Slave descendants refuse to give up land to massive company By Kera Mickus

Jacquelin Finley outside her childhood house
(AP Photo/LM Otero)

Not many people are willing to fight a massive coal mining company, let alone when the company offers to buy the said property with well over what it's worth. But that is just what Ida Finley does when she faces the prospect of losing the land she grew up on, and spent her whole life dwelling in.

 "For three years, Luminant Mining Co. has tried to purchase this 9.1-acre plot, which is currently owned by a bevy of relatives spread across the country. The company owns more than 75 percent of the parcel but can't mine it because of a complex inheritance arrangement and the refusal of some family members to let go or accept Luminant's offer." (qouted by Ramit Plushnick-Masti)

But theres more than what the story tells. Not only is this property special to Ida Finley because of her youth and memories, but because she buried her husband there. Going back, Ida and her late husband, Adolphus, recieved the land when his parents died and soon after, the company bought 9.5 acres for a small amount. This bothered Adolphus the last two years of his life, and when he passed, the company came knocking. There was no will, and legally, the  land was owned by the next blood relative, the children, who sold out. But grandaughter, Jacqueline, remains in the trailer, the last thing Ida remains in possession of. Nearing 102, Ida cannot battle the company and remains in a hospice, recalling her younger days.

"Jacquelin said Luminant would have to give her at least $1 million to leave — enough, she estimates, to fix her grandmother's house and care for her there." 
 http://news.yahoo.com/descendants-slaves-hold-against-coal-153636622.html

This story is truly heartbreaking, due to the unfortunate circumstances. Legally, Ida doesn't have rights to the land, but it is still legally in charge of her house, which is not acsessible to her because of the state its in. Her commitment to maintaining her memories of her younger years is obvious, and truly connecting to many people. This seems to be a common thing lately, a big company taking advantage of the legality of a situation and the frailness of the owner. Almost everyone can connect to the suffering and pain one feels when you lose something, or are struggling to keep from losing it. This article can be interpreted two ways; a) a woman and her grandchild are in a legal battle to keep their property or b) what will happen if the companies gains the rights to take away our connection to the past and who we came from? Is this just a matter of Ida and Luminant, or is it a conflict of our rights?