Letters to the Editor (1/10/24) 

Not That Old

I doubt I am the only septuagenarian who has a problem with the cartoon depiction of a gent of our demographic that accompanies the Ask the Reverend column in the December 27 issue of Seven Days. The query of the week, from a 72-year-old man having some difficulty finding a suitable someone with whom to have a relationship, is irrelevant; what matters to me — and, I'm sure, to more than a few of us of a certain age — is the drawing of a dejected geezer hunched over his cane. I'm not arguing that 70 is the new 50, but this guy looks like he's 90. As soon as we get some decent snow, I'll be back on my skis. Tell the cartoonist I'll meet him on top of Mount Ellen.

Bill Scheller

Randolph

'Wrong' From Every Angle

Kevin McCallum writes of embattled Sheriff John Grismore in [Last 7: "Not Going Quietly," December 13]. To be clear, Grismore was captured on video kicking the genitalia of a detainee who had both hands handcuffed behind his back — then rearing back and kicking the still-handcuffed detainee in the kumquats a second time.

Only a thuggish bully — read: "thuggish coward," because bullies are inherently cowards — would do something like that. Such a person should not be entrusted with a police badge and uniform, supposedly to enforce laws that in Grismore's case he clearly believes do not apply to him.

Grismore has already been stripped, rightfully, of his certification as a Vermont law enforcement officer. He still faces an assault charge in criminal court. Police are investigating possible chicanery on his part in financial doings that pertain to county sheriff funds.

Uncertain is whether the Vermont legislature will impeach this chump and force him out of office, as it well should.

His fellow Vermont sheriffs showed intestinal fortitude in walking up to that vaunted "thin blue line" and suggesting that Grismore should no longer be a sheriff.

To justify his actions, Grismore has said the victim was being mouthy and belligerent.

So how would the loudly defiant Grismore feel about putting his hands behind his back, letting someone slap the cuffs on his wrists and receiving two solid, swift kicks to his private parts? His act was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

Gordon Bock

Northfield

Wool Wise

I'm a Vermontophile, if I may coin a word to describe liking and visiting Vermont, and I'm a regular subscriber to Seven Days online. A year ago, I went to a secondhand store in Burlington and found a pair of Johnson Woolen Mills trousers. I didn't know they were an existing business until I read your article ["Glad in Plaid," December 13]. I thought that maybe these trousers were a flash from the past. Not so, I am happy to discover. I've worn them everywhere and received appreciative comments this past year, and I like the weave and pattern, as well as the way they wear. I like wool.

Gene Richards' story about investing in local businesses and carrying a flame for "made local" is close to my heart. I build dry stone walls in and around my little corner of Ontario. While building, I wear wool because it breathes and keeps me cool in the heat and warm in the wet and cold. Now that I know Johnson Woolen Mills is a business that transcends time, I will buy more, regardless of the exchange rate and the cost to me in Canada. I like traveling to Vermont year-round and like the numerous made-local outlets there.

Keep on keeping on, Vermont and Johnson Woolen Mills!

Charles R. Merredew

Merrickville, Ontario

It's About Time

I am relieved that the City of Burlington finally took action on the property at 184 Church Street ["Burlington Suspends Rental Permit for Notorious Church Street Building," December 15]. I am frustrated that it took so long. The article states that the investigation began last June. The deplorable conditions cited didn't accumulate overnight. When was the previous inspection? The 10-year history of police calls alone should have warranted greater scrutiny.

Tenants, neighbors and the community at large depend on the city to hold landlords accountable.

Nancy Harkins

Burlington

Not All Abenaki

Thanks for reporting on the conflict between the four Vermont-recognized Abenaki bands and the two Abenaki First Nations of Québec ["Fighting Between Québécois and Vermont Abenaki Tribes Puts Conservation Groups in a Bind," December 13]. Just like Vermont's conservationists, many Vermonters would prefer not to choose sides. After all, who has the right to challenge someone else's identity?

Legal recognition of a tribe operates on a different level than individual ancestry. Federally recognized tribes have government-to-government relationships with the U.S. This gives members certain rights that other Americans do not have. Now that being Indigenous is considered an honor, the number of groups seeking federal recognition has grown.

The agency that adjudicates applications for tribal recognition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is staffed almost entirely by members of federally recognized tribes — i.e., Indians. The BIA requires proof of ancestry that the self-identified Abenaki of Vermont have never been able to provide.

Decades ago, when Vermonters began approaching the Abenaki of Québec for instruction in the language and culture, they were welcomed. However, the Abenaki also asked the Vermonters for evidence of ancestry. When the Vermonters failed to provide it, the relationship deteriorated.

Unfortunately, this did not stop the Vermonters from lobbying the legislature for state recognition as Abenaki. They also persuaded our legislators to subtract proof of ancestry from the requirements for state recognition. Now that genealogy can be crowdsourced on the web, it has become apparent that the leaders of the four state-recognized bands do not have the Abenaki ancestry they thought they had.

David Stoll

Middlebury

Stoll teaches anthropology at Middlebury College.