Some ten years ago I came across a text called "We May Be
Brothers After All -- A letter to President Franklin Pierce from
Chief Seattle, ca. 1854". It was a stirring call to honor and
respect the natural world, a message that seemed worth spreading.
So I copied it and handed it out to a great many people. Then a New York Times article
(April 21, 1992) informed me that the "Seattle
Speech" of which I was so fond was a fiction. Chief Seattle
(or "See-ahth") of the Suquamish tribe in the Puget Sound region
did indeed give a famous speech -- but not the one I
knew. That one was penned in 1971 by a Texas screenwriter named
Ted Perry. "Well," I thought, "What of it?" After all, the
original speech was apparently lost, and although this one is
fiction, there is a kind of truth in fiction. So I kept handing
out the speech, adding the caveat
that, yes, it is fiction, but it's a worthy document anyway.
Recently, thanks to colleague Jeff Smith, I have had a chance to see the true Seattle speech. It was not lost: the speech was transcribed by a Dr. Henry Smith, and later published in the Seattle Sunday Star. And now that I have seen what (it seems that) Chief Seattle actually said, I am stunned by the contrast between the two statements. I think that those of us who consider ourselves "environmentalists" have a great deal to learn from this comparison.
It is immediately apparent that the writer of the fiction was familiar with the original, for a number of phrases are lifted verbatim. The other thing that strikes the reader right away is that the original is by no means unpresentable; there is nothing pidgin-ish about it; it is a haunting poetic statement in its own right. Given those two facts, one has to wonder: why was there any need to re-write the speech? (The Times article suggests, incidentally, that Mr. Perry was mortified that his work came to be identified as Seattle's words; he apparently intended to write only a stirring Indian Speech as part of a screenplay. Nevertheless, Mr. Perry's fiction was what became famous as Seattle's speech, and it was commemorated on Earth Day and incorporated into a well-known children's book.)
The fiction is clearly an environmentalist manifesto. It speaks of the Indians' respect and love for all the world's creatures and their revulsion to the clatter and stench of the white man's cities. It tends, in fact, to reduce the differences between the red man and the white man to one great issue: respect for nature. It romanticizes the Indians' relationship with the natural world, characterizing them as noble savages. Indeed, "We are savages," the fictional Seattle says again and again, "and we do not know any other way." The real Seattle bandies no such self-disparaging terms; an unshakeable dignity, in himself and in his people, is evident throughout.
The fictional Seattle, it seems, actually cannot comprehend the idea of buying and selling land. The real Seattle understands it only too well, and he explicitly rejects it on a moral level. The fictional Seattle does not. Both speeches agree (for diplomatic purposes, at least) to sell the land, on one condition. But the conditions couldn't be more different! The fictional Seattle agrees to alienate his people's land, to sell it to the Great Father in Washington in fee simple, on the one condition that the white man be a good steward of the land and "treat the beasts of the land as his brothers". The real Seattle agrees to nothing of the sort. He agrees to "sell" the land, on the condition that "we will never be denied the right to visit, at any time, the graves of our fathers and our friends." Throughout the speech Seattle makes it resoundingly clear that he is not merely talking about cemeteries: he says that "the ground beneath your feet is the ashes of our grandfathers", that "the earth is rich with the lives of our kin", and it is on this basis that "every part of the earth is sacred to our people." Seattle accedes to the inevitability of the whites' conquest of his people's lands, but he does not agree to sell their land -- a sale with unlimited visiting rights in perpetuity is no sale at all!
There is another sense in which the fiction is gratuitously romanticized: it makes no mention whatever of war. The real Seattle speaks of war from painful experience, and he wants no more part of it. He even accepts part of the blame, noting with regret that young men, lusting for revenge against an overwhelmingly strong enemy, have worsened the destruction. But Seattle's rejection of war is not pacifistic or selfless; it is tactical. He cannot win. "Fate hunts the red man down. Wherever he goes, he will hear the approaching steps of his destroyer." He deflates Washington's sham generosity with hard vision: "It matters little where we pass the rest of our days. They are not many."
All of these differences are notable -- and perhaps they will serve to kindle more interest in the original document -- but they do not explain the question we started with: Why the rewrite? Why (to let screenwriter Perry off the hook) did our culture at this point in history choose to adopt the fictional Seattle speech in place of the real one? We will come closer to an answer once we've examined the last -- and most astounding -- contrast between the two documents.
The fictional Seattle says that his people know -- but whites have yet to discover -- that their God is the same God, and "his compassion is equal for the red man and the white." In the fiction this is a moving call to universal brotherhood. But the real speech not only provides no basis for that sentiment -- it says exactly the opposite!
"There is little in common between us," Seattle says. He has seen the white man's every imperial advance furthered by some sort of invincible destiny. After all that has happened, the Great Chief Washington's dictates seem like the very words of nature itself.
The real Seattle does say, "We may be brothers after all." This exalted sentiment forms the title of the fictional speech, but placed in context in the real speech it must be read with a high degree of sarcasm. They are brothers only in the sense that civilizations, like individual people, fade away; that is the common destiny. But at this time, in this century, the white tide has all but obliterated the last vestige of Seattle's civilization. And the white man's religion has been instrumental in all he has achieved. About that religion, Seattle says "Your religion was written on tables of stone by an angry God, so you would not forget it. The red man could never understand it or remember it."
If we understand the nature of this difference, then, I believe, we will see why the rewrite was necessary. If, as the fictional Seattle says, the white man's God and the red man's God is the same, then it is possible to heal the rift between the races -- and white people can do that by being faithful stewards of the land they have bought, by "treating the beasts of the land as brothers". In effect it legitimizes the white man's purchase of the land -- or at least it leaves the door open for such a justification. If only the Europeans will stop raping the earth, then the red man's God, their God, the universal God, will forgive them, they can atone, and they can be absolved of their genocidal history.
But the real Seattle gives the white man no such easy out. He says, "Your God loves your people and hates mine." The white man's God, "who walks and talks with him as friend to friend" lets him think it is all right to buy (or seize) the land and restrict the Indians from visiting the ashes of their fathers. Seattle knows exactly what he is saying: that white people cannot be forgiven for their extermination of the Indians. Their "God", which has bestowed such power to their "manifest destiny", is a blasphemous abomination.
In the end, Seattle's words can be seen as a curse on the white man -- but Seattle is not making the curse; he is only articulating it. This land, he says, which is alive with the spirits of all his ancestors, is the land they have stolen (for there is no legitimacy in their seizure or purchase of it). Now, he says,
Finally: what have Seattle's dark words to tell us who, more than a century later, strive to heal the wounds and live in harmony on the earth that we all must share?
The first thing we must do, I believe, is to stop denying those spirits, those wronged and rended dead who live, as Seattle said, in every shadow of every piece of land that anyone has the presumption to call "mine". We must understand that the land cannot be bought, and to pretend that it can is a dangerous illusion. Let us heed the message of the real Seattle - - and not be lulled by the pleasant emptiness of the Hollywood fantasy.
Lindy Davies -- November 11, 1998
What Folks Have Been Saying
Beautiful, plus you've exposed the re-writes of history that, alas, prevent most people even guessing the truth until half a lifetime has been wasted with wrong notions.
Anyway, Please tell the "GEORGIST NEWS" on internet that, because of a take-over success, my new e-mail is as above.
Right. What a bunch of smarm. So we should all feel sorry, and not own any land, right? (Or at least, WE won't own any land -- only those immoral scumbags with no sensitivity will own land, not us!) I guess you won't be surprised to find out that Max is NOT that Sensitive!
Max Schmoo <[email protected]>
Brooklyn, NY - Friday, November 13, 1998 at 09:46:55 (EST)
Well written, Lindy. This seems to me a significant story and I think your take on it is very appropriate. I appreciate this a lot. The original is, just as you said, quite different and in some very interesting ways! Max, Earth "made" you, brought you to life, like your parents made you, in fact, even more so. Could you imagine "owning" your parents? Georgists aren't against the ownership of land. A higher land tax makes land less expensive to purchase. Nothing could possibly allow more people to own land than the single tax on land value, because nothing else could make land easier to acquire. Georgists want everyone to own land who would like to own land. The decentralization of land ownership caused by land value taxation is why most Georgists are Georgists. ANTI-Georgists are the ones who are against land ownership. Are you against the ownership of land? It doesn't seem that way; so, why do you disdain Georgist reform? It's paradoxical.
Adam Monroe <[email protected]>
- Friday, November 13, 1998 at 19:13:09 (EST)
I ran on to the real speech earlier this year on the internet. Hollywood, as you say, seems to think it is wiser than the historical figures it attempts to portray. The Agrarian
The Agrarian <[email protected]>
- Saturday, November 14, 1998 at 23:40:11 (EST)
Thanks for the elucidation. It is interesting to note the spin that the respected author Matt Ridley in his book "The Origins of Virtue" gives this tale. He also exposes the fact that the speech was transformed by Ted Perry for an ABC television show but chooses to make the point that: "Though many environmentalists, Gore included, like to pretend otherwise, Chief Seattle was no tree hugger. Among other things we do know about him are that he was a slave owner and had killed almost all his enemies. As the case of Chief Seattle illustrates, the entire notion of living in harmony with nature is built on wishful thinking." (pp. 214-15) The brutalities done to peoples during colonial expansions, or peoples to their environments throughout the ages, are well recorded. Defenders of policies in the name of "human nature" will always present "examples" in defense of their cause. Perhaps the time is fast approaching when we as a species better start seriously considering the footprints we leave both on ourselves and the rest of nature - No Matter What our supposed real "human-nature" is considered to be composed of by the 'experts'. bill
bill hard <[email protected]>
San Rafael, CA US - Sunday, November 15, 1998 at 18:49:43 (EST)
If you're still passing these out would you pass one my way? I have ANOTHER one I found somewhere (perhaps an excerpt of one of these?)
Sue Stagman <[email protected]>
Farmersburg, IA 52047 - Thursday, November 19, 1998 at 10:52:23 (EST)
Note that there are two links in the text on the home page at www.henrygeorge.org, Sue: one to the fictional speech and one to the original. Please tell me if they don't work!
Lindy Davies <[email protected]>
- Thursday, November 19, 1998 at 17:24:10 (EST)
Yes, my version was an extremely compact part of the 2nd speech. Rewritten perhaps to be more palatable to the white man as it was to be used in a screenplay? Regardless, I think denying those spirits is not even a possibility. They are obviously there or we wouldn't even be discussing this. It's denial of belief that IS a problem. You're right in saying that the land cannot be bought but the use of same can and is. We are all stewards living on the earth's good graces, when we've worn out her patience Seattle's foresight will be proven. Since I've said all this, feel free to roast me at will. I got to the page accidently so I feel somewhat an intruder anyway.
Sue Stagman <[email protected]>
Farmersburg, IA 52047 - Thursday, November 19, 1998 at 22:11:51 (EST)
Intruder! Sue! Heavens, no. This site is a **free** course in political economy! How can you intrude on something that is being given away?
- Friday, November 20, 1998 at 08:45:59 (EST)
I was moved by the lines: The ground beneath your feet responds more lovingly to our steps that your, because it is the ashes of our grandfathers. Our bare feet know the kindred touch. The earth is rich with the lives of our kin.
- Wednesday, December 02, 1998 at 17:11:21 (EST)
most interesting. Why not have within the web page the ability for the reader to have the article sent on to friends or "enemies"? Also, there is too little , if any reference to course availability. By e-mail, of course. john MacKay
john mackay <[email protected]>
Heredia, Costa Rica - Wednesday, December 09, 1998 at 16:14:44 (EST)
Our children will never understand and the message will never be heeded as long as the history books used to teached them continue to perpetuate the lies.
Charles Berrouet <[email protected]>
Flushing, NY US of America - Wednesday, December 09, 1998 at 23:37:27 (EST)
Progress & Poverty - Definitions - Capital - Law of Rent - Booms & Busts - The Remedy - Links