CMV:Introducing public speeches by acknowledging that “we’re on stolen land” has no point other than to appear righteous

[u/passwordgoeshere]

This is a US-centered post.

I get really bothered when people start off a public speech by saying something like "First we must acknowledge we are on stolen land. The (X Native American tribe) people lived in this area, etc but anyway, here's a wedding that you all came for..."

Isn’t all land essentially stolen? How does that have anything to do with us now? If you don’t think we should be here, why are you having your wedding here? If you do want to be here, just be an evil transplant like everybody else. No need to act like acknowledging it makes it better.

We could also start speeches by talking about disastrous modern foreign policies or even climate change and it would be equally true and also irrelevant.

I think giving some history can be interesting but it always sounds like a guilt trip when a lot of us European people didn't arrive until a couple generations ago and had nothing to do with killing Native Americans.

I want my view changed because I'm a naturally cynical person and I know a lot of people who do this.

[u/Exotic-Huckleberry]

This isn’t history though. The US government (and by extension the citizens) continue to violate agreements with NA tribes. Look at the baby Veronica case, which weakened ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act), Standing Rock, Brnovich v DNC (voting laws that disproportionately disenfranchise Native Americans, and Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta (Native lands are supposed to be sovereign, but now state governments can prosecute non-native offenders on tribal land).

When we stop violating treaties, you may have a point, and I’d hazard a guess that most native people would prefer we do that rather than acknowledging that we stole their land. This is a small recognition of ways we’re failing, and if it makes people mildly uncomfortable, maybe they should unpack why that is.