Question

doc. 8 excerpts from the suppressed speech of wamsutta, 1970
to have been delivered at plymouth, massachusetts, 1970
about the document: three hundred fifty years after the pilgrims began their invasion of the land of the wampanoag, their “american” descendants planned an anniversary celebration. still clinging to the white - man’s schoolbook myth of friendly relations between their forefathers and the wampanoag, the anniversary planners thought it would be nice to have an indian make an appreciative and complimentary speech at their celebration. he accepted. the planners at the state level asked frank james (wamsutta) was asked to speak at the celebration. he accepted. the planners at the state level asked frank james (wamsutta) was asked to speak at the celebration. he accepted. the planners at the state level asked his speech in advance of the occasion, and it turned out that frank james’ views — based on history, not on mythology — were not what the pilgrims’ descendants wanted to hear. frank james refused on history, not on mythology — were not what the pilgrims’ descendants wanted to hear. frank james refused to deliver a speech written by a public relations person. frank james did not speak at the anniversary celebration. if he had spoken, these are excerpts from what he would have said:
1 and so down through the years there is record after record of indian lands taken and, in token, reservations set up for him upon which to live. the indian, having been stripped of his power, could only stand by and watch while the white man took his land and used it for his personal gain. this the indian could not understand; for to him, land was survival, to farm, to hunt, to be enjoyed. it was not to be abused. we see incident after incident where the white man sought to tame the “savage” and convert him to the christian ways of life. the early pilgrim settlers led the indian to believe that if he did not behave, they would dig up the ground and unleash the great epidemic again.
2 history wants us to believe that the indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. a history that was written by an organized, disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. two distinctly different cultures met. one thought they must control life; the other believed life was to be enjoyed because nature decreed it. let us remember, the indian is and was just as human as the white man. the indian feels pain, gets hurt, and becomes defensive, has dreams, bears tragedy and failure, suffers from loneliness, needs to cry as well as laugh. he, too, is often misunderstood.
3 high on a hill, overlooking the famed plymouth rock, stands the statue of our great sachem, massasoit. massasoit has stood there many years in silence. we the descendants of this great sachem have been a silent people. the necessity of making a living in this materialistic society of the white man caused us to be silent. today, i and many of my people are choosing to face the truth. we are indians!
plain what plymouth’s descendents wanted to hear rsus what wamsutta had to say.

Explanation:

Plymouth's descendants wanted a sanitized, myth - based view of the Pilgrim - Native American relationship, like the schoolbook version of friendly relations. Wamsutta intended to speak the truth about land theft, cultural subjugation, and the humanity of Native Americans that had been overlooked or misrepresented.

Answer:

Plymouth's descendants wanted a complimentary, myth - based speech about friendly relations. Wamsutta wanted to expose the injustices like land - taking, attempts to convert and control Native Americans, and to assert Native American humanity.