Is attachment only argument against name change?
To those who are against the name change: the war of words over the issue of Kelseyville is raging. The historical facts concerning Kelsey are now known to most at last, and the decision to change the name or not will be made at the polls. There is nothing wrong with bringing up this issue to be decided on in a democratic manner, unless you do not trust democracy and would prefer to impose your will by force, as in the 19th century.
It is indeed wrong to wish that we were back in the 19th or early 20th century, when Native people and those who supported them were intimidated into silence and compliance by bullies, thugs and murderers. It is wrong to attempt to whitewash or deny history, to say it did not happen, or to say it does not or should not matter. It is wrong to insult people you disagree with, to call Clayton”s ideas “idiotic”. If it was not for him, you wouldn”t know anything about these aspects of local history, you would still think the Bloody Island massacre was a “battle”, and that Kelsey was just a regular rancher, because the truth is certainly not taught in local schools.
The only arguments against the name change are that you are emotionally attached to the name Kelseyville, and that the past should be left alone. In other words the Pomo”s past and feelings are irrelevant, and yours are all important. But the raising of this issue has a very positive aspect: it teaches you a history you would rather forget. It is uncomfortable, but it would not have to be brought up by Native people if the truth was already out there and taught in schools, if the Kelsey”s and the Columbus of this world were known for their horrible actions against the Native people of this hemisphere, rather than having towns and holidays named after them as if they were heroes.
Raphael Montoliu
Lakeport
