Staff Reports
In the heart of Arkansas, perched high in the Ozark Hills, a group of determined individuals are making headlines with their bold initiative, “Return to the Land.” This community espouses an old idea repackaged for a new generation—exclusivity based on race. Composed mainly of millennials and Gen Z, the inhabitants of this budding settlement are openly committed to building a community for white people only. While progressives may gnash their teeth at the idea, dismissing it as a return to segregation, the people behind this initiative argue it’s simply their choice to preserve their own culture in a way they see fit.
The settlers in this community argue that they have a right—protected by property laws—to determine who their neighbors are. In a society that values private property, shouldn’t this right be sacrosanct? After all, who wouldn’t want a say in shaping their community, especially when it’s done through legal channels like a private membership association? They are not aiming to oppress anyone; instead, they claim to provide a haven for people who share their cultural values. It’s their land, their rules.
Predictably, the mainstream media has unleashed a torrent of criticism, asserting that excluding people based on race from any home, even a private one, is unjust. Yet, this narrative overlooks the fundamental principle of property rights. Throughout history, property ownership has allowed individuals to exercise control over their environment. If the concept of private ownership is to retain any meaning, surely it includes deciding who gains access to one’s property.
Let’s not pretend this is an unprecedented idea. Similar communities have existed in various forms, and their ultimate goal wasn’t sinister, but protective—a sanctuary from cultural tides that threaten to erode their traditions. Critics may call it segregation; proponents call it cultural preservation. This small Ozark community isn’t forcing people out; it’s selectively inviting kindred spirits in. Wouldn’t many wish for such an uncomplicated choice for their own neighborhoods if society allowed it?
The situation serves as a stark reminder of the cultural clash roaring through America. On one side, you have those who demand inclusivity without boundaries, and on the other, those who cherish cultural individuality and community autonomy. It’s a tale as old as time, one that will continue echoing through our hills and valleys, despite the progressive outcry. We must decide what holds more weight: the indefatigable right to property or the ever-expanding definition of enforced inclusivity. Compatibility may be elusive, but the debate is far from settled.
