A member of the Itázipčho people* (someone who may or may not wish to be identified) recently asked me, a settler on unceded native territory: if they were to set up camp in my living room, on what basis would I refuse them?
I have an answer for them now.
First: this presumes that I would refuse them, which is by no means a given.
Second, and more relevantly: I have been, rightly or wrongly, entrusted with the custodianship of this house and land, and the health (including emotional) of those who currently dwell here.
When making a decision about whether to support a major change such as taking on more people, I have to weigh my larger duty to people in general against my specific duty to this place and its people.
...and that's only with regard to my own individual support for such a change; we are not a hierarchy, and I would want any change to be agreed upon in a consensus with all involved, regardless of my personal inclination, before I would agree to it myself.
I hope that answers the question.
(*I hope this a proper and respectful way to refer to them.)
