CONTINUING controversy surrounds the 1928 Tucker's Town land expropriations. The latest instalments in this long-running saga appeared in a recent Bermuda Sun front page story which featured Eugene Stovell recalling the recollection of his grandmother concerning this issue of the Tucker's Town development and Professor Duncan McDowall, author of the book Another World: Bermuda and The Rise of Modern Tourism and a one-time lecturer at the Bermuda College.

Their divergent views on the topic points out the divide that exists in Bermuda, where you have two peoples with diametrically oppose opinions on their historical experience, especially when that history has been one in which one group imposed its will over - and to the detriment of - another.

It is a little quoted saying that states that if you allow your former enemy or detractor to define your reality or tell your historical story, then you will most likely find your reality distorted.

This is clearly the case when it comes to Tucker's Town and the recent attempt to portray the acquisition in a benevolent light by lawyer Peter Smith whose father was the secretary to the commission that presided over the expropriation of the land.

This is an interpretation that would be highly suspect to many in the black community given that in the 1920s Bermuda was not governed by a democracy but by an oligarchy of rich white men which certainly did not consider that the black community had any rights, politically or socially, that they were bound to respect.

Because a history is not written down does not in any way make the events that took place any less valid to the people who lived through them.

As I have stated before, the history of this country exists in two parts: a white official history mostly written down and a black folkloric history not likely to be found in any but a small number of books which give the black Bermudian side of Bermuda's history.

I too heard the story of the Tucker's Town compulsory acquisition from my grandmother along with other questionable land change-overs which resulted in the black community came out on the losing end. I heard such stories from her and Mark Albouy, a Bermudian oral historian long passed from this life who I still retain a great respect for.

This dual perspective on history is not only the experience of black Bermudians. The native peoples of the so-called New World, those who remained after the onslaught of the European and who retain their historical memory, will never celebrate Columbus Day - named after Christopher Columbus, the seafarer who made the European discovery of the lands that lay in the Western Hemisphere.

Further, it is disingenuous to call these same native peoples Indians just because Columbus got mixed up in his navigation in thinking that when he discovered the so-called New World he had found another way to the East Indies and the Orient, the Mohammeds having blocked and controlled the known passages for centuries.

Native peoples from North America to South America will never celebrate Columbus Day because the arrival of the European in their lands marked the beginning of the end of their control of these territories which, within a few hundred years, would be taken over completely by those same Europeans who came in the wake of Columbus.

As a consequence Columbus Day is a day of mourning for native peoples, marking a time of sorrow and tribulation.

Of course, history books written by those who displaced the native peoples of the so-called New World don't see it that way; they have venerated Christopher Columbus to the status of hero and great explorer.

We see that this dual view of history persists even in Bermuda when Professor McDowall takes Mr. Stovell to task for calling the Tucker's Town expropriations an atrocity. He is right in this respect in that unlike in other situations where peoples were divested of their lands, no lives were lost and some efforts were made to pay for the lands taken. But we cannot be asked to forget what has happened for the so-called good of the whole. For if we were to do that we would dishonour the memory of those of our people who considered that they suffered a lost and who have taken that hurt to the grave.

This was done at a time when the black community had no political rights and so, at any rate, could not resist the expropriation of their land.

And who has the right to define whether something is an atrocity or not other than those who were reluctant to leave their land in the first place and have passed that sense of grievance down through succeeding generations.

If nothing else the honour of those people most long dead demands nothing less than a full recognition of their sense of loss and grievance.

In answer to the two letter writers who challenge my opinion that the position of the Auditor General has been politically comprised, let me first state this - yes, I make no bones about the fact that I am a supporter of the Progressive Labour Party Government, although I have never hesitated to criticise that same Government from time to time.

And that was true even in my latest opinion on this issue, a fact that my two detractors chose to ignore. I don't have to go through what I said concerning this issue but it is of interest that the Auditor General has stated himself most recently that he will no longer be making statements concerning this issue through the Press.

I SUSPECT that if he did go to the office of the Governor for advice he may have very well have been told that a head-to-head confrontation with the Government through the Press could lead to him being accused of being politically compromised if his allegations were seen to be occurring in tandem with the Opposition.

I would further become suspicious about the Auditor General's (Larry Dennis - pictured) independence if as, recently was the case, an anonymous group of accountants threatened to come out in his support. And alarm bells will really go off when I hear a statement in support of the Auditor General is due from the right-wing Association for Due Process and the Constitution, the same group that attempted to make an end run on the PLP Government by attempting to get the British to stop the process which has brought about constitutional change and single-seats.

In fact, I would become more than suspicious, I would begin to talk in terms of a conspiracy.

However, if through the mist of allegations and rumours this whole thing ends up in the courts and if the Government is found guilty then I will assure you that I will be big enough to admit that there was more than a smoking political gun here but until then with regard to something being politicised, if it walks like a duck, it and quacks like a duck; then it is a duck; a political one at that.