We've been struggling with an interesting question in the Santa Ynez Valley that frankly, about which I don't quite know how to feel.
first some of the details...
Some time ago the Chumash people purchased a large tract of agricultural land (2.2 square miles) in the Santa Ynez Valley, near their reservation, and then proceeded to apply to annex the land to their reservation. There is no question that the Chumash people lived here before Europeans arrived and while I think their cultural understanding of ownership of the land was very different then, it doesn't seem too far off base to say that they were the owners until the Spaniards confiscated it.
Centuries passed and much has changed. The Santa Ynez Chumash band has a small reservation in a very expensive part of the country... and a casino. Annexing the land would move it into the Chumash Nation and remove it from the property tax rolls and from the zoning restrictions of the county.
The members of that small band own the casino and each individual member receives payments from it each year that today's local paper says are $600,000 annually. (I have heard smaller numbers from other sources the smallest being $100,000 per person, per year)
Building is highly regulated and controlled in this area for a variety of reasons, one being that water is a very precious and rare commodity. Infrastructure in the area of that land is limited and would struggle to support a significant influx of new residents.
The Chumash say they want to build homes for tribal members. Local residents fear a second casino. In any case, if the land is annexed, the Chumash can do whatever they please with no say from anyone else.
The Chumash could own the land without annexing it and go through the normal permitting process to build the homes they want, keeping them on county tax rolls, and their members could easily afford to purchase the homes. Indeed, many currently live off of the reservation. The tribe also owns businesses and hotels outside of the reservation.
The federal annexation law requires the tribe to have an "immediate need" or "necessity" for housing or economic development.
It does not look to me as if there is any real immediate need or necessity involved but it feels as if maybe there is room to reimburse the Chumash for all that was taken from them. On the other hand, they have benefited significantly by the development of the broader community and have incomes significantly above the rest of the community. Is it just to allow them to skirt laws that the rest of the community must observe while at the same time increasing stressors on the infrastructure and the environment without sharing any of the costs. I have to say that the thought of displacing the cattle feeding on those rolling hills and adding more houses, aimed at wealthy folk who can afford to live basically anywhere they want makes my heart ache.
And I am sure there are complexities I do not understand.
So what is just? What is right? What should I think about these possibilities a few miles down the road from me? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Zealot
Wow... it's been more than a month since I've posted...
I finished reading Reza Aslan's book Zealot a few days ago. If you haven't heard of it, it is an attempt to place Jesus in an historical context and thus make him more understandable. I have to say I have very mixed feelings about the book.
The pros - If we believe in the Incarnation, we have to see that Jesus was not only a man but a man in a very specific time and place. We could argue over what that specificity has to do with God's self revelation, but in any case, we cannot divorce that revelation from that setting. We cannot understand Jesus without placing him in his context and we cannot understand incarnation without understanding contextualization. Aslan does a good job at explaining the social context in which Jesus found himself as well as the particular profusion of Judean self-styled messiahs, gathering followers and calling for the overthrow of Rome. A thorough understanding of the setting is critical for understanding Jesus and his teaching. Aslan helps make that possible. He does the same to a lesser degree for Paul.
The negatives - Aslan aknowledges that Jesus does not quite fit the common models of his day for the messiah but still tries to pigeon hole him into those models, dismissing any possibilities of Jesus bringing anything really unique to the discussion. He goes on to say essentially that Christianity as we know it is an invention of Paul that has very little to do with Jesus.
Additionally, Aslan picks and chooses his scholarship to fit his presuppositions. For example, he refers to Jesus' parables as incomprehensible when scholars going back to Jeremias' seminal 1947 book The Parables of Jesus, says that the parables were stories that used everyday experiences to reinforce a single message to the audience in a way they would understand.
And of course, he writes not as a person of faith but as a scholar looking for a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus whom he distinguishes from the Christ of faith. I think there is great value in this approach both for academia and for people of faith all the while knowing that for many Christians, such a differentiation is offensive.
So... my short review is that it is a worthwhile read but do not expect it to be a devotional book nor the best scholarship. It is however a fairly easy read that will help to enlighten the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
I finished reading Reza Aslan's book Zealot a few days ago. If you haven't heard of it, it is an attempt to place Jesus in an historical context and thus make him more understandable. I have to say I have very mixed feelings about the book.
The pros - If we believe in the Incarnation, we have to see that Jesus was not only a man but a man in a very specific time and place. We could argue over what that specificity has to do with God's self revelation, but in any case, we cannot divorce that revelation from that setting. We cannot understand Jesus without placing him in his context and we cannot understand incarnation without understanding contextualization. Aslan does a good job at explaining the social context in which Jesus found himself as well as the particular profusion of Judean self-styled messiahs, gathering followers and calling for the overthrow of Rome. A thorough understanding of the setting is critical for understanding Jesus and his teaching. Aslan helps make that possible. He does the same to a lesser degree for Paul.
The negatives - Aslan aknowledges that Jesus does not quite fit the common models of his day for the messiah but still tries to pigeon hole him into those models, dismissing any possibilities of Jesus bringing anything really unique to the discussion. He goes on to say essentially that Christianity as we know it is an invention of Paul that has very little to do with Jesus.
Additionally, Aslan picks and chooses his scholarship to fit his presuppositions. For example, he refers to Jesus' parables as incomprehensible when scholars going back to Jeremias' seminal 1947 book The Parables of Jesus, says that the parables were stories that used everyday experiences to reinforce a single message to the audience in a way they would understand.
And of course, he writes not as a person of faith but as a scholar looking for a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus whom he distinguishes from the Christ of faith. I think there is great value in this approach both for academia and for people of faith all the while knowing that for many Christians, such a differentiation is offensive.
So... my short review is that it is a worthwhile read but do not expect it to be a devotional book nor the best scholarship. It is however a fairly easy read that will help to enlighten the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
