> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 19 May 97 11:00:55 +800
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 19 May 97 11:00:52 +800
> Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> Mon, 19 May 1997 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:10221] Re: Letter from Chief Sealth 1855
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: Progressive Economics
> X-PMFLAGS: 33554560
>
> I think Jim Craven is just wrong on this. I have given specific references
> where this matter has been discussed. The one reference in particular is to
> an environmentalist who certainly would be happy if the quoted "letter" were
> valid. The original translation of the Seattle speech is available in the
> book I referred to from the University of Oklahoma press. There may be some
> question as to how accurate the translation into English is though. You can
> compare for yourself: i) THe original speech ii) the "letter" from the movie
> HOME by Perry. Perry himself never pretended that the speech was original.
> The hoax, such as it was, was perpretrated by the movie producers
> to make the speech seem more authentic and no doubt because it contained
> pop ecology concepts missing from the model.
> Perry expected credits to be given for his own writing.
> THe statement about the
> white person's God not loving his red children seems much more appropriate
> given the experience of the aboriginals than Perry's sentimental pap and no
> less articulate.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> P.S. If you need further references there is a long article by a German
> who discovered the real situation at the same time as or before Baird Caldicott
> but published his findings later.
>
Ken,
I would be wrong or right if I had a definitive position on this. As
I am not a specialist in this area I simply do not know. A friend of
mine who is a specialist in this area and did his PhD Dissertation on
the Dwamish and the role of Chief Sealth is of the opinion that the
matter is not completely settled. There have been repeated assertions
that the journalist Smith who translated some of the words of Chief
Sealth embellished them and/or mistranslated; there are further
assertions about the letter. The well-known attitudes of Chief Sealth
and behavior towards the settlers suggest that Chief SEalth would
have never differentiated between a "White Man's God" and a "Red
Man's God" and that he clearly understood the problem of plunder of
Indians was not due to all Whites or due to "White Man's God"
Further, the fact that an "environmentalist" asserts a proposition
that an "environmentalist" probably would not want to be true, does
not establish the truth of the proposition; it was published in a
journal of forestry management and certainly the forestry interests
here have gone after some of the purported sayings of Chief SEalth as
a backdoor way of attacking the environmentalists (which does not
establish that their(the forestry management folks) claims are false
of course).
When I put out that purported letter I was opf course aware of the
controversy surrounding Chief Sealth (I am a Native Washingtonian)
but I personally am not in a position to have an opinion as to its
accuracy as I am not a specialist in this area and have not surveyed
the contending opinions on this subject to any great extent.
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, *
* Dept of Economics * freedom has a taste the protected *
* Clark College * will never know." *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * Otto von Bismark *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * *
* (360) 992-2283 * *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
