Dear Editor:

I noted your comments stating: “Every word we use needs to be carefully chosen” in your editorial linking national Women’s History Month and the Russian war against the Ukraine. I thought the need to carefully choose our words is probably a universal truth. Then, I read the letter to the editor regarding leased land at Shelter Bay. I have no doubt the author of that letter has strong feelings and might be personally affected by relevant circumstances.

I think a careful choice of words in expressing personal opinions would avoid descriptions that call groups or individuals “wards of the state” or characterize tribal sovereignty as a “dubious concept.” Actually, it’s complicated.

History reveals awkward facts: Over time, the United States has had varying and conflicting approaches to indigenous populations, their lands, and sovereignty including discovery, conquest, annihilation, assimilation, treaties, and even, sometimes, a little preservation.

Overall, it’s not a pretty picture.

Present laws and the legal status of property ownership or leases within Indian reservations are complex.

Risks are associated with private improvements built on leased lands.

Location on a reservation adds an additional layer of complexity and risk.

Decades ago, I recall a dear friend telling me about being sent to boarding school when he was young. The treatment was bad. I recall my naive thought “why would your parents do that to you?” Fortunately, I did not say that out loud. Later, I learned more about the Indian boarding schools. Parents had no say in those actions. Today, we are learning even more horrific facts related to these boarding schools.

I like the term “First Nations” commonly used in Canada. That seems accurate and respectful. I understand why tribal governments vigorously defend their sovereign powers.

In our relations, let’s at least start by using respectful language for each other.

Laura Herman

Anacortes