Luther Standing Bear + Chief Seattle Synthesis

The Native Americans were a proud, humble people, as described in Luther Standing Bear's statement: The Living Spirit of the Indian.  I believe he's conveying that the bonds the Native American peoples had with their noble ancestors were weakening at the time, and that assimilation started taking root.  The old ways were moved aside in order to accommodate the white man's take on life.  As the Oglalan chief said, if he were to suckle a child, he would raise him as a Native American as opposed to the new, imposed lifestyle that was forced on the indigenous peoples.

Chief Seattle's speech was more of a satirical version of Luther Standing Bear's statement; he had a more submissive approach for the indigenous people of Washington.  He said that his people should come to terms with the whites encroaching their lands, as opposed to increasing the amount of blood spilt.  He pretty much also said their God had abandoned them, and the God of the whites hated the red peoples.   That being said, he did not lose the values of the Native Americans, as he suggested they live 'separately' from the whites, preserving their way of life on the little reserve the whites allotted them.

However, it's important to note that the validity surrounding Chief Seattle's noteworthy speech is controversial.  It was published by a man named Dr. Henry Smith nearly thirty years after the speech was delivered.  Smith claims to have heard Seattle's speech, and took detailed notes that he would later use to make the publication.  Of course, that beckons questions to tackle the obscurity: would he have understood Seattle, seeing as it's a possibility that the great chief gave the speech in his native tongue?  How do we know that his words weren't altered?  Were there multiple authors of this speech aside from Chief Seattle?  Why are there two versions of the speech?  And how could Smith be entirely accurate, given he published the speech thirty years after its deliverance going off of a few jotted-down notes?

It's all very sketchy.  Any theory is possible: Smith could have altered the diction, embedded Victorian mindsets that opposed Native American rebellion, or those could actually be the genuine words of the wizened chief--the chances of that are slim.  Unfortunately, while it's absolutely possible that whites may have added or altered the speech in its entirety, the Native Americans of that time period were "eager to claim, use, and translate" whatever might've improved their image (University of Washington).

The Obscurity of Chief Seattle's Speech

As the Native Americans were pushed further westward by the United States in the mid-1800s, violence and bloodshed resulted.  In many cases, Native American federacies were unwilling to give up the land their ancestors nursed for thousands of years, and nor were the Americans willing to allow them to keep it; however, in special cases, there was room for negotiation--unfair negotiation for the indigenous populations, might I add.  One of these 'negotiations' can be exemplified in Chief Seattle's famous speech about the values of the 'red people,' and what they should do in terms of dealing with the adversity they faced.

Seattle's speech, however, can't necessarily be considered an accurate historical source.  In 1887, Dr. Henry Smith published the speech in the Seattle Sunday Star, thirty years after the said speech was orated.  Smith claimed that he was actually a witness to the great Red Chief's speech and that he took detalied notes; however, that in itself is a weak argument.  What if the speech was given in another language that he couldn't understand?  Was it translated several times if it was delivered in a foreign language?  And seriously, do you honestly expect that Smith's memory would be on the spot after thirty years of the deliverance of the speech?  I don't.  There isn't even any historical record of the speech happening, much less any evidence as to whether Chief Seattle actually said all of the things Smith said he did.

Thus, the speech is considered literature rather than a factual basis.  Yes, it provides a wealth of information on the ideals Chief Seattle's people held.  No, I don't think it was entirely true to the wizened man's actual words of wisdom.  I think his words were altered--perhaps beautified?--in order to fit some of the late Victorian mindsets of the period.  Because, if you think about it, who writes the history?  The winners or the losers?

What do you think?

Check out the information here: http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Classroom%20Materials/Reading%20the%20Region/Texts%20by%20and%20about%20Natives/Commentary/5.html

Would Fish Be Considered Wildlife? Our Environmental History Tells Us No

A lot of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans are extremely valuable commercially.  Because of that, thousands of fisheries flock out to the coasts in search of abundant fish species which they can harvest.  Of course that leads to overfishing, which in turn leads to the depletion of said fish species.  But due to them being non-popular in the public's eye, fish weren't considered 'wildlife' until 1958, two years after the publication of Peter Matthiessen's Wildlife.  This was mostly due to physical appeal, as most mammals and birds appear more majestic to us than catfish or salmon.

I can't help but think that fish aren't really wildlife because of the way we treat them.  We don't like a lot of fish for their appearance, scientific significance, or intelligence; we really only consider their economic, commercial, and recreational worth.

The dictionary definition of 'wildlife' is: "undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit."  


By definition, and from an ethical standpoint, I'd say absolutely no: fish aren't really wildlife at all.  Fish farms are popular nowadays,  so wouldn't they be considered domesticated animals?  However, they are hunted for food, sport, and profit, so it's hard to say.


Are fish considered a part of wildlife?  Maybe not.


What do you think?


Check out the article here: Are Fish Wildlife?

Ocean Acidification and Marine Biodiversity

Ocean Acidification is quite the dastardly process.  It can change the entire workings of a maritime ecosystem, such as affecting the productivity of organisms and abundance of said organisms.  As carbon dioxide amasses in the atmosphere, ocean acidification is at an all-time high, and as a result, marine biodiversity is at risk.  There are organisms that actually benefit from this increase in water acidity, and there are those that do not; the "losers" will be overwhelmed by the "winners," and will be threatened to extinction.

It's important to realize that ocean acidification also affects the economic services given to society by these marine ecosystems.  If those ecosystems are destroyed or altered greatly, it could greatly affect the millions of people worldwide who depend on the ocean for most of their income.  In my opinion, slowing down ocean acidification rests in the impact of our carbon footprint.  Will we continue to ruin this planet, and thus ourselves, or will we learn to exercise constraint?

Hitchhiker Snails and their Importance to the History of Life

One wouldn't think that snails are all that important.  They're slimy, slow, and are really only noticed by people because of the rather distinct shells they carry on their backs.  Until a few days ago, I didn't know snails could fly.  At least, I didn't know they had their own way to achieve flight.  Apparently there are snails called Hitchhiker Snails that attach themselves to migratory birds.  With those birds, they cross over large amounts of land, even oceans (the Atlantic and Pacific).  There's evidence that they've done this twice in the past two million years, and as a result, they've aided the spread of good genes to native populations of snails.

I just thought that this was a very interesting little subject.  Snails, flying across oceans?  That's certainly something worth talking about.

Check out this website if you want to learn more!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/stri-hsf091411.php