Arguments Don't Hold Up in Support of Fort de Buade Purchase
To the Editor:

In a recent article in The St. Ignace News, Judi A. Engle, president of the Michilimackinac Historical Society (MHS) and manager of the Fort de Buade museum, criticized my objections to the Sault Tribe funding of the Fort purchase. She declares that she "will not try to judge how you have come to your conclusions about the manner in which you have chosen to fight for what you believe is right," and then offers the observations that my intentions are "to promote false information and…as a means of political gain." Moreover, she asserts that many, if not all, of my arguments supporting those objections are falsehoods. I'm sincerely grateful that Ms. Engle was able to remain objective and nonjudgmental while indulging in some wild speculation.

Most of what Ms. Engle has said about my motives vis a vis the Fort de Buade museum is incorrect. Clearly, her understanding of my position is based, in large part, on out-of-context snippets taken from a brief phone conversation I had with a reporter from the Sault Ste. Marie Evening News. I have no intention of trying to correct all of her misinterpretations and misstatements. To those who might believe that they are true, the exercise would be meaningless and a waste of time. To those who know me, and to those who may not know me personally but are supportive of the goal I espouse, it is unnecessary. What I will do instead is to highlight some statements in the Engle letter that demonstrate that her understanding is limited or incorrect of the state-mandated 2% monies distribution program and my position.

To begin with, let me make it perfectly clear that my objections are not with the City of St. Ignace, or MHS, or both, buying the dilapidated building known as Fort de Buade. I do not object to either of those entities operating it as a nonprofit private enterprise. In fact, I would offer my encouragement to them to do just that if they think it is in their best interests to do so. With a salable product, a well-thought out business plan, a sound marketing strategy, and a team of dynamic managers and volunteers having the demonstrated experience and competency to set up and manage a small museum, the organization could appeal to an array of individual donors and philanthropic organizations, the traditional sources of funding for viable museums everywhere. One wonders why such an organization is not already in place and functioning smoothly.

And if those elements, just noted, that are so essential to the success of any business enterprise were in place and functioning, there would be no need for the Sault Tribe to contribute more than $700,000 of 2% monies to elevate the Fort from the obscurity that it presently enjoys in a dilapidated, environmentally suspect building in downtown St. Ignace to a position of prominence. And I would not now be obligated to justify, once again, my strong objections to the giveaway of a large sum of money that could be used more efficiently and effectively to provide meaningful and necessary benefits and services to deserving Tribal members in the area.

At the heart of my thesis is the understanding that the use of 2% monies in the manner proposed by Keith Massaway, i.e., to purchase a moribund museum (the Fort) from a private owner (the Bensons) for the use of a nongovernmental, nonprofit, closely held business enterprise (MHS), using a governmental entity (the City) as merely a pass-through for the funds, is improper and potentially illegal. For at least the fifth, and hopefully the last, time, the Consent Judgment between the Sault Tribe and the State of Michigan states explicitly that the guidelines governing the tribes in making determinations as to which local unit or units of government shall receive payments for governmental services provided to the tribes and for impacts associated with the existence and location of the tribal casino in its vicinity. The controlling language of this very important agreement is emphasized by me.

Ms. Engle offers a number of arguments for her belief that the Fort purchase does not violate the Consent Judgment. First, she implies that there is a clear equivalency between Little Bear East Arena and the Fort. Her opinion is based, apparently, on the knowledge that the arena was built with 2% monies and on the belief that it is not a governmental service like the Fort is not a governmental service. The knowledge is correct, the belief is not. In fact, Little Bear East is a classic example of a governmental service. The service consists of a recreational venue that is accessible to Tribal members of all ages as well as non-tribal residents who live in the St. Ignace area. Review of records dealing with the negotiations between the City and the Tribe with regard to the arena funding would surely show that service to Tribal members was an essential aspect of the agreement. Thus, on the question of governmental service, the equivalency argument fails.

It is important to note that Ms. Engle and I are in complete agreement that the Fort is not a governmental service in any sense of the word.

Ms. Engle carries the equivalency argument one step further by noting that the State of Michigan did not object to Little Bear and thus, apparently, would not object to the Fort. This argument fails on two points: (1) the legality of the Little Bear allocation was never brought to the state for a determination, and (2) since the arena was indeed a governmental service in the meaning of the Consent Judgment, the state surely would have approved it in the face of an objection. In the case of the Fort: (1) the question of the legality of the allocation has not been presented to the state - yet, and (2) because the Fort is not a governmental service, it might be presumed that if and when the state hears the arguments, it would find the Fort purchase a violation of the Consent Judgment on that basis alone. Atest has yet to be made, and this may be it. But once again, the equivalency argument fails.

Ms. Engle further states that since Little Bear was not illegal, neither is the Fort. The above discussion that contradicts the equivalency claim shows that statement to be a non sequitur; it requires no further discussion.

I am compelled to state that I am more than a little troubled by Ms. Engle's patronizing attitude toward Native Americans who have views different than her own. However, it seems to parallel the attitude of at least one other MHS member, a non-native, who found it necessary to lecture a tribal elder on the right way to educate Native American youngsters.

I am especially troubled by her readiness to label as liars and self-serving political opportunists, any Native Americans who choose to express publicly their contrasting viewpoints. This effort is not about personal political gain, at least not from my point of view. It is rather about principle, the principle of rightness in particular. Rightness is a manifestation of the good way of the Anishinaabe. And if the real truth were to be known, it would be obvious that the falsehoods claimed by Ms. Engle were nothing more than bits and pieces of her own inflammatory rhetoric. That is definitely not the good way.

It would be tempting to respond to Ms. Engle with questions regarding her motives for so strongly advocating for the Fort purchase. She is, after all, president of MHS, the organization that will be responsible for the Fort and the one that will receive $700,000 of 2% money. She also is the manager of the Fort, itself, and will, in that position, enjoy significant personal financial gain from the transaction for at least the next six years.

Finally, it is recognized that valuable and authentic Anishinaabe artifacts, some with strong cultural and spiritual significance, represent a small percentage of the Fort de Buade collection. Ms. Engle declares that the Fort collection contains few "sacred" items that fit with the Repatriation Act. The nature of the Anishinaabe artifacts and the number of those that are amenable to repatriation is a matter for qualified specialists to determine. In the near future, we expect to engage qualified Native American archivists who will make those critical identifications. Whether there are only a few or there are many, all have great cultural value and deserve to be in the home of their true owners, the Sault Tribe or other Indian nations. And that is our goal.

Charles Adams Jr. Laughlin, Nevada