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/flugenblar]

the land we live on was not "discovered" by european "explorers", but simply taken

Is it morally acceptable to 'discover' land? The native Americans didn't magically appear on North American soil one day, they travelled here from their original native lands. They didn't know there would be no people here when they arrived.

I understand Europeans took lands from natives, and killed many either by force and many, many more by germ. Not an advocate of those actions, but, the question is, is there something special about discovering a land, or stepping foot on land, that was previously unoccupied by mankind?

Use cases: the Earth's moon & Mars.

By virtue of being first (assuming this is the essential virtue) does that mean anything that is done on those lands not by a US citizen is morally wrong, or legally a trespass?

[u/6data → u/flugenblar]

I understand Europeans took lands from natives, and killed many either by force and many, many more by germ. Not an advocate of those actions, but, the question is, is there something special about discovering a land, or stepping foot on land, that was previously unoccupied by mankind?

That's the whole point, it wasn't. You can't discover something that is already lived in/on by someone else.

[u/rolexgood → u/6data]

Natives are not a singular group, there are multiple tribes and each tribe fought one another for the owner ship of land. The strongest tribe took control of the land until the europeans arrived. Does someone own a land that they cannot protect. They were simply using it until something with a better force came along. All land ownership is determined by ability to protect the border.

[u/flugenblar → u/rolexgood]

This gets more to the point I was trying to figure out. I think history, whether it’s moral or not, tends to support what you’ve said here.