These land acknowledgements are, legally speaking, incorrect — there is no legal sense in which the land on which they are being performed belongs to a Native American tribe. These are moral claims about rightful land ownership. But the moral principle to which they appeal is ethnonationalism — it’s the idea that plots of land are the rightful property of ethnic groups.
The forcible theft of the land upon which the U.S. now exists was not the first such theft; the people who lived there before conquered, displaced, or killed someone else in order to take the land. The land has been stolen and re-stolen again and again. If you somehow destroyed the United States, expelled its current inhabitants, and gave ownership of the land to the last recorded tribe that had occupied it before, you would not be returning it to its original occupants; you would simply be handing it to the next-most-recent conquerors.
If you go back far enough in time, of course, at some point this is no longer true. Humanity didn’t always exist; therefore for every piece of land, there was a first human to lay eyes on it, and a first human to say “This land is mine.” But by what right did this first human claim exclusive ownership of this land? Why does being the first person to see a natural object make you the rightful owner of that object? And why does being the first human to set foot on a piece of land give your blood descendants the right to dispose of that land as they see fit in perpetuity, and to exclude any and all others from that land? What about all the peoples of the world who were never lucky enough to be the first to lay eyes on any plot of dirt? Are they simply to be dispossessed forever?
The nonpartisan League of Women Voters did not reply to yesterday's email, nor did they add the public safety town hall to their online calendar. Here is today's email to the county commissioners:
Dear Commissioners,
Last year, the County Administrator advised the Fair Advisory Board to avoid drafting a land acknowledgment that could be divisive, encouraging instead a statement that would be unifying—“so it doesn’t blow up in somebody’s face.” That guidance seems prudent and worth revisiting.
In contrast, the annual proclamation that you read each November states that we “occupy tribal ancestral land” and asserts, in the present tense, that colonization perpetuates systemic racism, poverty, and other societal harms. The use of present-tense language is significant—it assigns ongoing responsibility rather than acknowledging historical events.
Do you believe this messaging is unifying for the community you represent?
More broadly, what is the intended purpose of elected officials delivering a statement each year that many constituents may experience as accusatory or alienating, rather than inclusive or forward-looking?
We can learn about the slippery slope of Land Acknowledgments from a recent court case in British Columbia.
Land acknowledgments in Canada are shifting from symbolic gestures to legal considerations, complicating ownership by highlighting unceded territory and challenging the certainty of private property titles. A 2025 court ruling in British Columbia recognized that the Cowichan Nation's Aboriginal title over 800 acres subordinates private land titles to Indigenous rights.
The ambiguity caused by these legal challenges has already reduced commercial property values, as shown by lower sale prices in British Columbia, causing concern among property owners.
Acknowledgments highlight that much of B.C. is on "unceded" land, challenging the legitimacy of the Crown’s historic acquisition of land.
These developments suggest that land acknowledgments are far from harmless, as they have legal consequences that will likely impact future land transactions and property rights across Canada.
I do not live on "stolen land," I live on "conquered land." Just as all local tribes do. This is just one more small step in the game of making non-tribal members feel guilty about what they're probably really not sure, but then when the tribe(s) keep asking for more ... more of your tax money, more of your public land being transferred to tribal ownership and off the tax rolls, more of the available fish and game resources, more exceptions to the laws that govern the rest of us, et. al., then maybe the pushback from non-tribal members will be less, or nonexistent. Just one more tactic in the game of gaining more power and control for a small minority of the population. And it all begins with the "stolen land" grift in our elementary schools.
land acknowledgement is a step in tribes guilting people into giving them control, and ultimately the land itself.. it isn't a long rangeeee plan… check out High Country News publications.
Good Governance Daily Proverb:
When symbolism moves faster than stewardship, good governance asks who is served, who is heard, and what problem was actually solved.
No, you are not on Indigenous land.
Pieces of territory belong to institutions, not to racial groups.
Noah Smith https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/no-you-are-not-on-indigenous-land
These land acknowledgements are, legally speaking, incorrect — there is no legal sense in which the land on which they are being performed belongs to a Native American tribe. These are moral claims about rightful land ownership. But the moral principle to which they appeal is ethnonationalism — it’s the idea that plots of land are the rightful property of ethnic groups.
The forcible theft of the land upon which the U.S. now exists was not the first such theft; the people who lived there before conquered, displaced, or killed someone else in order to take the land. The land has been stolen and re-stolen again and again. If you somehow destroyed the United States, expelled its current inhabitants, and gave ownership of the land to the last recorded tribe that had occupied it before, you would not be returning it to its original occupants; you would simply be handing it to the next-most-recent conquerors.
If you go back far enough in time, of course, at some point this is no longer true. Humanity didn’t always exist; therefore for every piece of land, there was a first human to lay eyes on it, and a first human to say “This land is mine.” But by what right did this first human claim exclusive ownership of this land? Why does being the first person to see a natural object make you the rightful owner of that object? And why does being the first human to set foot on a piece of land give your blood descendants the right to dispose of that land as they see fit in perpetuity, and to exclude any and all others from that land? What about all the peoples of the world who were never lucky enough to be the first to lay eyes on any plot of dirt? Are they simply to be dispossessed forever?
Exactly and excellent analogy.
The nonpartisan League of Women Voters did not reply to yesterday's email, nor did they add the public safety town hall to their online calendar. Here is today's email to the county commissioners:
Dear Commissioners,
Last year, the County Administrator advised the Fair Advisory Board to avoid drafting a land acknowledgment that could be divisive, encouraging instead a statement that would be unifying—“so it doesn’t blow up in somebody’s face.” That guidance seems prudent and worth revisiting.
In contrast, the annual proclamation that you read each November states that we “occupy tribal ancestral land” and asserts, in the present tense, that colonization perpetuates systemic racism, poverty, and other societal harms. The use of present-tense language is significant—it assigns ongoing responsibility rather than acknowledging historical events.
Do you believe this messaging is unifying for the community you represent?
More broadly, what is the intended purpose of elected officials delivering a statement each year that many constituents may experience as accusatory or alienating, rather than inclusive or forward-looking?
I would appreciate your perspective.
We can learn about the slippery slope of Land Acknowledgments from a recent court case in British Columbia.
Land acknowledgments in Canada are shifting from symbolic gestures to legal considerations, complicating ownership by highlighting unceded territory and challenging the certainty of private property titles. A 2025 court ruling in British Columbia recognized that the Cowichan Nation's Aboriginal title over 800 acres subordinates private land titles to Indigenous rights.
The ambiguity caused by these legal challenges has already reduced commercial property values, as shown by lower sale prices in British Columbia, causing concern among property owners.
Acknowledgments highlight that much of B.C. is on "unceded" land, challenging the legitimacy of the Crown’s historic acquisition of land.
These developments suggest that land acknowledgments are far from harmless, as they have legal consequences that will likely impact future land transactions and property rights across Canada.
Yawn! Can someone acknowledge the 250th birthday of the United States of America? I need a reason to celebrate.
Where will all the people coming to the U.S. live, being invited by those who assert that the land they're inviting them to isn't theirs to give away?
It's very strange to say, "This isn't our land, those who live here need to leave, but you all from other regions of the world come on over."
If we are “borrowing” land, why am I paying TAXES on borrowed land?
Why am I paying Land/ Homeowner Taxes on “borrowed” land?
If it isn’t American Land??
hmmm 🤔
I do not live on "stolen land," I live on "conquered land." Just as all local tribes do. This is just one more small step in the game of making non-tribal members feel guilty about what they're probably really not sure, but then when the tribe(s) keep asking for more ... more of your tax money, more of your public land being transferred to tribal ownership and off the tax rolls, more of the available fish and game resources, more exceptions to the laws that govern the rest of us, et. al., then maybe the pushback from non-tribal members will be less, or nonexistent. Just one more tactic in the game of gaining more power and control for a small minority of the population. And it all begins with the "stolen land" grift in our elementary schools.
land acknowledgement is a step in tribes guilting people into giving them control, and ultimately the land itself.. it isn't a long rangeeee plan… check out High Country News publications.
The local tribes sold this land. End of story.
Having gone to school in the 1940's and 50's, history books, I read, referred to the USA as a "melting pot".
If this is the conclusion, then the entire USA would/should be Land Acknowledged.