Sunday, September 24, 2023
As I started to read Phil Dinsmore’s letter about the golf course in the Jan. 11 Leader, I was like — wait, there’s a disconnect here.
Phil says “for thousands of years …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
As I started to read Phil Dinsmore’s letter about the golf course in the Jan. 11 Leader, I was like — wait, there’s a disconnect here.
Phil says “for thousands of years this area was probably an important hunting and food-gathering area for the native S’Klallam, as well as a portage.” Then he says, “Because it is owned by the city, what happens on that property is determined by the community at large.”
But what changed between the historic S’Klallam use of the land, and city ownership? Was the land exchanged in a fair bargain, and was that bargain kept in good faith by both sides? Or, was the land taken by underhanded means that were not well-understood by the tribal representatives? In a world in which justice and fairness had prevailed since the arrival of white settlers in the Northwest, who would own the land in the city of Port Townsend now?
I personally do not know the history of white settlement of Port Townsend all that well. I think there are both city and tribal historians who could shed light on the question. My guess is that at least part of Port Townsend’s land area should rightfully belong to the tribes. There are large swaths of our city that would be difficult to return to tribal ownership now, such as my house and lot. But there are 58 acres of city-controlled land, in an area that was once used for food gathering and portage, that could be returned in one piece. Then the ancestral owners could make the critical decisions about what to do with it.
This seems like a question that should be given serious consideration. I am curious why it does not seem to be on the table in the city decision-making process that is currently underway.
Richard Berg
PORT TOWNSEND
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
chetzemoco
Respectfully, Mr Berg, I would advise you to learn the history with which you are admittedly unfamiliar. In fact, the era of the Klallam in Port Townsend was brief: they only occupied the area in the mid-19th century, after the much older Chimakum Tribe were annihilated by the Suquamish and their allies (led by the often misquoted Chief Seattle). One of the greatest insults you can cast upon Native people, who have already suffered many injuries of history, is to paint them all with one brush. The notion that the PT golf course should serve as some kind of haven for subsistence living relies on a romantic caricature of the Indian. If the deed to the land were indeed relinquished, and the “ancestral owners” consulted, I suspect you would rather end up with a similar situation to that in Blyn: slots and pot. For this purpose you might reconsider the suitability of your own precious house and lot.
Friday, February 3 Report this