Letters

Over the last month, I’ve been bemused at the hysterical reactions of some of the Shinnecock apologists, as it relates to criticism of the tribe’s aggressive wielding of its so-called “sovereignty.” By attempting to bypass the laws of the town and state, predictably, the Shinnecock have caused Southampton Town to push back via litigation.

The salient issue: The tribe seems to think that just because it acquires additional land in a modern-day real estate transaction, it magically transforms that land into the equivalent of aboriginal, “reservation land,” because such additional land was once part of its historical territory 375 years ago.

The problem with that theory is that the Shinnecock sold off most of their aboriginal land. Indeed, three major transactions — the sale of 1640 to English settlers that represented most of what is now Southampton Village and Water Mill/Bridgehampton; the sale (with the Montauks) in 1648 to an English settler that represented most of what is now East Hampton; and the sale of 1659 to John Ogden that represented most of what is now Hampton Bays to Remsenburg, (e.g. the Quogue Purchase) — represented, in the aggregate, about 90 percent of the Shinnecock’s aboriginal land.

These were not shady transactions; they were heavily negotiated and documented with the tribal sachems of the time, and just compensation was paid by each purchaser. (Ogden’s transaction actually bailed out the Shinnecock from lawful debts.) The purchasers were not fly-by-night real estate hucksters, but, rather, God-fearing Presbyterians seeking a better life where they could practice their religion freely.

What the Shinnecock are engaging in here is a version of “Calvin Ball,” the ballgame invented by the cartoon character in the beloved comic strip “Calvin and Hobbes,” wherein you make up the rules as you go along. It mocks the seriousness of written agreements, history and statutes, and substitutes a worldview with essentially no fixed rules.

The Shinnecock apologists also want to go further and adopt Calvin’s corollary: “There’s no problem so awful that you can’t add some guilt to it and make it even worse.” Rather than recognize that there’s a legitimate dispute going on between the town and the Shinnecock about what constitutes aboriginal land, subject to their so-called “sovereignty,” the apologists want to label every supporter of the town’s position as bigoted and insensitive to the Shinnecock’s predicament.

Well, if there is a predicament, maybe we ought to consult the historical facts that led to such predicament: bad leadership by the tribe in selling off the land in the first place. It should come as no surprise that the major (Montauk) chieftain, Wyandanch, who orchestrated many of the controversial land transactions, was believed to have been assassinated.

Mark Schulte

Quogue