Welcome to the last week of 2015, everybody. I know, I don’t want to think about it either. But I’m excited for a little me time. Just my feathers and the wind. It’s getting chilly, so I’m heading south for the holidays and won’t be back until 2016.
It’s so close I can smell the freedom.
But as this loving, hating, argumentative, crazy year comes to a close, I can’t help but think, WTF? I’m looking over my past columns, and am relishing the glory I felt as I wrote them. Pure bliss.
Maybe I’m a weirdo, but there’s nothing I like better than getting on my soapbox and ranting a little about something. Oil, marijuana, and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office come to mind as subjects I got to type blissfully about over and over again this year.
There’s also, of course, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and their somewhat tense relationship with their vocal neighbors and the county. I got to write about that again last week because of an ad hoc committee meeting between county supervisors Doreen Farr and Peter Adam and tribal Chair Vincent Armenta and Vice Chair Kenneth Kahn! And, Merry Christmas to me, somebody was so pissed off about what I wrote, that I got a terse note in my inbox this morning. So now I get to write about it again.
See how that works?
This unnamed person is undoubtedly a Santa Ynez Valley resident.
“Your column about the ‘Chumash’ reflected that you obviously don’t live in the Valley and have not watched the destruction of the community and devastation of the environment that they have wrought on the entire area. With no concern for their neighbors and constant hostile, aggressive action, they have earned the community response.
“I urge you to take a more balanced look at the situation on behalf of the entire community involved, not just the highly subsidized indian ‘membership,’” this email glared at me from the screen.
I shudder at the hatred.
I have a feeling this person isn’t brushed up on their history, and I’m not 100 percent sure why the word “Chumash” needs quotes around it. It is an actual Indian tribe, and not made up or ironic or fake in any way. And what exactly does putting “membership” in quotes do? Make it less appealing. Oh, I get it! You believe that having federally recognized tribes is a farce.
I hate to break it to you dude, but the government recognizes tribes to try and somehow make up for the U.S. government-sanctioned desecration of Indian tribes and the stealing of their lands. This land was not “our land,” this land was their land, “From California to the New York island.”
We will never make up for it; we will always have to deal with the ramifications of what our forefathers decided to do. It’s part of our legacy.
If the tribe is aggressive, it’s not in the same way the settlers were. It’s much gentler: The tribe isn’t killing anyone, enslaving anyone, forcing their religion on others, or snatching land out of unwilling hands at gunpoint. The development work they are doing is on reservation land or land they’ve purchased from landowners who get money in return for selling their acreage.
“They have earned the community response,” this unnamed person wrote.
I would imagine that quote can be turned around. I guess you people (OMG, that includes me!) living on land that was snatched from Chumash hands at one point in time, have earned the tribe’s response: To try to gain back the land that was taken from them. I mean, really, it makes sense.
But back to the real sticking point: the accusation of being unbalanced. If you would like to read up on any of the Sun’s articles on this particular topic, I believe you will find fair and balanced reporting. The Canary’s job is to have an opinion. And boy, do I!
The hostility from both sides of this never-ending name-calling session of a debate about the tribe and its landholdings is what makes it so hard to find a workable solution. That is why I applaud any attempt at civil discussion between the two sides. That is why I fully support in my unbalanced opinionated rantings government-to-government dialogue that will hopefully result in a diplomatic solution that—although nobody will be 100 percent happy—everyone can live with.
And if I was to pick any theme for Canary 2015, it would be that in-between solution. The environmentalists vs. the oil guys. The medical marijuana advocates vs. the anti-pot peeps. The ag folks vs. the save water folks. The gun control pundits vs. the freedom warriors. The stupid, God-forsaken presidential election that we still have to watch unfold until November 2016! All the arguments are essentially the same: My side is right! Your side is wrong! Take that!
So, how do we move forward in an argument as basic as that one? Simple: We don’t. The arguments don’t become nuanced as the debate rages on, they become tired. The solutions don’t get closer together, but sprint further away from one another. I’m tired of listening to those kinds of ragers.
I’m ready to listen to somebody who’s willing to listen to me. Isn’t that what dialogue is all about? Actually working toward a solution, instead of insisting on right and wrong.
So, here are my resolutions for the would-be ranters of 2016: Get your thinking caps on and give a little. Lend an ear to your staunch opponent in the debate over whatever it is your passion bubbles over for. Listen to that person in the other corner, and maybe you’ll find that things aren’t so bad over there. Maybe you’ll find that you can work together to meet in the middle. After all, the middle is only “bad” in a presidential election year. And even then, without the middle you don’t get to have a “side.”
The Canary’s itching for a margarita and a sandy beach where she doesn’t have to listen to anyone. Send comments to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Dec 24-31, 2015.
