Land Acknowledgments Are Democratic Party’s New Pledge of Allegiance
“It’s as pointless as walking into your newly purchased home and listing off the names of all the previous owners, renters, visitors, and squatters.”
Oh, good grief!
The Democratic Party has fully embraced the far-left’s ideological framework of America.
. . . . In case you didn’t know what the Democratic Party most fervently stands for, the very first thing in its platform was a “land acknowledgment.”
A land acknowledgment is a performative ceremony used by institutions under the full sway of the church of wokeness. It essentially lists the various Indian tribes that assumedly passed through the land the group is standing on at the time.
It has become the Left’s substitution for the Pledge of Allegiance. The concept is, frankly, absurd. It’s as pointless as walking into your newly purchased home and listing off the names of all the previous owners, renters, visitors, and squatters.
The land acknowledgment assumption is that the tribes are gone because of the mean, rapacious United States. Though the actual history is typically far more complicated.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They do this in Australia before every government meeting and have an Aboriginal there to here their “land acknowledgement “ it’s a totally useless, cringeworthy statement of : gee gosh we stole your land , sorry dudes, it’s like totally still your land except it’s not really your land at all, now onto business.
It’s far worse than that.
Government and corporate websites generally have a ‘This land belongs to the Aborigines/XYZ tribe and we revere the past/present/future
alcoholics/criminals/wife bashers(elders)’ statement on the page. There’s also often signs up around buildings saying similar. So what happens when the folk whose land it’s claimed to be demand it back?Now there’s even a legal case happening because a Christian conference failed to kowtow and say the words or offer an Aboriginal religious event: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/jacinta-price-defends-minister-who-refused-to-do-welcome-to-country/ar-AA1oZpxn
There was a video making the rounds a couple years ago of a group of Aboriginal people who showed up at a business in Australia with one of those signs and tried to claim their land back.
It was hilarious watching the virtue signallers try to explain why the signs weren’t actually intended to be taken literally. I just tried to search youtube and rumble for that video but I haven’t had any luck. Maybe it got memory holed, but it was funny.
I eagerly look forward to the Sioux making land acknowledgments to the tribes they kicked out of the Dakotas. Nahhhh, who am I fooling?
I like my land acknowledgment that recognizes the actual indigenous species:
XXXX College occupies a place that was originally the home of dozens of large mammals such as the mammoth, the mastodon, three species of camels, the glyptodon, the giant beaver, the short-faced bear, the dire wolf, the American cheetah, the ground sloth, the giant sloth, the sabre-tooth tiger, and the American horse. These animals were slaughtered to extinction by raiding groups of Asian immigrants who occupied North America. We honor the memory of the many species that would be here if they had not gone extinct to provide food and clothing for our predecessors.
If the native americans have been here for 10,000 year since the end of the ice age (did they start climate change?) and civilizations last around 400 years, that means at least 25 different tribes slughtered the existing tribe before the white men arrived. The only difference between them and us is efficiency. Is “noble” another way of saying “slower?”
The following is an excellent response to such drivel:
“De Tocqueville in Democracy in America wrote in relevant part:
“Although the vast country just described was inhabited by numerous tribes of native peoples, one can justly say that at the time of its discovery it was still no more than a wilderness. The Indians occupied it but did not possess it. It is through agriculture that man takes possession of the soil, and the first inhabitants of North America lived by hunting. Their implacable prejudices, their unbridled passions, their vices, and, perhaps most of all, their savage virtues marked them out for inevitable destruction. The ruin of these tribes began the day that Europeans landed on their shores. It has continued ever since and is even now being carried through to completion. Providence placed these people among the riches of the New World but made their enjoyment brief. They were there, in a sense, only in anticipation. These coasts, so well suited to trade and industry, these rivers so deep, this inexhaustible Mississippi valley, this whole continent, in fact, seemed but an empty cradle awaiting the birth of a great nation. Here civilized men would attempt to build society on new foundations. Applying for the first time theories either previously unknown or deemed inapplicable, they would stage for the world a spectacle for which nothing in the history of the past had prepared it.
Land acknowledgements assume at least three things that simply are not true.
First is that all Indian land was transferred to the United States through nefarious means. In my home state of Washington, Isaac Stevens, the governor of the territory at that time, arranged for a series of treaties in 1855 and 1856 (e.g. 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot) to essentially purchase what is now the State of Washington from the various tribes. If you eat commercial wild fish from the Pacific Northwest, you are still paying. In many cases the tribes took the wrong side in a conflict (e.g. Cherokees in the 7 years war, in the Revolutionary war, in the Civil war) so taking some land is a time honored result.
Second is that the Indian tribes viewed land ownership in the same legal sense as did the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. The tribal concept of land and land boundaries was quite fluid. (Consider the lands in Kentucky as an example.) This caused the above Gov. Stevens to adopt the strategy of not singling out any specific tribe but a host of tribes all associated with land to engage with and sign the treaty.
Third assumption is that tribal residence was static so we can clearly establish the original tribes. In fact the Iroquois were quite aggressive in chasing out various tribes in Pennsylvania and Ohio for a time. The Sioux displaced the Crow and other tribes, the Apaches displaced the Hopi, the Comanches displaced other tribes. And that all in a relatively short period of recorded history. Consider the shifting boundaries in 10,000 years of tribal existence.
The upshot is that putting on a sad face and pronouncing a land acknowledgement is meaningless. Instead we should be proud that this land is being used in much more productive ways than the stone age tribes could even conceive. That is progress.
indians were fighting other indian tribes before whites even got here
the romanticizing of the indian is par for the course from the (self) hating masses who never seem to want to give up their homes etc to make up for these atrocities
and the indians came from eurasia etc
so no telling who they might have stepped on along the way
not to mention indian tribes owned black slaves
liz warrens brood was probably blown mandingo