The Controversies of Chief Seattle's Speech

In my personal opinion, I do not believe Chief Seattle gave the speech that Dr. Henry A. Smith says he did. I believe it was an elaborate ruse by Smith to try and get his name as well as his prose and writing out into the public. My reasoning behind this is the fact that, from what I have learned about Native American cultures, there was a deep seeded dis-like of white people, even into the time frame in which Chief Seattle supposedly gave his speech. There are a few key elements that truly lead me to question the authenticity of this article's nature, and one such element is the reception that was given to the commissioner of Indian affairs for the state of Washington. Who could actually believe that people who are about to be "governed" by a foreign group of people forcibly would line up to greet them. That's equivalent to saying that the Polish pretty much waited at the border between their country and Germany and waved the Germans in, throwing flowers at them and offering them complimentary chocolates. Another item that really got me suspicious of this articles authenticity was the fact that Chief Seattle states that the "Great Chief in Washington" wants to buy their land. For one thing, if you've done your research on Native Americans, the concept of ownership of land was unfathomable to them. The fact that he had nothing to say other than cordially acknowledging the fact that we wanted to buy their land really stood out to me as a warning beacon. Another element is that the warriors in Native American culture are highly regarded, and to be chosen as a tribal warrior, it was a great honor. When Chief Seattle says that the young warriors are impulsive and wrong-doers who "disfigure their faces with black paint" while the older generations try to restrain them, this is completely contradictory to Native American culture. War painting was a symbol of bravery, to stare death in the face and to be unafraid, so when Chief Seattle diminishes the honor of the war painting by saying it is a disfigurement, the twinge that this article is nothing but a sham grew ever stronger. Then religion came into play, they didn't really acknowledge our god, so by separating their faith from ours, Smith got a kernel of truth into his essay. The controversy of this article is palpable, and it smacks of fantastical ideas. The authenticity of this article is debated even today, and with good reason. If we could only find something to contradict what Smith wrote down, but for now, people just have to choose whether they believe it or not.

One researcher who discredits Smith and also believes the article to be a sham is Daniel L. Boxberger of Western Washington University. Here is he take on the speech, which was represented in the video 'Chief Seattle'. ------------> http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%282002%29104%3A1%3C311%3ACS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&origin=serialsolutions&