Comments by rebuttal

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on May 29 at 11:23 a.m.

This land should be given to those Chumash without federal recognition.

On Neverland Ranch Going on the Market for $100 Million

Posted on March 31 at 12:51 p.m.

ahhh, the usual suspects. Don’t you guys have something better to do than instigate arguments?

On Lucidity Festival Scales Down, Reaches Out

Posted on March 24 at 7:02 p.m.

whoa. 248 posts on this? It’s not a thread but a ships mooring rope!

On Tempest in a Teepee at SBCC

Posted on February 24 at 4:42 p.m.

@Mike Brady and @sacjon
Academics applied the term "Chumash" to all people within the Chumashan language family, thus the terms broad use today. There are many different groups under this term. The only group of the Chumash who enjoy recognition are the Santa Ynez Band. The U.S. has failed to recognize the rest of the Chumash, along with many tribes across the United States. When tribes began to secure "recognition," by going through the courts, the Federal government quickly Henry Ford-ized the process for their own benefit, inviting The National Congress of American Indians, who have a vested interest in there not being more "recognized" tribes, to help craft the criteria for the process known as "Federal Recognition." Then, as USual, they underfund the process.
It is true that some of these "recognized tribes or individuals" have lost their "Indian way" (taking care of each other,) getting caught up in the idea of "money as god," I would like to remind you that many Americans think of money as God, without reproach. It’s disingenuous to level this accusation at Santa Ynez in order to support your own biases, which have nothing to do with unrecognized Chumash people.
If you care for the unrecognized Chumash, set a good example for the folks at Santa Ynez and everywhere, but don’t use the unrecognized people as a fulcrum. They have enough problems.

On Some Chumash Are More Equal Than Others

Posted on January 2 at 1:10 p.m.

blah blah blah

On Feds Approve Chumash Camp 4 Plans

Posted on September 24 at 9:56 p.m.

I sure loved that majestic tree. I will miss it. Torrey Pines are lovely too and I hope it lives many hundred years.

On Century-Old Canary Island Pine Axed

Posted on August 20 at 9:55 p.m.

dadof3, I think Mr. Banuelos is talking about taking the non-native animals off the island. I also think the idea of inter-disciplinary study is closer to the ways of the first peoples who did not separate science from religion, environment from politics.

On Research Facility Unveiled at Santa Rosa Island

Posted on April 23 at 3:52 p.m.

Botany, I’m merely pointing out that Mr. Smallwood is discussing a very specific piece of property with important historic considerations, which he has been investigating.
You are trying to take my point and insist that I apply it all over. Please share your own opinions. My point is the hypocrisy of people outlawing theft when it underlies the presence of any non-native person here.

On Whose Gaviota Is It?

Posted on April 23 at 12:41 p.m.

Mr. Smallwood, thanks for your thoughts and line of inquiry. The fact of the matter is, yes, this land was stolen. Then the thieves elected people who wrote laws forbidding theft. It’s hypocritical and the (shaky) foundation for this society.
Mr. Dorfy, Let’s say I stole your bike and went and sold it, pocketing the money. If you saw that person riding your bike, you’d want it back. There are laws about possession of stolen goods. The idea of law is to protect the rightful owner. Now, if the person that bought the bike gave it as a gift to a friend and you saw it, it would be more difficult for law enforcement to track things down and right the wrong. Logically, the person who received the gift and the person that bought the bike and gave it, would think they were in the right and should own the bike. But their reason is specious. On the surface, it seems right, but essentially they are wrong. You are the rightful owner of the bike. That’s how I’d judge it.
But, for those who think they own the bike (the land), it’s an inconvenient truth that they’d rather not deal with, and in this case the law supports them. They don’t have to deal with the fundamental truth. The very basis of this society is built on theft. Any attempts to do what is right, without attending to this original issue, will manifest in rickety situations. I understand the urge to avoid such a monumental issue. But don’t discount those who are interested in exploring the truth as specious. Mr. Smallwood is talking about a specific place, not all of SB county.

On Whose Gaviota Is It?

Posted on September 6 at 7:27 p.m.

Correction: The reservations in California were made by Executive Order, and not through treaties. Treaties were signed between leaders of California tribes and representatives of the Federal Government, but these representatives were followed back to DC by businessmen who successfully lobbied for the treaties to NOT be ratified. A 50 year seal was placed on the documents and these are known as "The 18 Lost Treaties of California." More information can be read here:

Lone Ranger, you could use a dose of book learnin’. Why don’t you invest in inquiry more and read, ask questions and learn something. Your bigotry and hatred has no place in educated debate. Come correct.

On Chumash Reach Out to County Planning

Page 1 of 2 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: