3 ms·

> NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests to my ear, the word NIMBY has an urban flavor that does not describe rural or wilde

> NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests to my ear, the word NIMBY has an urban flavor that does not describe rural or wilderness landowner behavior.

cratermoon 4y ago
The worst NIMBYs are the ones in rural areas who think that because their family has owned the land for 3 generations they have a natural right to it. Never mind that it was stolen from indigenous peoples who have a better claim on those grounds, because the current landowners will say those people never "used" the land, they were just visitors. Edit to add an example: https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-in-rural-oregon-became-a-target-of-far-right-extremism https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-...
- b112 4y ago
  Everyones land was "stolen" from someone else. Everyones. There is no place on this entire planet, where a domicile sits, that wasn't taken from another by force. No where. Nada. You think natives didn't ever kill each other over territory? Hunting rights, especially in times of famine? You do realise that all of the Americas were settled, then resettled again, and again, in multiple waves of europeans (all natives settled the new world too, they didn't evolve here), by those we call natives, with blood and spear? We just displaced the last "thieves", who displaced those before us, and so on. The only unfairness is if we signed treaties, to end the fighting, and then did not honour them. Those are being addressed, at least in Canada, by the courts. Note: where's my family's land, from 500 years ago, taken when the French invaded, or 2000ya when the Romans, and so on?? Why don't I get my people's land back? Is it because I am white? Or, because it was 500 years ago, not 200? Is it OK, because a white man killed my family and took the land of another white man? Or...? Why?! Natives lost their land, as did billions before. But none are alive today, and I could care less about historical loss. I do care about poverty, and right to societal cohesion and access. I don't care why, what historical reason led to things, I just care about fixing what is a problem now. If you look at native americans, their reservations are their biggest source of poverty. Enough. Make sure every child has access to good food, clean water, housing, and education. The rest will solve itself.
  - izend 4y ago
    Your thoughts presented would cause you to be cancelled in Canada right now.
    - b112 4y ago
      I speak them all the time, and most agree with me.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - hammock 4y ago
        You’re not disagreeing with each other. The people doing the canceling aren’t necessarily in the majority
      - cratermoon 4y ago
        echo chambers are a helluva drug
  - multjoy 4y ago
    >The only unfairness is if we signed treaties Apart from the literal genocide, you mean?
  - schimmy_changa 4y ago
    If you don't think it's a problem that land was stolen, then I'm sure you won't object to that land being stolen again from the current owner and used for it's highest society-wide agreed-upon purpose (not just the purpose that the current owner prefers) This comment's type of thinking wants to have it both ways. In this mindset, the landowner gets to decide what to do with the land and to control it because they 'own' it. This ownership is because they are descendants (or paid them) of the first white people who took land from native peoples. This 'right' is sacrosanct, and the government (i.e. other people) have no right to tell them not to mountain-top-removal mine it, etc etc. However, this sacrosanct ownership right is on very shaky ground, hence the hostility to questions about land use. If first-come first-serve counts, then native / indigenous folks should have the land. If people with power can take the land for other uses legitimately, then there's no reason why any particular landowner has sacred rights to their property - the government would be justified in taking the land to support buffalo habitat without ANY compensation, just as white settlers took native land by force without any compensation. Ultimately, these folks want a simple, completely indefensible rule: "Whoever was here first gets sacred property rights to this land... except if it was an indigenous person, we took it from them fair and square. But that was OK because it was olden times, and so you can't be mad about it, and definitely you can't reverse that decision or take this land from us or even restrict what we can do with it, that would be theft!"
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Feeling that you own the land you legally own doesn't seem that bad. Especially if your family has owned it for generations. And it's definitely not NIMBY-ism.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    I should note that, in the western US, a lot of the land use fights are over things like ranching land, where the users of the land don't own the land (it's BLM land--owned by the US government).
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      That's a separate, but also very interesting issue, that is almost entirely unknown to us big city people. I think Indian Reservations have similar issues. They're "sovereign nations" in some sense, but the land is often owned by the US Federal Government, who doesn't like anyone doing things to it.

> NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests to my ear, the word NIMBY has an urban flavor that does not describe rural or wilderness landowner behavior.

cratermoon 4y ago

The worst NIMBYs are the ones in rural areas who think that because their family has owned the land for 3 generations they have a natural right to it. Never mind that it was stolen from indigenous peoples who have a better claim on those grounds, because the current landowners will say those people never "used" the land, they were just visitors. Edit to add an example: https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-in-rural-oregon-became-a-target-of-far-right-extremism https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-...

b112 4y ago
Everyones land was "stolen" from someone else. Everyones. There is no place on this entire planet, where a domicile sits, that wasn't taken from another by force. No where. Nada. You think natives didn't ever kill each other over territory? Hunting rights, especially in times of famine? You do realise that all of the Americas were settled, then resettled again, and again, in multiple waves of europeans (all natives settled the new world too, they didn't evolve here), by those we call natives, with blood and spear? We just displaced the last "thieves", who displaced those before us, and so on. The only unfairness is if we signed treaties, to end the fighting, and then did not honour them. Those are being addressed, at least in Canada, by the courts. Note: where's my family's land, from 500 years ago, taken when the French invaded, or 2000ya when the Romans, and so on?? Why don't I get my people's land back? Is it because I am white? Or, because it was 500 years ago, not 200? Is it OK, because a white man killed my family and took the land of another white man? Or...? Why?! Natives lost their land, as did billions before. But none are alive today, and I could care less about historical loss. I do care about poverty, and right to societal cohesion and access. I don't care why, what historical reason led to things, I just care about fixing what is a problem now. If you look at native americans, their reservations are their biggest source of poverty. Enough. Make sure every child has access to good food, clean water, housing, and education. The rest will solve itself.
- izend 4y ago
  Your thoughts presented would cause you to be cancelled in Canada right now.
  - b112 4y ago
    I speak them all the time, and most agree with me.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hammock 4y ago
      You’re not disagreeing with each other. The people doing the canceling aren’t necessarily in the majority
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      echo chambers are a helluva drug
- multjoy 4y ago
  >The only unfairness is if we signed treaties Apart from the literal genocide, you mean?
- schimmy_changa 4y ago
  If you don't think it's a problem that land was stolen, then I'm sure you won't object to that land being stolen again from the current owner and used for it's highest society-wide agreed-upon purpose (not just the purpose that the current owner prefers) This comment's type of thinking wants to have it both ways. In this mindset, the landowner gets to decide what to do with the land and to control it because they 'own' it. This ownership is because they are descendants (or paid them) of the first white people who took land from native peoples. This 'right' is sacrosanct, and the government (i.e. other people) have no right to tell them not to mountain-top-removal mine it, etc etc. However, this sacrosanct ownership right is on very shaky ground, hence the hostility to questions about land use. If first-come first-serve counts, then native / indigenous folks should have the land. If people with power can take the land for other uses legitimately, then there's no reason why any particular landowner has sacred rights to their property - the government would be justified in taking the land to support buffalo habitat without ANY compensation, just as white settlers took native land by force without any compensation. Ultimately, these folks want a simple, completely indefensible rule: "Whoever was here first gets sacred property rights to this land... except if it was an indigenous person, we took it from them fair and square. But that was OK because it was olden times, and so you can't be mad about it, and definitely you can't reverse that decision or take this land from us or even restrict what we can do with it, that would be theft!"
BurningFrog 4y ago
Feeling that you own the land you legally own doesn't seem that bad. Especially if your family has owned it for generations. And it's definitely not NIMBY-ism.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  I should note that, in the western US, a lot of the land use fights are over things like ranching land, where the users of the land don't own the land (it's BLM land--owned by the US government).
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    That's a separate, but also very interesting issue, that is almost entirely unknown to us big city people. I think Indian Reservations have similar issues. They're "sovereign nations" in some sense, but the land is often owned by the US Federal Government, who doesn't like anyone doing things to it.