Scan barcode
A review by mat_tobin
Brother Eagle, Sister Sky by Chief Seattle
2.0
It is interesting what one discussion about a book can do to your own perceptions. I had readthis book as a student many years ago and enjoyed it, yet returning to it now I find myself feeling slightly uncomfortable with some of the content, especially after reading articles from Paul Chaat Smith ( a member of the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma) and Jean Mendoza/Debbie Reese.
The story itself is very well meaning and, having taken an amended speech (by Jeffers) from Chief Seattle, it talks about the need to preserve and respect the land which we take for granted. It tells the story of how the Native Americans have lived in harmony with the land AND Jeffers also lets it be known that it was the white settlers who began a 'bloody war' in which they claimed the land for themselves: all well meaning and important to share. But the ending, which sees a white family planting seeds in order to regrow parts of the forest which had been cut down (with the blessing on the Native American people who stand behind them) sends mixed messages and who owns the land and how both the Native American and White American people are (or are not) a part of this.
The main problem lies with Non-Native writers taking words from Native speakers and using them for their own purpose around a message which may have little to do with the original. The key element that had grated on me and I began to understand after reading the articles mentioned above relates to the presence of the white boy on the front cover and the white family at the back. Whilst they are corporeal and the Native Americans being incorporeal which I find difficult to handle since, as Reese and Mendoza point out, it sends out a sense that these people no longer exist.
Something to think about.
The story itself is very well meaning and, having taken an amended speech (by Jeffers) from Chief Seattle, it talks about the need to preserve and respect the land which we take for granted. It tells the story of how the Native Americans have lived in harmony with the land AND Jeffers also lets it be known that it was the white settlers who began a 'bloody war' in which they claimed the land for themselves: all well meaning and important to share. But the ending, which sees a white family planting seeds in order to regrow parts of the forest which had been cut down (with the blessing on the Native American people who stand behind them) sends mixed messages and who owns the land and how both the Native American and White American people are (or are not) a part of this.
The main problem lies with Non-Native writers taking words from Native speakers and using them for their own purpose around a message which may have little to do with the original. The key element that had grated on me and I began to understand after reading the articles mentioned above relates to the presence of the white boy on the front cover and the white family at the back. Whilst they are corporeal and the Native Americans being incorporeal which I find difficult to handle since, as Reese and Mendoza point out, it sends out a sense that these people no longer exist.
Something to think about.