Santa Barbara County Supervisor Peter Adam is not known for quietly mumbling softball opinions to himself and then sitting quietly while twiddling his thumbs. When he has something to say, he says it. Some of his critics—and probably more than a few of his friends—might go so far as to describe him as someone who talks first and thinks later, but that’s a bit unkind, I think. Adam certainly puts thought into what he says. I’m just not sure whether he truly says what he thinks he’s saying.
The supervisor has been receiving criticism of late for a remark he made at the Jan. 13 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting. While discussing a legislative platform for 2015, the issue of tribal land use came up, as it does from time to time (read: constantly) in this area.
“I think it’s inadvisable to have sovereign land in the middle of our nation,” Adam said as part of the discussion.
That’s the line that’s grabbed readers’ and listeners’ attentions, anyway.
His comment sounds like a critique of the reservation system, and it very well might be. People from his constituency and beyond have called his statement disappointing and unbelievable. His own fellow supervisor, Salud Carbajal, called the sentiment appalling. His exact quote: “To re-examine the existence of reservations and sovereign governments in our nation … is appalling to me. It goes to our acknowledgement of the unfortunate policies that our nation has had toward native Americans for many years and the atrocities that we’ve committed.”
Adam did try to explain a bit, rationalizing that any enterprise, endeavor, or decision should be looked at in a different light from time to time to be sure that it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.
This is what gets me.
I certainly understand where the critics are coming from. To take aim at the one piece of tangible property an already decimated and marginalized people can hold to in this country that was—I’ll just say it—stolen from them, well, that looks on the surface like a slap in the already-slapped face.
But let’s (as Adam is apparently advocating) look at it from a new angle.
This is information taken straight from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs: “Some reservations are the remnants of a tribe’s original land base. Others were created by the federal government for the resettling of Indian people forcibly relocated from their homelands. Not every federally recognized tribe has a reservation.”
To me, that doesn’t sound like the most solid foundation upon which to build an equitable and just system of … uh … redress? Compensation? Parity?
None of those words work. They all sound hollow. Insulting.
And that may be the problem here, started way back in 1778 when the fledgling government started making treaties with the native nations so it could grow and expand and become that proud eagle we all associate with the country today.
This system of tribal lands and federally recognized sovereignty and fee-to-trust processes may be the best way to roll the whole ball of wax these days, but is it the best way, period?
I don’t have an answer to that. Neither does Adam. Neither does Carbajal.
I’m curious, though: What do you think? I don’t often make shameless requests for direct feedback, but I’d really like to know in this case.
Do you think federal Indian law is everything it should be here in 2015? Are sovereign nations standing as islands—the last scraps of once-vast tracts given over with a shrug and an apology to the tribes who were tortured, raped, and murdered by land-hungry invaders—really not worth a second or third thought?
Given some time to think about it before relating whatever comes to mind, what would you say?
The Canary is not sure how this week’s column will be received. Send comments—really!—to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jan 29 – Feb 5, 2015.
