I must respond to Randy Henry's March 6 letter concerning the Klamath Tribe's sale of reservation lands since he goes as far as to question my understanding of Indian land beliefs.
The Supreme Court threw out “Cobell vs Norton,” which called for an audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs payments to tribes over the past 100-plus years.
I am not going to suggest he look up the “Termination Act” (Public Law 587, Chapter 732, Aug. 13, 1954) because he considers it unjust, even though it was written in plain English. I think it can be hard to decide if something is unjust at the time when it is done in response to a request by the people affected. But I do not think that matters to Henry because, apparently, if it came from the U.S. government, he believes it to be trickery.
And I suppose he also considers it trickery when the “remaining members” asked their trust with U.S. Bank be dissolved - even though the bank sued in their behalf and got them more money.
As far as throwing names around, I will take the written record over verbal accounts anytime.
Henry's understanding of Indians' land beliefs (at least as I understand him) is that they believed a person could no more own land any more than they could own the sky, the moon, the sun, stars, wind, or water. (That, even though tribes fought over such things as hunting grounds or camas root-gathering areas.)
If Indians do not believe a person can own land, then they got a very handsome price for something they did not own. Since they still get to use the land the same as any other citizen and enjoy special hunting, fishing and gathering rights not enjoyed by other citizens, I would say they got one heck of a deal.
Who tricked who?
Stephen Rapalyea
Chiloquin