3rd period Excerpt from Chief Seattle's speech
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
At some point, maybe in 1854, a Suquamish chief named Seathl visited Seattle, Washington. According to several of the people present, he gave a speech to the militant governor of the state of Washington, who had proposed that the Suquamish move to a reservation. Seathl spoke in Lushootseed, which was translated into Chinook Trade Language, then into English. Dr. Henry Smith published a “reconstruction” of that possible speech in the Seattle Sunday Star on Oct. 29, 1887. It was concocted from Smith’s “admittedly incomplete” notes. This is an excerpt from what was published:
AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE'S
TREATY ORATION: 1854
---
We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know. But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy returning spirits. And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone.
“Ponder” and “proposition” are not words you hear all the time. They’re most often used in more serious contexts. Using both in the same sentence gives off a feeling of formality. However, I feel like it’s somewhat undercut by the choice to use “decide” and “let you know”, which are much less formal word choices. Seeing as this had to have been translated, I wonder what the translator’s thoughts were on this. Did they intend for there to be this shift in tone?
I fully agree. For someone who people thought for years were “inferior to them”, the author really shows high intelligence to not only use such words, but to use them in a way that would be understanding to all that read it.
The term molestation was less negative and simply meant harassed. The term especially in the form of Native Americans and the treaties made with them just meant that they could leave a reservation and go to the graves of their family. Or in other words they were just asking to have a permanent passport/visa to go back to their land for religious and spiritual reasons.
In the situation they are negotiating a treaty and the ability to freely go to their family graves was an essential clause in the treaty. While he is passionate he is not trying to be aggressive he is instead trying to set an essential requirement for him to sign the treaty. In the modern day we see molest as extremely negative however at the time it was less negative. In this case it was just referring to the ability to move through the U.S. from their reservation to visit their ancestor’s graves.
The speaker chose his words carefully and made sure each one had meaning
Weird choice of wording as molestation could be used as in a different situation but it’s used as visiting or remembering the ancestors as such
I am honestly so confused by the use of this word here, there maybe be a different definition with historical context but reading this kinda confused me.
The historical definition of “molest” was a pretty general term meaning “annoy” or “harass”. However, here I think it means “persecute”. They want to be able to leave the reservations to visit the graves. Not allowing them to would be persecution (or as he said, molestation).
I see that this would mean that this would mean that anything this person sees is important to this person and their people.
I completely agree when you think about it in context with everything that has happened. They are constantly losing their home to these people and when some do fight they usually die on that land. There is so much more behind what he is saying then even what we might know.
The writer mentions how the soil is “sacred” which gives the reader the impression that the land means a lot to them
Just meaning a lot to someone doesn’t make something sacred. When I think of the word sacred, what I immediately associate is religion or spiritualism. I think the land being sacred means that it has something to do with their belief system, which makes it even more important to them.
“estimation” means a rough calculation of the value of something, so by him saying this hes saying that the land there being pushed off of is the culmination of his peoples life work.
By using this term is a choice of words which is diction why this diction is because the author is referring to the soil as being sacred which is a weird choice of words
The use of the word Sacred shows how valuable and dear the land is for the Natives. Its a strong statement because the natives didnt even know at this time the riches that were in their lands, but they cared more about their identity and heritage than the riches the white settlers were after.
The use of every shows the uniformity of the nature of the land in its importance and “hallowed” shows that the land has a religious value and further emphasizes the importance given to the land by Chief Seattle
I also want to think about the translator with this. Chief Seattle probably didn’t know the word “hallowed”. he probably used a similar word from his language. So it’s interesting how the translator translated it to “hallowed”, which would be more understandable to his Christian audience.
this word is repeated to emphisize hat EVERY place in this area hold a memory to them
By repeating the word “every” multiple times it is showing that the speaker is trying to emphasize their point. They are wanting to emphasize that nothing goes untouched in same way, shape, or form.
The use of the word hallowed helps to emphasize the significance of the lands inhabited by the natives.
This word is used multiple times because the writer is trying to emphasize the value that place holds to them
Shows the depth of the land and shows the feelings that took place there. The use of the word “Vanished” sets a dark tone mainly because it comes off right after speaking about the memories of the land. The author also uses the word “every” which shows how everything was affected by these people no matter how little and this restates the claim that this land is dear and sacred to the natives
The diction “dumb” and “dead” used in this sentence are informal compared to the word swelter and silent shore use in the same sentence. These two different dictions are also used to compare one another.
This a type of diction because the choice of wording. This is referring sun over-rising the surface of the ocean
Choosing to describe a rock with so much meaning just shows how important the littlest details are to these people.
the blood of ancestors could be alluding to the horrible things that have been done to the natives while also showing their connection to the earth and life.
I think that not only is the connection to the earth separate from the tragedy connected to it. I think it is actually directly related to it. Them living and then dying on and for the land, they lived on is what they do. It is all a part of their cycle of life and death.
This grim, dark diction contrasts heavily with the light, joyous tone of the first clause. The sentence as a whole conveys a positive attitude, so it seems strange to use such gloomy words.
The word invisible implies that something is present but it cannot be seen. The use of this word proves how truly sacred these lands were because the natives will forever live and appreciate the land.
I have never heard of an indigenous person using the phrase Red man, at least not in this context, this is definitely something that was changed in translation by a white person.
I agree. It also stands out to me how he specifically called upon the image of the settlers’ descendants. He knows that all of his people will be gone by then, but he hopes that their spirits and memories will live on despite generations of settlers having long-since taken over the land.
“Dedicated to solitude”, adds to the sentence before about how their children will not be alone.Their children can walk by themselves and be in touch with their ancestors.There may not be a place on earth for solitude,but I think walking with your ancestors is close enough.
this word is used quite often in the latter part of this text, to emphisize several times that even when the Europeans are gone, the area will still contain memories and the dead bodies of the Natives.
So…is this a sign of “we’ll keep an eye on these white people” or “We’ll make sure that these white people fear us”?
Its kind of like hes saying that the natives will haunt them
---
Chief Seathl Dr. Henry Smith
General Document Comments 0
One of the most interesting things about this document is the tension between the unbelievably unreliable nature of the text itself and the diction choices Dr. Smith employs on Chief Seathl’s behalf. Think about the layers of intention behind this text as you read. Whose words are these, how can you tell, what is the tone created, and what is the purpose of the document as a whole?
DON’T REPLY TO THIS COMMENT! Instead, create comments of your own and reply to each other!
This document has a very passionate feel. Talking about how every part of the land has feelings, people, and stories connected to it. Therefore, even if they one day die out they will forever remain attached to the land they lived on.
You can tell that the speaker is very passionate about what they are talking about and that it means alot to them.
The diction is very formal, and he is using very formal English. We aren’t sure if this is exactly what he said, since this was translated. The diction used given the circumstances creates a very serious and somber tone. He is pleading for his people to still be able to return to this land since it is so important to him and his people. Quite sad.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments