.
Didnt work for the cherokee.
Just sayin.
Quote from: Brotep on December 16, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
Well sure, because they enthusiastically sold out to the White Man. Noble savages my ass.
if you had two choices and they were:
1) get overrun by foreign invaders and end up with nothing
or
2) get overrun by foreign invaders and get to keep some choice waterfront property all for yourself
which would you choose?
also,
NOT CHIEF SEATTLE. NOT NOT NOT.
SEALTH.
PRONOUNCED "SEE-AL-TEH".
:facepalm:
Whatever, man.
The treatment the First Nations received at the hands of the US government completely sucked balls, but you're also completely missing the point.
My point is simply this: this famous speech ascribed to Chief Sealth and widely taught as such in schools, was made up by someone else. He never said it.
This goes toward a couple of things:
1) another reminder that much of what they teach you in school is bullshit
2) one less piece of support for the idea that American Indians/Native Americans/First People/First Nations/whatever you prefer were more in tune with nature
I've always thought the idea of Indigenous Asiatic People (they're not any more "native" than we are) as the perfect hippies was bullshit.
but engaging in historical inaccuracy while you attempt to excoriate historical inaccuracy makes you look just as foolish as the people you're railing against.
also, your backhanded attempt to paint the tribes of the Puget Sound basin as somehow being sellouts is insulting. I suggest you go talk that shit on the Tulalip rez and see how far it gets you.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 17, 2009, 06:46:11 AM
I've always thought the idea of Indigenous Asiatic People (they're not any more "native" than we are) as the perfect hippies was bullshit.
but engaging in historical inaccuracy while you attempt to excoriate historical inaccuracy makes you look just as foolish as the people you're railing against.
also, your backhanded attempt to paint the tribes of the Puget Sound basin as somehow being sellouts is insulting. I suggest you go talk that shit on the Tulalip rez and see how far it gets you.
Thanks. This.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 17, 2009, 06:46:11 AM
I've always thought the idea of Indigenous Asiatic People (they're not any more "native" than we are) as the perfect hippies was bullshit.
Yes. More than that, though...The claim from outside that the First Nations have a deeper connection to nature was not purely complimentary. It means lower placement on the Great Chain of Being. It is, then, a disservice to allow this idea to persist.
Quotebut engaging in historical inaccuracy while you attempt to excoriate historical inaccuracy makes you look just as foolish as the people you're railing against.
Fine, I concede the point. But why do you think I would be engaging in historical inaccuracy in the first place? Because I was taught the wrong shit. Which seems to just reinforce my point that historical inaccuracy is ubiquitous.
I just got irritated because you completely ignored the point I was trying to make and shat all over this thread.
Quotealso, your backhanded attempt to paint the tribes of the Puget Sound basin as somehow being sellouts is insulting. I suggest you go talk that shit on the Tulalip rez and see how far it gets you.
I wasn't trying to do that. I know they didn't have a choice--I said something stupid because you shat on my thread. I am sorry.
It wouldn't have taken much research on your part to have uncovered your inaccuracies for yourself.
just saying.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on December 17, 2009, 06:18:14 PM
It wouldn't have taken much research on your part to have uncovered your inaccuracies for yourself.
just saying.
Like I always say, if you're going to be an asshole, you damn well better be
right.
Quote from: Brotep on December 16, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
Well sure, because they enthusiastically sold out to the White Man. Noble savages my ass.
They survived.
The Lakota were too inflexible. Now they live in North Dakota, at least those that are left.
But it matters not...what happened to the Lakota is about to happen to us. We're all "indigenous peoples" now.
Speak for yourself, statesider.
I am merely an observer and chronicler of this downfall until such a time as it ceases to amuse me.
Though I doubt that will be anytime soon.
RCH,
addicted to the wrong kind of fun