Letters

Regarding Westwoods, Southampton Town Supervisor Maria Moore recently stated, “The conclusion they reached is that it’s held ‘restricted fee,’ but all that means is that the property can’t be transferred to others without consent of the federal government. That is a far cry from saying it is still aboriginal title. It’s two separate standards.”

This is just plain false.

A simple Google search will tell you that the U.S. Department of the Interior defines “restricted fee” lands as not only inalienable but, additionally, restricted fee lands “are also considered ‘Indian country,’ and are eligible for many [Bureau of Indian Affairs] programs and services.”

Now, let’s define “Indian country.” The U.S. Department of Justice defines “Indian country” in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 as including “(1) federal reservations …”

Let me speak plainly: What the BIA just did was to define Westwoods as Indian country, meaning Indian reservation status. Unequivocally at that. Supervisor Moore appears to be confused; restricted fee and aboriginal title both put Indian lands under a tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter which standard you use, they end with the same result.

Further, Supervisor Moore stated, “So we’re proceeding with the litigation until we get clarification. This is something that was litigated in a 40-day-long trial in federal court with a very detailed decision. Now this two-paragraph letter is supposed to settle it? This doesn’t give them license to do whatever they want without regard for existing law, and it seems that is how [the tribe is] interpreting it.”

Westwoods was placed on the federal rolls as Indian country — what more clarification could you need? This is obvious.

The two paragraphs summed up years of research done by the Department of the Interior — let’s not forget that. Supervisor Moore speaks about existing law but fails to consider existing federal law that places Westwoods firmly in both aboriginal as well as restricted fee status. There is no interpretation at work here; the logical conclusion is a simple recitation of fact.

Southampton Town continuing litigation is simply squandering taxpayer resources. On the merits, the town doesn’t stand a chance. This situation reminds me of the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. These comments by Supervisor Moore come off as petty, vindictive and simple-minded.

The Shinnecock Indian Nation can be a valuable ally to Southampton Town. The tribe offers legal advantages, grant priorities and cultural resources that could be a boon to the community. The town is better off partnering with the tribe rather than spouting this flat-earther-styled rhetoric, as they have.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that possible with the current Town Board configuration. They offer the Nation propaganda rather than partnership.

Taobi Silva

Shinnecock Territory