Understanding The Origins of Environmentalism

[PoliticalChic]

I have never heard of Chief Seattle or his speech. I'm afraid you simply can't deny that. Neither can you deny that your entire argument here is complete and utter nonsense. Post #28 clearly shows your ignorance, your dishonesty and your propensity for trolling.

Stop begging.

 

[Crick]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

Correcting???

How is that possible when everything I post is correct?

Everything I posted was linked, sourced, documented.

Your post is typical of the losers who can't/won't admit that they have accepted a foreign philosophy at odds with what they claim to believe.

You've been co-opted, fools, and made a sucker of.

Probably too late to recover.

 

[RollingThunder]

You imbecile...you verified what I posted.

More evidence of your insanity. I debunked your idiotic OP in detail in post #28.

You wrote: " there actually was a historically documented speech by Chief Seattle, but the translation that came down to us may not be accurate, and that original published version was much later rewritten for a movie, creating further confusion."

In short.....it was all a great big lie.

"In short", you're still severely retarded. Chief Seattle did make a speech, numbnuts, so that is not a lie. We don't have any accurate records of that speech, just some guy's remembrance of it. Some version of the original newspaper article version of the speech (possibly the original version and not the movie rewrite version your moronic OP derides) may have been quoted by one person or another over the last four decades or so, but SO WHAT? You been duped into swallowing some rancid catpoop propaganda about the speech being foundational to the environmental movement but that is bogus bullshit. The environmental protection movement was actually inspired by many other things involving the obvious environmental destruction that people could see happening right in front of them in the 1960's and 70's.

You are pretty obviously a troll trying to trash and denigrate the environmental protections that were put in place as a result of that previous destruction so that your puppetmasters can freely poison the air and water and land once again. You work for the Koch brothers maybe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You imbecile...you verified what I posted.

More evidence of your insanity. I debunked your idiotic OP in detail in post #28.

You wrote: " there actually was a historically documented speech by Chief Seattle, but the translation that came down to us may not be accurate, and that original published version was much later rewritten for a movie, creating further confusion."

In short.....it was all a great big lie.

"In short", you're still severely retarded. Chief Seattle did make a speech, numbnuts, so that is not a lie. We don't have any accurate records of that speech, just some guy's remembrance of it. Some version of the original newspaper article version of the speech (possibly the original version and not the movie rewrite version your moronic OP derides) may have been quoted by one person or another over the last four decades or so, but SO WHAT? You been duped into swallowing some rancid catpoop propaganda about the speech being foundational to the environmental movement but that is bogus bullshit. The environmental protection movement was actually inspired by many other things involving the obvious environmental destruction that people could see happening right in front of them in the 1960's and 70's.

You are pretty obviously a troll trying to trash and denigrate the environmental protections that were put in place as a result of that previous destruction so that your puppetmasters can freely poison the air and water and land once again. You work for the Koch brothers maybe?

""In short", you're still severely retarded. Chief Seattle did make a speech,..."

No, liar....he did not....not the one you quote.

He made a very different speech....and the Left changed it and attached his name to it.


Time to rip a new one to one who is one:

Let's review what we have learned in this thread.....


That the famed 'Chief Seattle speech' is a fabrication by the Left to infuse less astute folks with the belief that there is a 'noble savage' in our history who lived in harmony with nature, and that the evil capitalist white man ruined and is ruining it.

....and we'd all be better if big command and control government, i.e., totalitarian government, saved us from ourselves.

One lie after another.



And simpletons, such as Soiled Undies, above, believe and support it.
The power of the Leftists is derived from manipulating dumb as asphalt folks like him.

Chief Seattle lived, and gave a speech....but it was very, very different from what is being palmed off as real, today.



13. "A local named Henry Smith attended and took notes. More than 30 years later, in 1877, he reconstructed the speech for a Seattle newspaper..

.... the Smith version of the speech has almost nothing in common with the one in current circulation, the Ted Perry version.
Nowhere does Smith portray Chief Seattle as mentioning whippoorwills, pinyon pines or buffalo.


"Instead, Seattle apologizes for Indian violence against whites and thanks whites for protecting the Puget Sound Indians from their ancient enemies, the Haida and the other warlike tribes of the north."
http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/ecowatch/ew920221.htm


Wanna read that again?
"... he apologizes for Indian violence against whites and thanks whites for protecting the Puget Sound Indians..."




14. "In spite of the fact that the l’affaire Seattle has been exposed in several scholarly and popular journals, the environmentalists continue to use the ‘speech’ as a propaganda weapon.
They clearly find it too useful a means of re-enforcing the stereotype of the American Indian as Noble Eco-Savage to give it up.

Susan Jeffers defended the continued circulation of her book 'Brother Eagle, Sister Sky,' by saying:
'When you say someone is native American, you can make certain assumptions about what he felt to be important.'

.... the most important lessons to be drawn from the Seattle hoax are not primarily the creativity, gullibility and mendacity of the greens and their allies in the media - anyone familiar with the movement takes those for granted - but the fact that: ‘the ideas and emotions expressed in the speech are a product not of some American Indian culture, but of our own culture. They were written by an American author, for a Western audience.’"
Brunton, R., 'Chief Seattle: White Man's Indian', IPA Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, 1992, pp.54-56.

 

[orogenicman]

First, one dunce claimed he never heard of the Chief Seattle speech...and then Soiled Undies wrote "most environmentalists have never heard of that speech."

Actually, this is the dance of the dupes, running from it when it was revealed as a hoax designed by the movement to advance their agenda.



Of course, it is simple enough to eviscerate their claims with this example.

Seems that there are many who have. This from "the Oregonian":

"A high-ranking federal official showed up in San Francisco a couple of months back and tried to sell some radioactive garbage to a gathering of American Indians. Naturally, he trotted out the Chief Seattle speech. What could be more appropriate to the audience of the topic? Chief Seattle's ringing defense of the natural environment is, after all, touted as one of the great 19th-century American Indian orations.

And David H. Leroy, the federal government's nuclear-waste negotiator, was talking to the National Congress of American Indians about storing nuclear waste on reservation land.
That, he argued, would protect the environment by concentrating waste in one
well-controlled dump.

Leroy's opening was a quote attributed to Chief Seattle that if you "continue to contaminate your bed, you will one night suffocate in your own waste."

Leroy went on to quote heavily from the rest of the speech, which consists of similar sentiments. In fact, Chief Seattle's words appear to be an uncanny forecast of modern environmentalist thinking. The speech touches on the sacred nature of the land, the connectedness of the ecosystem, the importance of living in harmony with nature and the white man's pollution of air and water.

[Here it comes!]
When Leroy borrowed from the speech, he didn't exactly break new ground. These days, the speech is popping up all over the place. Britain's Prince Philip has referred to it. So has the late pop mythologist, Joseph Campbell. And the Jehovah's Witnesses' magazine. And the KLM in-flight publication."
"PUTTING WORDS IN HIS MOUTH: CHIEF SEATTLE'S SPEECH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT TREND TO ACCEPT WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR"
by Jack Hart, February 9, 1992, The Oregonian



Yup!

The bogus piece of Leftist/environmentalist propaganda is well known and regularly trotted out because it is designed to hit every talking point of the Left.

They can deny it exists, or its provenance, or that they never heard of it....but the very contrary is the truth.

And I love rubbing their faces in it.

And yet you can't find the wherewithal to respond to my post. Perhaps you are to busy obfuscating the issues. No surprises here.

Post # 18 rolled you up and smoked you like a Cuban cigar.

No Ma'am, you did not address my post #34. Try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First, one dunce claimed he never heard of the Chief Seattle speech...and then Soiled Undies wrote "most environmentalists have never heard of that speech."

Actually, this is the dance of the dupes, running from it when it was revealed as a hoax designed by the movement to advance their agenda.



Of course, it is simple enough to eviscerate their claims with this example.

Seems that there are many who have. This from "the Oregonian":

"A high-ranking federal official showed up in San Francisco a couple of months back and tried to sell some radioactive garbage to a gathering of American Indians. Naturally, he trotted out the Chief Seattle speech. What could be more appropriate to the audience of the topic? Chief Seattle's ringing defense of the natural environment is, after all, touted as one of the great 19th-century American Indian orations.

And David H. Leroy, the federal government's nuclear-waste negotiator, was talking to the National Congress of American Indians about storing nuclear waste on reservation land.
That, he argued, would protect the environment by concentrating waste in one
well-controlled dump.

Leroy's opening was a quote attributed to Chief Seattle that if you "continue to contaminate your bed, you will one night suffocate in your own waste."

Leroy went on to quote heavily from the rest of the speech, which consists of similar sentiments. In fact, Chief Seattle's words appear to be an uncanny forecast of modern environmentalist thinking. The speech touches on the sacred nature of the land, the connectedness of the ecosystem, the importance of living in harmony with nature and the white man's pollution of air and water.

[Here it comes!]
When Leroy borrowed from the speech, he didn't exactly break new ground. These days, the speech is popping up all over the place. Britain's Prince Philip has referred to it. So has the late pop mythologist, Joseph Campbell. And the Jehovah's Witnesses' magazine. And the KLM in-flight publication."
"PUTTING WORDS IN HIS MOUTH: CHIEF SEATTLE'S SPEECH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT TREND TO ACCEPT WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR"
by Jack Hart, February 9, 1992, The Oregonian



Yup!

The bogus piece of Leftist/environmentalist propaganda is well known and regularly trotted out because it is designed to hit every talking point of the Left.

They can deny it exists, or its provenance, or that they never heard of it....but the very contrary is the truth.

And I love rubbing their faces in it.

And yet you can't find the wherewithal to respond to my post. Perhaps you are to busy obfuscating the issues. No surprises here.

Post # 18 rolled you up and smoked you like a Cuban cigar.

No Ma'am, you did not address my post #34. Try again.

I understand it, and you, windbag.

Take a walk.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

Correcting???

How is that possible when everything I post is correct?

Everything I posted was linked, sourced, documented.

Your post is typical of the losers who can't/won't admit that they have accepted a foreign philosophy at odds with what they claim to believe.

You've been co-opted, fools, and made a sucker of.

Probably too late to recover.

It is a long standing axiom that when someone says they are always correct, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly NOT! You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

Correcting???

How is that possible when everything I post is correct?

Everything I posted was linked, sourced, documented.

Your post is typical of the losers who can't/won't admit that they have accepted a foreign philosophy at odds with what they claim to believe.

You've been co-opted, fools, and made a sucker of.

Probably too late to recover.

It is a long standing axiom that when someone says they are always correct, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly NOT! You didn't know this? Huh.

Unlike you, I've had no experience at being wrong.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

 

[orogenicman]

First, one dunce claimed he never heard of the Chief Seattle speech...and then Soiled Undies wrote "most environmentalists have never heard of that speech."

Actually, this is the dance of the dupes, running from it when it was revealed as a hoax designed by the movement to advance their agenda.



Of course, it is simple enough to eviscerate their claims with this example.

Seems that there are many who have. This from "the Oregonian":

"A high-ranking federal official showed up in San Francisco a couple of months back and tried to sell some radioactive garbage to a gathering of American Indians. Naturally, he trotted out the Chief Seattle speech. What could be more appropriate to the audience of the topic? Chief Seattle's ringing defense of the natural environment is, after all, touted as one of the great 19th-century American Indian orations.

And David H. Leroy, the federal government's nuclear-waste negotiator, was talking to the National Congress of American Indians about storing nuclear waste on reservation land.
That, he argued, would protect the environment by concentrating waste in one
well-controlled dump.

Leroy's opening was a quote attributed to Chief Seattle that if you "continue to contaminate your bed, you will one night suffocate in your own waste."

Leroy went on to quote heavily from the rest of the speech, which consists of similar sentiments. In fact, Chief Seattle's words appear to be an uncanny forecast of modern environmentalist thinking. The speech touches on the sacred nature of the land, the connectedness of the ecosystem, the importance of living in harmony with nature and the white man's pollution of air and water.

[Here it comes!]
When Leroy borrowed from the speech, he didn't exactly break new ground. These days, the speech is popping up all over the place. Britain's Prince Philip has referred to it. So has the late pop mythologist, Joseph Campbell. And the Jehovah's Witnesses' magazine. And the KLM in-flight publication."
"PUTTING WORDS IN HIS MOUTH: CHIEF SEATTLE'S SPEECH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT TREND TO ACCEPT WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR"
by Jack Hart, February 9, 1992, The Oregonian



Yup!

The bogus piece of Leftist/environmentalist propaganda is well known and regularly trotted out because it is designed to hit every talking point of the Left.

They can deny it exists, or its provenance, or that they never heard of it....but the very contrary is the truth.

And I love rubbing their faces in it.

And yet you can't find the wherewithal to respond to my post. Perhaps you are to busy obfuscating the issues. No surprises here.

Post # 18 rolled you up and smoked you like a Cuban cigar.

No Ma'am, you did not address my post #34. Try again.

I understand it, and you, windbag.

Take a walk.

As I understand it from your post above, you have no intention of responding to my post #34. I'm not surprised. It is what you always fail to do when presented with facts by someone with far more knowledge on a topic than you; you can't deal with so you wig out. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Ms. Cheeky.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

Correcting???

How is that possible when everything I post is correct?

Everything I posted was linked, sourced, documented.

Your post is typical of the losers who can't/won't admit that they have accepted a foreign philosophy at odds with what they claim to believe.

You've been co-opted, fools, and made a sucker of.

Probably too late to recover.

It is a long standing axiom that when someone says they are always correct, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly NOT! You didn't know this? Huh.

Unlike you, I've had no experience at being wrong.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

That tends to happen when you have no friends to tell you otherwise. Poor dear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

Correcting???

How is that possible when everything I post is correct?

Everything I posted was linked, sourced, documented.

Your post is typical of the losers who can't/won't admit that they have accepted a foreign philosophy at odds with what they claim to believe.

You've been co-opted, fools, and made a sucker of.

Probably too late to recover.

It is a long standing axiom that when someone says they are always correct, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly NOT! You didn't know this? Huh.

Unlike you, I've had no experience at being wrong.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

That tends to happen when you have no friends to tell you otherwise. Poor dear.

There is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is. I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you've finally joined the ranks of those special few here simply too stupid to bother correcting.

Correcting???

How is that possible when everything I post is correct?

Everything I posted was linked, sourced, documented.

Your post is typical of the losers who can't/won't admit that they have accepted a foreign philosophy at odds with what they claim to believe.

You've been co-opted, fools, and made a sucker of.

Probably too late to recover.

It is a long standing axiom that when someone says they are always correct, you can take it to the bank that they are most certainly NOT! You didn't know this? Huh.

Unlike you, I've had no experience at being wrong.
I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

That tends to happen when you have no friends to tell you otherwise. Poor dear.

There is an old joke that says every Arabic word has four meanings: the first is the common usage, the second is the exact opposite of the first, the third is something pertaining to a camel, and the fourth is so unspeakably vulgar that no one will tell you what it is. I can’t decide whether you fit the third or fourth.

Since I am not a word (much less an Arabic word), non-sequitur. But you knew that. Right? Of course you did.

 

[Old Rocks]

PoliticalShit has no concept that environmentalism has far more to do with the air we are currently breathing, and whats in the rivers that we use for recreation and fishing, than what anybody said or didn't say a century ago.

 

[orogenicman]

PoliticalShit has no concept that environmentalism has far more to do with the air we are currently breathing, and whats in the rivers that we use for recreation and fishing, than what anybody said or didn't say a century ago.

What's worse, she likely has breathed that lovely Brooklyn car exhaust they call air up there for so long, she thinks it is normal air, and doesn't understand when people point out that it isn't. Poor dear.