More Willman reaction

Wanted to take a moment to thank you for my subscription and all the benefits I’ve gotten from your publication. I regret that I cannot continue the subscription in good conscience, and it has to do with your reporting of issues regarding the Swinomish Tribe.

In the May 24 issue, as many have noted, your reporter took Wilman’s word, unquestioned, that she “is not against Native American rights.” Her history, words and actions certainly indicate something other than that. I think it is the responsibility of good journalism to interrogate these kinds of assertions.

Then your reporter writes regarding Mr. Wagner’s words “He then brought up boarding schools from the early 20th century that he claims the federal government forced Native American children to attend.

Sandy, the brutality of the boarding schools is a historical fact. It’s not simply an outdated “20th century” issue, especially if your parents and grandparents lived through this, and the laws that prohibited practice of Indian religion and speaking of their native tongue also. The federal government practiced genocide as one way of attempting to relieve itself of its treaty obligations. Again, it’s history. And now there’s a new attempt to erase agreements made by our Constitutional representatives for the convenience of those whose presence here was only made possible by those agreements.

I understand that there is financial hardship created as a by product of these issues as they work themselves through the courts. It is most unfortunate, and I think various levels of government need to compensate for certain losses due to misguided practice of the law. But that is just my opinion. I hope for a fair outcome, one that’s based on the truth.

Maggie Wilder

La Conner

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is the text from the story referenced in the letter: “Willman is not against Native Americans, but she believes that tribal governments are getting too hungry for power, land, money and other resources.”