In answer to the editorial a letter by Tribal Chairman Randy King published on July 31 stated that 'the majority of the people [in the Town] understand our concerns". Also he wrote that the tribe would not drop its land claim suit and questioned the Times' motives for the editorial. King wrote "For decades, we have sought alternatives. Yet our sacred lands, meant for preservation of the Shinnecock Indian Nation, continue to be bulldozed. " King wrote that the Times "editors, executives and major investors ... own property on Shinnecock land and have a personal financial stake in the outcome of this debate."
Also the following letter in response was published by the Times on July 31:
To the Editor:
You urge the Shinnecock Nation to abandon its land claim "rather than burn
every last bridge to its allies in the community and thwart the search for
a less destructive long-term source of financial security."
As an actual ally of the Shinnecocks, I would like to ask why you think the
land claim would burn any bridges to those who support the Shinnecock
Nation's search for justice.
The tribe preserved the lands it was left with after the Shinnecock
Hills were taken. When it proposed a gaming casino for financial security,
the so-called "allies" claimed to have alternatives.
The most lucrative proposal would have required the Shinnecocks to sell
their Westwoods land and invest the proceeds to earn $5,000 per
household annually. Is this a plan for financial security?
In their reaction to the Shinnecock proposals, the Southampton power
structure has not convinced the Shinnecocks that they are allies.
Ending its poverty while preserving ancestral lands and traditions is
the tribe's objective. What would be gained should the tribe abandon its
plans?
Anthony Ernst
Southampton
