US progressives now open meetings by naming the Indigenous tribe that once held the land; the author argues the ritual is not a tribute but a denial of America's right to exist, and a claim that land belongs to ethnic groups.
When Democrats hold an event in the US, someone often starts by saying that the land they are standing on once belonged to a particular Native tribe. This is a land acknowledgement. It sounds like a courtesy. The author says it is not.
One sentence, and the country is cancelled
The point is that the land was stolen and America has no right to be here. But land has been taken and retaken for millennia; almost nowhere was held by a single people from the start.
Handing land back to the last conqueror just hands it to the second-most-recent one. And why should the first human to see a plot give his descendants permanent, exclusive title to it?
Allocating land by blood is called an ethnostate
Behind the acknowledgement sits a logic of ethnic ownership of territory, indistinguishable in structure from the blood-and-soil talk of the far right. Followed through, it means ethnic cleansing.
America holds 330 million people and almost none descend from Native Americans. The author's own ancestors were Lithuanian Jews: not native to Lithuania either, and a colonizer in Israel too.
Vancouver shows the real version
There is a way to give land back without the chant. A plot in downtown Vancouver sits under Squamish Nation authority; free of city height limits, the nation is building eleven towers and 6,000 apartments, the densest block in Canada.
Tribal land also skips red tape: Tesla opens showrooms there, dodging state laws that stop carmakers selling directly. Real authority beats reciting a line.
Why it matters
A land acknowledgement looks like a courtesy, but it assumes land belongs to ethnic groups — and that logic, taken seriously, means redrawing borders by ancestry, a plan too big even for America to fit inside.
Curated from high-quality sources, with concise summaries and key takeaways.
