Graded in-class writing

Luther Standing Bear's first piece that we read seems to put down the white man. He talks about how the white man views nature and how his people view nature. His tone seems condescending, almost like he is puzzled as to why we view nature as "wilderness". He shows that the Lakota are much more a part of nature, compared to white men who try to conquer nature. Luther Standing Bear believes that his people's ways are the right way to go about living, and thinks that the white man's ways are confusing. Throughout the first piece he is hinting at what the white man does and compares that to what his people do, always suggesting their way is better.

In Chief Seattle's speech, he talks about how the White Chief is forcing them to start living on reservations. He doesn't put up a fight because his people's numbers have diminished so much. Instead he just accepts what the White Chief has planned for them. The White Chief has said that Chief Seattle's people will still live comfortably on the reservation they will be moved to. The main theme of this speech is basically the obedience of the Native Americans. Chief Seattle's people don't put up a fight at all when they find out most of their land is being taken away from them. They just believe that the White Chief wouldn't do anything to trouble them. Chief Seattle does lay down one stipulation; that his people can visit the land where their ancestors have been buried. We do not know if this was honored or not from the speech that we read. This speech just shows that the white man will take advantage of anything to get their way and become the dominant people.

There is controversy in Chief Seattle's speech. Many people believe that it isn't even real because there have been numerous other "Chief Seattle" speeches that have been proven to be fake. One of the major controversies facing this speech is the fact that Dr. Henry A. Smith waited 33 years after hearing the speech to publish the speech. This is a little questionable why someone would wait that long before publishing a speech. Another controversy is the fact that Chief Seattle spoke Salish, while the person who translated it, Dr. Henry A. Smith, didn't. Smith did speak Chinook, so someone must have translated it to Chinook from Salish so Smith could then translate it to English. With this many translations happening, it is completely possible that a good deal of the speech got lost in translation, because some words just don't translate across languages. A final controversy is the amount of different editions of this speech that exist. They have all been changed to fit into the projects they are intended for. So there is no telling if any of these speeches are the real thing. Dr. Smith's notebook hasn't been found, so there is no real evidence on the validity of this speech. (Low 1995:407) 

Works Cited

Low, Denise (09/30/1995). "Contemporary reinvention of Chief Seattle: Variant texts of Chief                      Seattle's 1854 speech". American Indian quarterly (0095-182X), 19 (3), p. 407.

Controversy over "authorship"

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=6a1c1196-d0d2-48db-9150-1e778be43c6c%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=125&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=lfh&AN=9603291252

The speech that Chief Seattle supposedly gave in 1854 has attracted some deal of attention. The speech wasn't published until 33 years after it was given. This is a big enough reason to suspect something fishy. It was also translated from Salish to English by a translator who didn't know Salish. The translator or maybe "author" of the speech is named Dr. Henry A. Smith and he only knows Chinook. So for this speech to have been translated to English it would have been translated from Salish to Chinook and then finally to English. When a speech is translated across three languages there is a great possibility that some parts were lost in translation. This along with the fact that "Seattle's Speech" resembled Smith's poetry caused some eyebrows to be raised at the validity of the speech. There are numerous other speeches that Chief Seattle supposedly gave only to be proven that they were fakes. Also, the content of the speech presents stereotypes that Americans usually regard Indians as following. These include Indians as being savages and Red people. Whether or not this speech is the real thing, is hard to tell.  What is known is that there are numerous versions of this speech adapted specifically for various purposes, and that tends to tip the scales toward the speech being a fake.

Ethics on the Environment

This is a picture that I took along the Rocky Branch Creek that runs through the middle of Campus. This was taken basically outside of Lee Residence Hall. This was a doe and there were two fawns with her. Is this right? As more and more land gets developed into cities, the wildlife is being forced into smaller and smaller areas. Deer are not supposed to be living within a city but unfortunately they are being forced to. This can lead to a number of problems, with the worst being loss of life after a car collision. A major question facing developers and environmentalists is how to still develop areas but cut back on the effect this developing has on the native wildlife. What do you think? Should we just ignore the wildlife because after all we are the top of the food chain, or should we think about the effects our society has on the wildlife and their habitats?

Religion and the Environment

This peer reviewed paper touches on exactly what we were talking about in class on Tuesday. The paper basically states that the differences in religions need to be ignored, so that they can all unite as one and face the degradation of the environment we our facing today. Robin Gill is the author of this paper and he cites a study from the 90s that show churchgoers are more likely to do something about the environment because of their religious belief.  In the majority of religions, the environment is God given and that compels His followers to try and help the environment out. Personally, I don't  think religion should be the driving force for someone to do something about the environment. The state of the environment could decide the future of mankind, whether that future is promising or full of demise. This alone should cause people that aren't religious at all to step up and offer their help in fixing the state of the environment. I just think that religion causes too many arguments over these types of issues, when all the time that is spent arguing could have been spent trying to fix the problem.









http://tjx.sagepub.com/content/102/810/408.citation

Deforestation Google Alert

Deforest an area or not deforest an area? That is the question. There are viable reasons for both sides. If an area is deforested, that brings in a fair share of income depending on the type of lumber. But when an area is deforested, where does all the wildlife go that lived in that part of the forest? These positives and negatives have to be weighed before a single tree is torn down or there could be major consequences if a decision is made prematurely. A college student from Georgetown, South America named Nikkita Autar recently travelled to Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development in Guyana. This area is known for being rich in timber, making it a big target for lumber companies. Autar helped researchers explore possibilities that would cut down on the impact logging had on wildlife. Even after all this, one question still remains: Deforest an area or not deforest an area?

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=7923485040500991782