This statement to Governor Stevens is strong and very opinionated. I also liked this reading because it gave a different insight than SA-GO-YE-WAT-HA did. This reading talks about the disappearance of the "red man" and the land dispute, with the connection of religion and Christianity. Yes, i know it talks about the white mans religion a little bit, but not so much in depth. What i like is when Chief Seattle says "But i will not mourn the passing of my people"(173). It just shows how unselfish the Natives were. Saying that he doesn't believe that it was just the white mans fault is strong hearted. In this writing it shows how the indians in a way have given up on trying to fight back and realize they are over powered. What i didn't like is that he says "Your god loves your people and hates mine"(174). I just don't like how he thinks that just because he has to negotiate with the white man that he has to accustome to their beliefs.
To continue with, I particularly don't like how Chief blames the religion and god of the white men for the tradegies. What he really does this whole time is bash on the whites. Almost in a way saying that their religion is wrong. The opposite of SA-GO-YE-WAT-HA beliefs in the last writing. Saying things like they don't care about their fathers graves and the holiness of the land(175). Thats why i liked the writing because it gave a different view of the Native. In a way he is comparing the two religions and showing them they are wrong. Yes, I believe that they should have been able to worship what ever they wanted but not butt heads so much the whites. Am I being unfair by saying this, ya i think so. I am just very opiniated on the belief that you shouldn't judge other religions. Yes, the Natives were killed, betrayed, and taken advantage of; but some are taken it out on the "white mans god".
Finally, I like how the writing explains that the indians have given up on fighting and will accept reservations. It also talks about the dead of the indians. I like how it talks about the passion of the land and holiness of the land the Natives had. What i don't like is how he says to the white man the dead will always be their. Almost in a way that the Natives will always be their to haunt the white. I like that he believes the spirits will always live their but not the way he portrays it to the white man. To conclude, i liked the writing because of the different insight compared to SA-GO-YE-WAT-HA. What i didn't like is that Chief was comparing the religions so much. Bashing on the whites religion and saying that his religion was right. This writing definitly gave me a different perspective on what i think about how the Natives viewed religion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Don,
I wanted to comment because I really liked your insight: "Saying that he [Chief Seattle] doesn't believe that it was just the white mans fault is strong hearted." Yea, strong-hearted to a huge degree. You make a great point.
Just my own thoughts on Seattle's speech, but I think that to really get where he's coming from - the sadness and anger and hostility - I think you have to try to put yourself inside the sadness he feels. The ways he got from his grandfathers...he can't give those to his grandchildren. He's facing an epic loss. For me anyway, that makes his anger and hostility more understandable...more human.
The way I look at Seattle's comparison between his and the "whiteman's" religion is more of a, "you might have won in this world, but not the next." He shows this by saying that his people spirits will linger long after their physical forms have vanished. I preceved this as a last soloace in the speach of truely crest fallen man.
I have to say that I agree with your frustration with the way that Chief Seattle blames the 'white's religion' [christianity]. I am a christian and was honestly a little offended by reading the speech, but taking a look at all that the European's did to create America, don't you think a little bit of bitterness and frustration on his part is due? I am not saying he is right, but, think about if you were a parent, and you failed to protect your children. That is kind of what I think he is experiencing with this. Except, in much, much more broad of a spectrum. Wouldn't you agree?
I really enjoyed reading your post. You have a different point of view on speech than I do, but it's always nice to hear different opinions.
As I was reading the speech, I found his tone to be very sarcastic at times. The second quote you cited I found to be one of these.
I think the point Chief Seattle was making was that his people have basically been killed off and had their land intruded upon, and that he is pissed about it, but knows there is nothing more they can do.
I didn't find him to be bashing on whites either (I am a white christian by the way). I think he was trying to turn the tables and make the white man look at himself. From the Native American's point of view, the Europeans are the ones being narrow-minded, and not accepting them for who they are.
I also believe that when Chief Seattle was talking about how the ground responds more lovingly to the Native's feet, he was justifying that the land actually belongs to them, since they have been living on those lands for countless generations.
I agree that at the end of the speech when Chief Seattle says that his people's spirits will always be there, and that they will have more power after death, it was a threat. But I believe, given the circumstances, he was justified.
Post a Comment