Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on July 30, 2002, 05:28:12 PM
-
If you're gonna read it, read it slowly. Otherwise I suggest you just move on to more flaming threads.
As legend has it, in 1854 Chief Seattle of the Puget Sound Indians was asked to sell a large area of land in what is now known as Washington State. He and his people were also promised a reservation by President Franklin Pierce. Here is Chief Seattle's reply.
How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and humming insect is holy in the memory of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the Red man. The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is a part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and the man, all belong to the same family.
So when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief in Washington will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land, but it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in the streams and the rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors.
If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.
The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindliness you would give any brother. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children's birthright forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only desert. I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways.
The sight of your cities pains the eye of the red man. But perhaps it is because the red man is savage and does not understand. There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect's wings.
But perhaps it is because I am savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night! I am a red man and do not understand.
The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond, and the smell of the wind itself, cleansed by rain or scented with the pine cone. The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath: the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white men, they all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench.
But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. And if we sell you our land you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where even the white man can go and taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's flowers. So we will consider your offer to buy our land.
If we decide to accept I will make one condition. The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am savage and do not understand any other way. I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am savage and do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it, whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as a friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover - our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land, but you cannot. He is the God of man and his compassion is equal for the red man and the white. The earth is precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt upon its Creator. The whites, too, shall pass; perhaps sooner than all the other tribes, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. But in your perishing, you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills blotted out by talking wires.
Where is the thicket?
Gone.
Where is the eagle?
Gone.
-
I have to admit, I spent about 20 seconds reading it. I then ran to snopes and found it was an Urban Legend.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/seattle.htm
-
Of all the Urban Legends being passed around... the one I would have sworn to be a legend was the story of the guy that cut off a testicle masturbating against a peice of machinery... then stapled himself closed with a staple gun.
Turns out that one was actually true.
Its still unbelievable.
AKDejaVu
-
ya, and boy.do my nuts hurt!
-
LOL!!! :D
-
Originally posted by hawk220
ya, and boy.do my nuts hurt!
Shouldn't that be "nut"?
-
Sheeesh, AK, I coulda gone all day without reading that. Thanks for the warning tho, I'll quit mastrubating while I run my cotton gin.
In all probability Chief Seattle simply had the land taken from him while he and his people were shipped off to the least desirable of lands or he sold his land along with all the tribe's virgins for a few gallons of rotgut whiskey. Regardless rather the story is true or not (one method of Indian hunting was to drive a buffalo herd over a cliff) it's a good story and something to think about. Thanks Steve.
-
Hence the name of the town in Alberta...I toejam you not...Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.
http://www.head-smashed-in.com
-
Sorry Thrawn, I couldn't look at that site. The memories of my recent accident are still too fresh in my mind.
-
no indian ever talked like that, sounds more like a tenured ivory tower liberal college teacher
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Sorry Thrawn, I couldn't look at that site. The memories of my recent accident are still too fresh in my mind.
If only I had remembered, and had a bit more wit. I probably could have turned my previous post into one of the best burns of all time. :o
-
Thrawn, what part of "legend" did you not understand?
So I posted something to provoke thought, in the beginning of my post I asked you all to pause a while and read it. Then you arrive like an obnoxius drunk proclaiming that you spent 20 seconds reading it before you post some irrelevant crap.
I'm so sick and tired of you and your damn urban legends page. Are you walking around in december telling kids that santa doesnt exist too? Get a diddlying life.
Also, try to get it into your head that "snopes" is not the ultimate source of truth. It is an internet source, like all other internet sources.
The reason I used the word "legend" is this. Chief Seattle said "something" in 1854. A doctor was present when he said it, and that doctor later published his speech in a newspaper in 1887. In 1932 that newspaper-article was copied and published by John M. Rich. There exists 4-5 versions of the speech, the one I used was the one published by John M. Rich. We will never know exactly what the old indian did say in his speech. What we have to go on is the words of the doctor. Who on his deathbead swore it was true.
Perhaps he added something -such as the 1000 buffalos, or the disturbing cities, or perhaps he translated the original meaning in a different way to make it more understandable...who knows.
Basically it all comes down to this:
The absence of any evidence, the lack of a Duwimish-language text of the speech, the absence of notes bv Dr. Smith, the silence on the part of persons known to have been present during meetings between Stevens and Seattle, and the failure of the speech to appear in the official treaty proceedings create grave doubts about the accuracy of the reminiscences of Dr. Smith in 1887, some thirty-two years after the alleged episode. Thus it is impossible (without new evidence) to either confirm or deny the validity of the speech.
HOWEVER in 1887 Dr. Smith's article was in the Seattle Sunday Star (Oct. 20, 1887) -so No, it was not some movie writer in 1972 who wrote it.
(On his deathbed, Smith reaffirmed the speech's authenticity to Vivian M. Carkeek, who, on his deathbed, told Clark B. Belknap, who in turn told John M. Rich. Rich, Seattle's Unanswered Challenge, p. 45.)
Oh, and the source for the version I presented: A 1932 pamphlet by John M. Rich, copies of which are at the Seattle Historical Society and at the Library of Congress. Mr. Rich, in turn, cites an article in a Seattle newspaper from 1887 in which a Dr. Henry A. Smith reconstructed a speech by the Duwamish Chief on the occasion "When Governor Stevens first arrived in Seattle and told the natives that he had been appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs for Washington Territory," an event dated by Rich as December 1854
-
I believe it. All you have to do is listen to "Silent Killers" on Enigma's - The Cross of Changes disc.
Good call on Santa Claus Hortlund.
Masher
-
I believe what was actually said went more like.. "What? you smelly roundeyes wanna give me all these cool shiny beads and all this firewater for this moldy toejamhole of a wanna be rainforest?"
lazs
-
what'ya mean there is no santa claus!?:eek:
-
for this moldy toejamhole of a wanna be rainforest?"
have you BEEN to the rainforests up here? it is certainly not a moldy toejamhole.
-
ok..I suppose there are lots of smelly roundeyes here tho:D
-
I have found a small portion of the actual text:
"and I want you to promise one more thing......cough ....cough. Please never ever let anyone named Ripsnort move into this fertile land ....cough..... cough."
-
And Steve, your research is faulty... no its just plain wrong!
Take 5 minutes to read this. Written by some liberal hollywood type...lol.
Source: Museum of History and Industry;
Seattle, Washington -- June, 1990
In 1854, the new territorial governor, Isaac Stevens, began the long-awaited process of making treaties with the native peoples of the Pacific Northwest. The purpose of these negotiations was clear: the Indians were to sign away their lands to the settlers in return for small reservations and promises of government aid. Dr. David Maynard, sub-Indian agent and a friend of Chief Seattle, arranged for Governor Stevens to meet with Seattle and his people in December 1854. The Indians congregated on the beach just north of the present Kingdome.
At this meeting, Chief Seattle is said to have made an impassioned speech in his native tongue. As Seattle spoke, Dr. Henry Smith, for whom Smith Cove is named, took notes from which he reconstructed the Chief's words some 33 years later, publishing them in the October 29, 1887 edition of the Seattle Sunday Star. Smith's flowery rendering of Chief Seattle's oration does not conform to what we know of the speaking style of the Puget Sound Indians. Native speech was not given to ornate embellishment. Dr. Smith, for his part, was known as a "poet of no ordinary talent" who "wove into verses and essays much of his musings." Thus while this earliest version of the speech may present the gist of Chief Seattle's remarks, it seems likely that it is also the product of Henry Smith's poetic musings. However flawed it may be, this is the only eyewitness account of Chief Seattle's most famous speech.
That fame is due, in part, to the appearance of a magnificent call to environmental responsibility that has been wrongly attributed to Chief Seattle. In the winter of 1971/72, Ted Perry, a screenwriter working for the Southern Baptist Convention's Radio and Television Commission, used Chief Seattle's speech as a model for the script of a film on ecology called _Home_. The film's producer wanted to show a distinguished American Indian chief delivering a statement of concern for the environment, so Perry wove such wonderful lines as "The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth" among pieces of Chief Seattle's 1854 oration. Perry expected to be given credit for writing this film script, but he made the mistake of including the Chief's name in his text. According to Perry, the producer didn't credit his screen writer because he thought the film might seem more authentic without a "written by" credit. Since then, Perry's environmental text has been widely circulated as a prophetic ecological statement by Chief Seattle himself.
-
Saw a sticker once that read:
The Indian paid no taxes
hunted and fished all day
and the women did all the work
and the white man thought he could improve on this
:)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And Steve, your research is faulty... no its just plain wrong!
Take 5 minutes to read this. Written by some liberal hollywood type...lol.
Midnight, stop poking me with a stick. Do you think I have read that page or not? I got caught in a nasty flame war over this speech on another BB, and I spent a damn week going through all internet sources there is on this subject.
This is what I posted 7 posts before you. Read it and shut up.
The reason I used the word "legend" is this. Chief Seattle said "something" in 1854. A doctor was present when he said it, and that doctor later published his speech in a newspaper in 1887. In 1932 that newspaper-article was copied and published by John M. Rich. There exists 4-5 versions of the speech, the one I used was the one published by John M. Rich. We will never know exactly what the old indian did say in his speech. What we have to go on is the words of the doctor. Who on his deathbead swore it was true.
Perhaps he added something -such as the 1000 buffalos, or the disturbing cities, or perhaps he translated the original meaning in a different way to make it more understandable...who knows.
Basically it all comes down to this:
The absence of any evidence, the lack of a Duwimish-language text of the speech, the absence of notes bv Dr. Smith, the silence on the part of persons known to have been present during meetings between Stevens and Seattle, and the failure of the speech to appear in the official treaty proceedings create grave doubts about the accuracy of the reminiscences of Dr. Smith in 1887, some thirty-two years after the alleged episode. Thus it is impossible (without new evidence) to either confirm or deny the validity of the speech.
-
There's a spot on the Mendocino Coast that recharges MY batteries. My parents own some acreage there, complete with redwood trees and a salmon spawning stream where you can sit and count the fish as they struggle up riffles that're more shallow than their girth. Time before last whan I was there I watched a flock of 30 to 40 wild turkeys cross a meadow. Deer, river otters and racoons are common with an occasional visit from a bear thrown in for good measure. That's MY drug of choice.
When on the hiway I take the scenic route. I'm usually in no hurry to get somewhere, so taking a few minutes to stop at an overlook or hopping off the freeway to take a more scenic route are pretty standard for me. There's one word to describe the exherilation of driving through the Avenue Of The Giants on a sunny morning, sunlight filtering through the trees, Little Feat on the stereo doing "This Land Is Your Land"- inspiring.
I thank God every day for where I live, His wonderful blessings and His precious gifts of Nature and Life. I am truly blessed by God.
-
I'm right there with ya elfy..
I live in God's country. have a great-horned owl and 3 hawks living within 500' of my house.
not to mention wild Trout up the .. well you get the idea :)
and to think.. my GF wants me to move back to Denver!
-
poke poke!
Who's version did you say you were posting?
Version 1 appeared in the Seattle Sunday Star on Oct. 29, 1887, in a column by Dr. Henry A. Smith. He makes it very clear that his version is not an exact copy, but rather the best he could put together from notes taken at the time. There is an undecided historical argument on which native dialect the Chief would have used, Duwamish or Suquamish. Either way all agree the speech was translated into the Chinook Jargon on the spot, since Chief Seattle never learned to speak English.
[Version 1 begins: Yonder sky has wept tears of compassion on our fathers for centuries untold, and which, to us, looks eternal, may change. To-day it is fair, to-morrow it may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never set. ...]
Version 2 was written by poet William Arrowsmith in the late 1960s. This was an attempt to put the text into more current speech patterns, rather than Dr. Smith's more flowery Victorian style. Except for this modernization, it is very similar to Version 1.
[Version 2 begins: Brothers: That sky above us has pitied our fathers for many hundreds of years. To us it looks unchanging, but it may change. Today it is fair. Tomorrow it may be covered with cloud. ...]
Version 3 is perhaps the most widely known of all. This version was written by Texas professor Ted Perry as part of a film script. The makers of the film took a little literary license, further changing the speech and making it into a letter to President Franklin Pierce, which has been frequently reprinted. No such letter was ever written by or for Chief Seattle.
[Version 3 begins: The Great Chief in Washington sends word that wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and goodwill. This is kind of him, since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer. For we know that if we do not sell, the white man may come with guns and take our land. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. ...]
Version 4 appeared in an exhibit at Expo '74 in Spokane, Washington, and is a shortened edition of Dr. Perry's script (Version 3).
[Version 4 begins: The President in Washington sends word that wishes to buy our land. Buy our land! But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. ...] ...
Steve's version was written by a screenwriter for a movie.
And try not to tell me to "shut up" again you pompous ass!
-
Elfenwolf,
Amen to that!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
poke poke!
Who's version did you say you were posting?
Steve's version was written by a screenwriter for a movie.
And try not to tell me to "shut up" again you pompous ass!
What part of "Thus it is impossible (without new evidence) to either confirm or deny the validity of the speech." did you not understand? Basically what it all comes down to is what you believe, the sources give no answer either way.
And note if you will that my version of the speech does not start like any of the above...thus there must exist yet another version. I'm saying that it is from the 1932 pamphlet, bu you claim that you know my sources better than me :rolleyes:
This is rapidly turning into another "no one will ever know how many people were killed in Dresden"-argument, and I have had enough of those. (Frankly I'm surprised that neither AKSWulfe nor Animal has popped in here to accuse me of being a nazi yet...)
And if you want to compare pompous asses, I've got $5 right here that says your bellybutton is bigger than mine.
Shut up or keep writing, your call, but to me this discussion is over.
-
Hortland, if someone tries to pass off lies as fact, you can be sure that I will post a link to snopes, so people can make their own informed decisions about it.
If you are tired of seeing my snopes links, simply stop posting articles that contain so many lies.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hortland, if someone tries to pass off lies as fact, you can be sure that I will post a link to snopes, so people can make their own informed decisions about it.
If you are tired of seeing my snopes links, simply stop posting articles that contain so many lies.
So if I say "Here is a legend I like blah blah blah" I'm trying to pass a lie off as a fact?
As I said, get a life. Stop pestering people. Move along.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'm so sick and tired of you and your damn urban legends page. Are you walking around in december telling kids that santa doesnt exist too? Get a diddlying life.
Geez, I would be responses like this just keep me coming back. I don't believe that our fellow posters are children, I'm just saving them sometime in making an informed decision about the some of the articles people post here.
And really when it comes down to it. There's not a damn thing you can do about. :p
So, you might as well save yourself some time and aggravation and quit telling me to screw off..
About my life, you don't know a thing about about. :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
About my life, you don't know a thing about about. :D
Well, we sorta do, your a drunk, we know that.
-
By Steve Hortlund ? - The absence of any evidence, the lack of a Duwimish-language text of the speech, the absence of notes bv Dr. Smith, the silence on the part of persons known to have been present during meetings between Stevens and Seattle, and the failure of the speech to appear in the official treaty proceedings create grave doubts about the accuracy of the reminiscences of Dr. Smith in 1887, some thirty-two years after the alleged episode. Thus it is impossible (without new evidence) to either confirm or deny the validity of the speech.
From the National Archives - The absence of any contemporary evidence (the territorial newspaper at Olympia is silent about any dramatic statement by Chief Seattle in 1855), the lack of a Duwimish-language text of the speech, the absence of notes bv Dr. Smith, the silence on the part of persons known to have been present during meetings between Stevens and Seattle, and the failure of the speech to appear in the official treaty proceedings create grave doubts about the accuracy of the reminiscences of Dr. Smith in 1887, some thirty-two years after the alleged episode. Thus it is impossible (unless new evidence is forthcoming) to either confirm or deny the validity of this powerful and persuasive message placed in the mouth of an Indian sachem. As of now, the verdict must be that of the ancient Scottish jurisprudence: "Not proven."
:rolleyes: Makes me wonder where your words start and the ones you cut and paste end Hortlund.
There is more:
Written by Steve Hortlund - Oh, and the source for the version I presented: A 1932 pamphlet by John M. Rich
The Rich pamphlet used the version originally printed in 1887 and attributed to Dr. Smith. It begins like this:"Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon our fathers for centuries untold."
Hortlunds "version" starts like this: "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?"
Oh my! Did I forget that Steve said that we will never know? That the discussion is finished? Was that because you didn't want someone to see how you are cut and pasting your orations Hortlund? Sad.
And I would venture to guess my bellybutton is bigger, only because it is in proportion to the rest of my body you sad little man!
-
Not really. The reason why I said our discussion was over is because there is no answer to be found, and I know from experience that trying to argue with you when there is no answer is about as rewarding as repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.
As for the rest...why would I care about that? What's important is what the text says no? Or is this where you tell us that it is forbidden to quote text without proper footnotes on this board? I mean it would be one thing if I said "lookie here what I have written" and then pasted something from someone else...at least that is my opinion.
Why the attitude today btw?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well, we sorta do, your a drunk, we know that.
I would respond, but as the your post is one big blur, I wouldn't know what to say.
PS: My supervisor has relented on the issue of whether or not I'm allowed to bring a 40 of scotch to work every day. Unfortunately I have to share it with him. :(
hic
Chit....forgot to post.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not really. The reason why I said our discussion was over is because there is no answer to be found, and I know from experience that trying to argue with you when there is no answer is about as rewarding as repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.
Yet the answer is there. I posted the line you claim to have quoted and the line that you actually quoted. The one you quoted was from the Movie written in 1970. sheesh!
As for the rest...why would I care about that? What's important is what the text says no? Or is this where you tell us that it is forbidden to quote text without proper footnotes on this board? I mean it would be one thing if I said "lookie here what I have written" and then pasted something from someone else...at least that is my opinion.
I would never presume to limit what is said on these boards with statements like "shut up". I do feel however, that using someone elses words and passing them off as your own is just not right. Had you even quoted the National Archive article verbatum and then forgotten the quotation marks I would understand. What you did however was to alter the quote slightly then post it as your own. Not illegal, but certainly bad form in any forum. Don't you agree?
Why the attitude today btw?
I said your research was wrong. You told me to shut up. Who exactly has the attitude?
-
(sigh) And so, what starts off as one of the few posts in O'Club that isn't about war, politics, general nastiness or the evils of people quickly degenerates into yet another string of name calling, insults and general bad will towards each other.
Who cares if the story is true or not? The spirit of that message is what's important, not who wrote it. I was inspired if, for no other reason, Hortlund sounded like a liberal. C'mon you guys, save your insults for the Ann Colter thread. Let's talk about nature on this one. (BTW, I'm not wearing any pants right now.)
-
Nature's great.... OK!?
Now... back to the bashing!! :D
-
Hortland
If you knew some of the controversy behind the speach you should have lead with that if you wanted people to read it with an open mind.
Why get so upset at peoples opinions, you asked for their opinions didnt you?
Dont credit too much to the spirituality of north american natives.
-
Elf, you are completely right. (Now there is a rare sentence from me) And it is really sad I think. I didnt post that quote to get suckered into some "who wrote it and when"-debate. I wrote it so people might actually take the time and think about the words.
Then I lost my temper as usual...
Midnight, Im just gonna say this one last time. We will never know what Chief Seattle really said. Now can you please drop it?
And you have no idea whatsoever where I found the quote or where it is from. You may THINK you do, but you cannot possibly know. Accept that as a fact, because it is the truth.
As for the critique of my writing and/or my use of quotes. I disagree. IMO what you are saying is correct for RL stuff, I dont think it is the same here on a BB. Although I dont think I have used someone elses words and passed them off as my own. At least that is my opinion.
As I said, it would be a different situation if I were to say "look at what I wrote" and then just rip a quote off someone else.
If I take a quote from someone, delete parts of it that I feel is irrelevant or stuff I disagree with, and then post it here, should I add a footnote or not? But it would be worse if I took a quote, changed it and then attributed it to the original writer...right? Because then I would be trying to put other words in his mouth.
And this is the internet remember...normal rules do not apply here. Everyone says normal rules apply here, but everyone also knows that they dont.
If you are of another opinion, fine, flame away.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Hortland
If you knew some of the controversy behind the speach you should have lead with that if you wanted people to read it with an open mind.
Why get so upset at peoples opinions, you asked for their opinions didnt you?
Dont credit too much to the spirituality of north american natives.
Ah hello Pongo (Pongo is of the opinion that I am a nazi, he likes to insult me alot and call me names in other threads)
Bye Pongo.
-
I definalty think your lose with the truth...tending towards revisionism..
-
You are right Steve on 2 counts.
1. Those are beautiful words that the author of that screenplay wrote.
2. We'll never know exactly what Chief Seattle said. We do know however that he didn't say those words.
As to the cut and paste thing. Just my feeling on the matter. If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't. (You will burn in hell though ;) )
Gnight Steve, end of the month, busy busy.
-
If we dont know what he said, how could we possibly know what he didnt say?
-
Shit, Steve please take your ball and go home...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Shit, Steve please take your ball and go home...
?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If we dont know what he said, how could we possibly know what he didnt say?
Well Steve, (and I'm laughing while I write this) I suppose he could have said the exact words that sreenwriter wrote. The chances of that being true are just a little better than the proverbial million monkeys typing Shakespeare. But you go ahead and believe whatever you want. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well Steve, (and I'm laughing while I write this) I suppose he could have said the exact words that sreenwriter wrote. The chances of that being true are just a little better than the proverbial million monkeys typing Shakespeare. But you go ahead and believe whatever you want. :rolleyes:
What part of "Thus it is impossible (without new evidence) to either confirm or deny the validity of the speech." did you not understand? Basically what it all comes down to is what you believe, the sources give no answer either way.
And note if you will that my version of the speech does not start like any of the above...thus there must exist yet another version. I'm saying that it is from the 1932 pamphlet, but you claim that you know my sources better than me
This is rapidly turning into another "no one will ever know how many people were killed in Dresden"-argument, and I have had enough of those.
Shut up or keep writing, your call, but to me this discussion is over.
-
sigh....
The only difference between the speech you posted and Mr. Perry's screenplay is that you left out the opening line. Other than that they are identical.
Now are you going to attempt to seek the facts or are you just going to cut and paste a response like your last one?
What part of "Thus it is impossible (without new evidence) to either confirm or deny the validity of the speech." did you not understand? Basically what it all comes down to is what you believe, the sources give no answer either way.
Are you dense? The validity of Seattle's speech is not in question. NOONE knows what Seattle really said! We DO KNOW who wrote the version you posted.... sheesh! Wake up Steve.
-
Shut up or keep writing, your call, but to me this discussion is over.
-
lol
-
lol yeah I know
-
Here's the Smith "original" version
Four Wagons West
by Roberta Frye Watt
Binsford & Mort, Portland Oregon, 1934
The text was produced by one "Dr." Smith, an early settler in Washington State, who took notes as Seattle spoke in the Suquamish dialect of central Puget sound Salish (Lushootseed), and created this text in English from those notes. Smith insisted that his version "contained none of the grace and elegance of the original." The last two sentences of the text here given have been considered for many years to have been part of the original, but are now known to have been added by an early 20th century historian and ethnographic writer, A.C. Ballard.
There are many versions and excerpts from this text, including a wholly fraudulent version [known as the Ted Perry text] mentioning buffalo and the interconnectedness of all life which was written by a Hollywood screenwriter in the late 70's and which has gained wide currency. The bogus version has been quoted by individuals as prominent and diverse as former U.S. President Bush and Joseph Campbell.
At the time this speech was made it was commonly believed by whites and as well by many Indians that Native Americans would inevitably become extinct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
authentic text of Chief Seattle's Treaty Oration - 1854
[Originally published in the Seattle Sunday Star, Oct. 29 1887]
Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for centuries untold, and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may change. Today is fair. Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never change. Whatever Seattle says, the great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he can upon the return of the sun or the seasons. The white chief says that Big Chief at Washington sends us greetings of friendship and goodwill. This is kind of him for we know he has little need of our friendship in return. His people are many. They are like the grass that covers vast prairies. My people are few. They resemble the scattering trees of a storm-swept plain. The great, and I presume - good, White Chief sends us word that he wishes to buy our land but is willing to allow us enough to live comfortably. This indeed appears just, even generous, for the Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect, and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no longer in need of an extensive country.
There was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor, but that time long since passed away with the greatness of tribes that are now but a mournful memory. I will not dwell on, nor mourn over, our untimely decay, nor reproach my paleface brothers with hastening it, as we too may have been somewhat to blame.
Youth is impulsive. When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, it denotes that their hearts are black, and that they are often cruel and relentless, and our old men and old women are unable to restrain them. Thus it has ever been. Thus it was when the white man began to push our forefathers ever westward. But let us hope that the hostilities between us may never return. We would have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Revenge by young men is considered gain, even at the cost of their own lives, but old [men who stay] at home in times of war, and mothers who have sons to lose, know better.
Our good father in Washington-for I presume he is now our father as well as yours, since King George has moved his boundaries further north-our great and good father, I say, sends us word that if we do as he desires he will protect us. His brave warriors will be to us a bristling wall of strength, and his wonderful ships of war will fill our harbors, so that our ancient enemies far to the northward - the Haidas and Tsimshians - will cease to frighten our women, children, and old men. Then in reality he will be our father and we his children.
But can that ever be? Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine! He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son. But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His. Our God, the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us. Your God makes your people wax stronger every day. Soon they will fill all the land. Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide that will never return. The white man's God cannot love our people or He would protect them. They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help. How then can we be brothers? How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness? If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to His paleface children. We never saw Him. He gave you laws but had no word for His red children whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill the firmament. No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and separate destinies. There is little in common between us.
To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is hallowed ground. You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and seemingly without regret. Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget. The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors - the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people. Your dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the stars. They are soon forgotten and never return. Our dead never forget this beautiful world that gave them being. They still love its verdant valleys, its murmuring rivers, its magnificent mountains, sequestered vales and verdant lined lakes and bays, and ever yearn in tender fond affection over the lonely hearted living, and often return from the happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console, and comfort them. Day and night cannot dwell together. The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun. However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them. Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness.
It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days. They will not be many. The Indian's night promises to be dark. Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon. Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance. Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the hunter.
A few more moon, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours. But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature, and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see.
We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know. But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Ever part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy returning spirits. And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless.
-
...and heres me thinking all Plains Indians talk like Tonto...
Tronsky
-
If that is closer to what is said. then hollywood as usual did not improve on it.
-
1887 Dr. Smith's...
authentic text of Chief Seattle's Treaty Oration - 1854
[Originally published in the Seattle Sunday Star, Oct. 29 1887]
If there even was a Dr. Smith or "authentic" text. The common "journalistic" practice at the time, particularly out on the frontier beat, was to write toejam off the top of your head, make it sensational or sentimental, and sell newspapers. Usually there was a kernal of truth -- a few lines from a telegraph -- but the rest was artistic license. Sometimes there was just a need to fill space so feature news was created from scratch. [The cheif could have just said: "Why must you always lie and screw us? I regret having encountered your people." which wouldn't have been as deep for the readers :) ]
As "bad" as journalism is today, it used to be much worse. Each paper was almost entirely the publisher's propaganda tool aimed at a like-minded target audience. Think the National Enquirer for each end of the political spectrum and parts in between. Hurst (I believe) even launched the Spanish-American war with his Remember the Maine coverage. Too bad it blew up on its own but we were able to enhance our mainfest destiny without feeling guilty.
The sentiment of this piece is authentic, the specific words while possible are [certainly] questionable.
Charon