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
No comments:
Post a Comment