The first major theme of Luther Standing Bear's writing is the concept that the people of the Lakota tribe are in a mutual relationship with nature, as opposed to being the conquerors and dominators that he portrays the white Europeans to be. By having reverence for nature, the Lakota are able to have a higher respect to for all living things, humans included. The second theme of Luther Standing Bear's writing is that understanding and engaging in nature's "formative processes" allows cultures to have a more intimate relationship and history with the land.
The idea behind Chief Seattle's speech is that the time of the Native American is coming to an end. He acknowledges that the white man will inhabit their lands, but he contends that "Red Man" will continue to love the beautiful land in spirit and memory.
The controversy over Chief Seattle's speech is whether he really gave this speech, or whether the man who recounted the speech, Dr. Smith, crafted it to reflect a popular sentiment at the time. This sentiment being the extinction of the native person by "civilized" culture. The fact that- Smith didn't speak Chief Seattle's language, that there is only one piece of evidence documenting this speech (Smith's newspaper article 30 years after the speech), and the fact that there is another "speech" by Chief Seattle that surfaced to be fake, all suppose that Smith's documentation of Seattle's speech is fake as well.
Arnold Krupat, in his article "Chief Seattle's Speech Revisited", contends that Dr. Smith may have possibly heard Chief Seattle speak, but it is doubtful that Chief Seattle gave a speech about Natives moving to reservation when Dr. Smith heard him speak on Seattle's Main Street (Krupat). Chief Seattle didn't begin negotiations concerning reservations until months later at Point Elliot (Krupat). Dr. Smith states in the preface of his article that he heard to Seattle's speech on Main Street, proving that he wasn't in the location where Chief Seattle most likely would have made a speech concerning the extinction of his people. Krupat states "Smith stated clearly that he produced Seattle's speech from notes he took at the meeting in Seattle in front of Dr. Maynard’s office. But those notes cannot have included matters that Sealth could only have raised at a later time." (Krupat).
I believe Arnold Krupat's theory as to what most likely happened. Dr. Smith was impressed by Chief Seattle's oratorical powers (from when he heard him speak on Main Street)(Krupat). During the 30 year period before he published his article, Dr. Smith most likely, whether on purpose or not, misconstrued the two speeches that Seattle gave into one (Krupat). Smith had access to notes taken at Point Elliot and he could have combined Seattle's oratorical powers that he had previously heard, with the notes he read expressing Seattle's sentiments at Point Elliot (Krupat). The controversy over Chief Seattle's speech isn't whether it actually occurred, but really where it occurred and whether Dr. Smith was present to witness it or not.
The idea behind Chief Seattle's speech is that the time of the Native American is coming to an end. He acknowledges that the white man will inhabit their lands, but he contends that "Red Man" will continue to love the beautiful land in spirit and memory.
The controversy over Chief Seattle's speech is whether he really gave this speech, or whether the man who recounted the speech, Dr. Smith, crafted it to reflect a popular sentiment at the time. This sentiment being the extinction of the native person by "civilized" culture. The fact that- Smith didn't speak Chief Seattle's language, that there is only one piece of evidence documenting this speech (Smith's newspaper article 30 years after the speech), and the fact that there is another "speech" by Chief Seattle that surfaced to be fake, all suppose that Smith's documentation of Seattle's speech is fake as well.
Arnold Krupat, in his article "Chief Seattle's Speech Revisited", contends that Dr. Smith may have possibly heard Chief Seattle speak, but it is doubtful that Chief Seattle gave a speech about Natives moving to reservation when Dr. Smith heard him speak on Seattle's Main Street (Krupat). Chief Seattle didn't begin negotiations concerning reservations until months later at Point Elliot (Krupat). Dr. Smith states in the preface of his article that he heard to Seattle's speech on Main Street, proving that he wasn't in the location where Chief Seattle most likely would have made a speech concerning the extinction of his people. Krupat states "Smith stated clearly that he produced Seattle's speech from notes he took at the meeting in Seattle in front of Dr. Maynard’s office. But those notes cannot have included matters that Sealth could only have raised at a later time." (Krupat).
I believe Arnold Krupat's theory as to what most likely happened. Dr. Smith was impressed by Chief Seattle's oratorical powers (from when he heard him speak on Main Street)(Krupat). During the 30 year period before he published his article, Dr. Smith most likely, whether on purpose or not, misconstrued the two speeches that Seattle gave into one (Krupat). Smith had access to notes taken at Point Elliot and he could have combined Seattle's oratorical powers that he had previously heard, with the notes he read expressing Seattle's sentiments at Point Elliot (Krupat). The controversy over Chief Seattle's speech isn't whether it actually occurred, but really where it occurred and whether Dr. Smith was present to witness it or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment