The Chief Seattle speech is a hoax. Chief Seattle never wrote a letter to
Pierce at all. He did make a speech on the Port Elliot Treaty of 1855, entitled
"The Indian's Night Promises to be Dark". It was tranlated by Dr. Henry Smith
and is to be found in " INDIAN ORATORY: FAMOUS SPEECHES BY NOTED
On Sun, 18 May 1997, Michael Perelman wrote:
I think that I recall hearing that this letter was created by a fairly
modern writer rather than from Chief Seattle.
True!:-)
Funny how things like that take on a life of their own, though!
Regards,
Dennis Grammenos
Just a few local Canadian notes on Elaine's history of brewing.
Saskatchewan has had a tradition of government involvement in brewing.
(Compared to the US, Canada has also had a tradition of provincial government
monopoly
marketing for hard liquor and for beer. This is perhaps partly based upon
Bill Burgess, Tom Walker, and others were talking about profitability. I
just looked at the profits/GDP series for a piece in LBO comparing the
present expansion with previous postwar US expansions. Not to give it all
away before it even reaches subscribers, I'll say that on most indicators,
the
I think that I recall hearing that this letter was created by a fairly
modern writer rather than from Chief Seattle.
James Michael Craven wrote:
Letter from Chief Sealth to President Franklin Pierce--1855
" The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our
land. How can
Letter from Chief Sealth to President Franklin Pierce--1855
" The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our
land. How can you buy or sell the sky--the warmth of the land. The
idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or
the sparkle of the water.
In reply to my comments, Bill Burgess wrote,
If we agree that nation states are still important, isn't it important
to also identify exactly who has power in them, and specifically whether
domestic or foreign capital predominates?
Yes, it's important to identify who has power but, since the
On Sat, 17 May 1997, Tom Walker wrote (about my comments about Sid S's
comments):
At any rate, I think it's too easy to confuse terms like
"internationalism"
and "nationalism" as if they were opposites or alternatives. I don't see any
inconsistency in strategically pursuing a "commitment
Forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jagdish Parikh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], union-d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LABOUR: Separate Corporate Standards Not The Answer, Experts Say
/* Written 4:18 PM May 17, 1997 by newsdesk in
Tom did a very nice job of encapsulating my argument -- a better job than
I did in the original!
Sid
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker)
Subject: [PEN-L:10191] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
at least, the aggression has been of a singularly flaccid variety. If a
strong movement of working class resistance to neo-liberalism were to
emerge, neo-liberalism would flee
Friends,
I want to second Tom's remarks on this entire globalization debate. We live in
specific countries and we have little choice to to act within them. Millions of
workers are unorganized and need to be organized. Should we not even try to
organize them because capital is now global
Many thanks-- I got a good chuckle. So, I am in Linkoping. If you decide to
stay in my apt. while I am gone. Gill Stainsby has the keys-- I think her #
is 255-2110, or you can e-mail her at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have a great time in
BC. Meanwhile, just for the record, I am absolutely doing my best
Bill Burgess wrote,
. . . I don't see the *significant*
difference implied by a position that replaces a traditional
committment to internationalism with a position where nationalist measures
are now seen as central to protecting working class interests (which I
understand to be your opinion).
14 matches
Mail list logo
