I think at his point, Chief Seattle had to think about utilitarianism. Seattle, knew that his people were dying and that the only way to prevent full genocide was to have a positive relationship with the Americans. Although this may have been an unpopular idea among many in his tribe, Seattle had to worry about the great good of his people rather than just a couple of people who may have disagreed.
Also, I think that Seattle had to apply liberalism to help save his people. He now knew that the only way that he and his people could survive was to have the help of the U.S. government. And he looked to the government to help protect their natural rights. He had also probably realized that violence was not the answer to their problem in this circumstance but rather they could look to the laws of this nation to protect them.
This speech teaches us the value of persuasion and how one man can make a difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like you argument, I definitely believe Chief Seattle was a wise leader for the Native Americans. But do you think this piece, having been translated waaaaaaaay after its delivery, might have been as much, if not more, of a white American utilitarianism at work? I can hear the rhetoricians and politicians now:
ReplyDelete"Alright, if we can get the American's to fork up enough sympathy cash for reservations, then we can get the rest of these Savages onto these here reservations, and then we'll have the land we need to build all the rail-roads, depots, and cities it'll take to make American Industrialism boom like never before! God bless America!"
That's obviously an extreme scenario, but I think Mr. Smith's printing of this speech might not have been as "humanitarian" as it could otherwise be read.