It is ironic that Richard Serkey, who spent much of his professional life challenging land use and building plans and now does much the same as a Town Meeting member, has such strong objections to acknowledging the historical wrong to the Wampanoag of stealing their land – a particularly pernicious form of “land use.”
Mr. Serkey conveniently lists five points, all of which I have seen before and seem to come from the MAGA card catalog of ridiculous talking points. Each can be easily refuted.
Serkey’s first point is that it is “implicit” that all non-Wampanoags are responsible for historical wrongs. Leaving aside the fact that many of our families, including recent immigrants, came to the US after Native Americans had been murdered and “cleansed” from their own lands, “responsibility” is not the issue for contemporary Americans. The real issue is that we still have not addressed these historical wrongs. MAGA America always feels personally put upon by any suggestion that America has “unfinished business” – things that need fixing, unjust structures and institutions that remain as relics of an ugly past. Sorry, but American history is just as ugly as it can be inspiring.
Serkey’s second and third points have to do with what MAGA voices like to call “virtue signaling.” This applies to almost any socially responsible initiative that the right wing disapproves of. Marching for a social cause, taking a knee for racial injustice, advocating eating less meat to reduce methane emissions, banning nips, replacing gas stoves with induction ranges – whatever – all these rankle people who simply refuse to recognize the validity of the arguments and summarily dismiss the proponents for, in Mr. Serkey’s words, “proclaiming their piety.” But of course, “piety” has nothing to do with it. It’s the methane, or the racism, or the historical wrongs that people like Mr. Serkey just don’t want to address.
Serkey goes on to charge that “oral proclamations” make attendees a “captive audience.” Really? Any more than the Pledge of Allegiance he so prefers, which includes the phrase “under God,” which was inserted by religious fanatics in the Fifties. Town business should not compel attendees to recite a loyalty oath or compel a truly captive audience to state (in opposition to their own beliefs) that the government operates under the watchful eye of some Deity. Besides, Town Meeting members already have to stomach stupid jokes, useless chitchat, and plenty of bureaucratic bloviation and procedure. The fact is, Mr. Serkey just doesn’t want to hear that Plymouth was built on the destruction of another people.
Finally, to some degree I agree with Mr. Serkey. Mere talk is not enough. What Massachusetts communities really ought to do – especially those with huge land trusts – is give the land back to the original inhabitants.
– David Ehrens