Land, Genes and Culture, Oh My

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Coff. I want to open with a land acknowledgement:

I acknowledge I live on land. That is already a problem, since the land I live on was (probably. I haven’t checked, but I mean, Colorado was) at one time under the sea, and as such, at one time, belonged to single cellular aquatic creatures. It was stolen from them by moluscs once those evolved, and then from them by fish, and then from them (once it had emerged from the sea) by amphibians, then by reptiles, and eventually (I’m skipping a lot of probably marsupials and then mammals) by humans, who then had it stolen by other humans and eventually by husband’s distant ancestors/relatives who lived on it in the way of neolithic hunter gatherers, which they were. And then eventually by husband’s collateral relatives (his direct ancestors stayed in Connecticut, but we do know at least one branch moved thisaway) who had originated in Europe. And by a lot of people who weren’t even vaguely related to them. Note in this case “stolen” means they moved in and lived here. What happened to previous inhabitants ranges from “moved on” to “were all killed” to “they were tasty.” Eventually in the fullness of time, we paid cash-money for this plot of land, and spent a bunch of money fencing it and having the trees pruned. And if you think you have a right to it, you can fuck right off with that delusional shit. Because land doesn’t inherently belong to anyone or anything. And every single inch of habitable land has had a lot of inhabitants, none of which just grew there, or had an inherent right to it by genes or being uniquely adapted to it or whatever the hell.
THERE IS NO NATURAL RIGHT TO LAND (or anything material. For disambiguation I’m not speaking of the rights mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, but even those need defending or they get violated.) AND IF YOU THINK THERE IS YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND LOOK AT REALITY.

Because otherwise you’re going to die. Oh, not because we’ll kill you — though one more land acknowledgement and I will think about it really hard — but because stupidity that bad and that detached from reality is not survivable. To quote from Robert A. Heinlein: Stupidity is the only capital crime. The penalty is always death. There is no appeal.

What I’d really like to know — NO REALLY — is why these people think that “land acknowledgements make any sense whatsoever, even in the most distant, fantastical way.

I mean, I do realize we’re talking about people who recently raised a Somali flag over a school to symbolize… who the actual hell knows? “We approve of Somalis?” well, okay, cool. But if you’re going to raise a flag for every country you approve of, you’re going to have to change them every five minutes. Or perhaps “We think we need more Somali immigrants” also cool. You’re allowed to think any stupid shit you want to. You probably can’t help it, being brain damaged. But unless you tell me what precise qualities these Somalis are bringing in that you want in our country you can fuck right off with that shit. Or perhaps what you really want to say is “We approve of Somalis because Trump stopped Somali immigration and is investigating the Somali community. In which case, everyone involved a) is too stupid to continue living and should have a permanently installed subcutaneous speaker that reminds them to breathe in and out, since forgetting mid-breath is a totally likely circumstance. b) what they really mean is “We approve of people who aren’t really immigrants, because they have no intention of integrating coming in and stealing from our tax payers to the tune of billions, with a b. c) I want their computers examined for participation in fraud and bilking.

In the same way every time ANYONE does a land acknowledgement, which for reasons are always done in recently colonized areas, like the Americas and Africa or Australia, they should be asked, “What about the people who lived in these lands before the ones you mentioned? What are they? Chopped liver?” And after that they should be asked “You are aware that every square inch of land inhabited by humans has been inhabited by various groups of humans, one after the other who stole, killed, bought, bribed and sometimes ate the previous humans, right?” And after that, they should be asked “What makes the people who lost out to Europeans so special that we need to acknowledge them?” After which they should be asked “Are you an anti-European bigot? Well, are you?”

However my guess is they fail at the “you are aware there were other people here before the ones we defeated, right?” At which point the most appropriate and really the only answer is to point and laugh at them until you can’t speak, because they are such Tim Walz’s (Hey, I was told the r word is offensive, so I’ve replaced it) that they can’t understand the most basic facts of life.

Look, yes, hunter gatherers or not, there were terrible things done to the Amerindians when the Europeans took over. What is never mentioned in the bilge that passes for education in our schools is that the Amerindians did just as many horrible things to Europeans, and often enough FAR WORSE. In fact, it was their playing Neolithic war games — seriously, read War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage and also feel free to beat any “land acknowledgement” idiots over the head with it. Metaphorically. Or literally. It’s not like there’s anything in those skulls you can damage — which are centered on hurting and massacring women and children, to make the invading band run away and leave your territory that led to otherwise decent, Christian western civ people losing their minds and doing some absolutely rotten stuff. But even then they always had their defenders, and also a passel of lack-brain sentimental fools looking at them as noble savages.

And it was that last that has fucked their descendants over big time while giving them a vaunting and outsized sense of entitlement that causes them to be all in on idiots doing performative land acknowledgements. It’s also on a personal, individual level destroying those that still identify with the displaced neolithic hunter gatherers (look, I think the highest concentration of blood for any of them is about 14%. And husband probably has that, but really, he’s just an American geek. They were genetically swamped. HARD. As separate peoples they no longer exist. They’re just a cultural memory and a sense of grievance anymore. Plus a bunch of romanticized noble savage bullshit.)

You see, the noble savage bullshit, which is at the bottom of the land acknowledgements — the sappy, mind-boggling idea that somehow nature (they don’t believe in G-d, so they personify nature) designed certain peoples for certain places, and therefore “the place and the people are one” (That works great in fantasy, not so well for humanity, a species that is so inbred that compared to any other species, even cats, we’re all second cousins to each other.) This mind boggling nonsense about people living in perfect harmony with a place and owning it by right of being made for it would make Hitler smile and leads to exactly the same kind of eugenics massacre — caused the most damage, because it made Westerners treat the recent conquered DIFFERENTLY from all the conquered in history.

Since the 18th century, when the West became prosperous enough not to be in touch with the slicing edge of nature, (yes, that far back) and therefore to be able to tell itself stupid stories that sound good but have nothing to do with reality, humans stopped acting like normal humans.

Normal humans just conquer other humans and kill them all, the raping and taking as concubines of women, and the sparing of children three and under being optional. Oh, sometimes, in places that were prosperous enough to afford mercy, the conquerors took the conquered as slaves.

Terrible? Yes. Fairly. However that horrible, painful process (war is always horrible and painful or you ain’t doing it right) is the ONLY WAY KNOWN TILL NOW by which a culture can be overtaken by another. As in, there is no other way to change a culture with another culture. Not quickly enough. And cultures, as I’ve come to believe, are horribly persistent, deep set things that can be changed by the individual in him or herself by dint of great effort and at immense personal pain, but cannot be changed in a large group, particularly not a large, unwilling group. (Yes, immigrants can assimilate. If they are a relatively smallish group, and assimilation is highly incitivized. And even then it will take a good three generations and sometimes more. BUT a large group that’s taken over by another? Oh, hell no. Unless you kill every adult over 3 some of that culture will remain.)

And throughout history this is what’s been done and how a culture overtook another. Now, the overtaking culture wasn’t always ‘superior’ by the only metric allowable — maximizes human happiness — to civilized people. BUT it was always ‘superior’ by dumb and blind natural forces. It maximized survival of those who belonged to it.

Turns out the place I come from — the ten miles or so area — is now believed by at least some archeologists to be the oldest, inhabited part of Europe (Maia, which apparently in indo-European means low-lying humid, fertile valley. Or just “garden” in the sense of well, fertile land where everything grows.) It has been inhabited, stolen, taken, occupied, reconquered, fought over, bled into, etc. by a lot of people. Portugal as a whole is made of people, but the region I come from more distinctly so.

Note that there are no land acknowledgements there, because everyone understands they’d be there all day and all night just naming all the Germanic tribes that poured in after the fall of Rome, one after the other after the other, or all the small no long existent (mostly Frankish) nations that came in as crusaders after the moors. And Portuguese take their food and special events very seriously and like hell they’ll stand there and recite.

But more importantly, this was before we got rich and stupid enough to believe in noble savages and put people in “reservations” to preserve their culture. Or their genetics. Or whatever the fuck we thought we were preserving.

And if you’re going to talk about horrible, I’ll submit to you that putting people in what amounts to human zoos is far, far worse than killing all the adults over three. And also creates brain worms in the survivors.

When listening to the pious ‘we acknowledge we’re on land stolen from–” you have to want to beat the people who failed to teach these parlous parrots anything about human civilization or the fact that many many cultures have fought and extinguished others. And that most of those cultures don’t even have names or a memory of them left because it all happened in pre-history. You also want to beat them because they’re passing the brain worms on: the idea that a group of people is built for a particular place and should not and cannot ever be displaced. Or that the west doing this was uniquely bad. Or that “harmony with nature” is possible, beyond the obvious (Humans are natural. DUH) or that the neolithic savages who happened to be living here are super-special and more so than the neolithic savages that were ancestors to Europeans, whom these retro-brained savages imagine sprang forth from the Earth wearing three piece suits and carrying briefcases with contracts for strip mining in them.

They need to be beaten to silence with the fact that their favorite brand of noble savages ate every potentially useful animal larger than a dog into extinction, for one.

And then they need to shut up. Just shut up. Because down their stupid delusional path lies the prioritizing of cultures that were worse than Hitler’s Germany as fucked up as that was. In fact their beliefs are exactly the same as Hitler’s and if we accept them, and don’t exempt Europeans, we’d have to believe Hitler’s bullshit of Ein Volk, Ein Reich, etc. was true. Because it’s exactly what the liberal land acknowledgers believe. same precise thing. That some people are made for one land, and somehow have remained there untouched from the beginning of time.

It’s a fantasy of old maiden aunts, and it would be fine if the old maiden aunts didn’t vote. And dye their hair bright purple and march with signs. And teach college. (The hair is minor. It just offends my aesthetic sense.)

Down the road of this bullshit is them dreaming up that the Palestinians, a people of scraps and pieces, formed of people too anti-social for other Arabs to tolerate (contemplate that for a moment) are the rightful owners of the land of Israel, and going out of their way to justify the Neolithic war attack of 10/7. Which of course will only unleash new Neolithic horrors on the world.

I’m old. I have no grandkids. I shouldn’t care. But I do. I don’t want the world, after I’m gone, to become a nightmare of warring neolithic tribes with advanced tech killing each other’s women and children in the name of some mythical “the land and the people are one.”

These asinine idiots who don’t understand the difference between Genes and Culture, and who assign land to an arbitrary grouping of both that happened to coalesce in a place relatively recently need to be laughed out of the public sphere.

Unless of course we can send them to a reservation far far away. No, further than that. I’m thinking Proxima Centauri.

And don’t worry. They’re Tim Walzs. The chance of any of them surviving by the time the rest of us get there to colonize is zilch.

Future inhabitants of Alpha Centauri can then do appropriate land acknowledgements: We live on a world where a bunch of Tim Walzs used to live. Fortunately they all died of the rampant stupid before the rest of us got here. Let’s eat.

119 thoughts on “Land, Genes and Culture, Oh My”

  1. BTVS’s Spike had this to say about land, etc., in S4, Ep 10 “Pangs”

    Spike : You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That’s what conquering nations do. It’s what caesar did, and he’s not going around saying, “I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it.” The history of the world isn’t people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story.”

    Of course this was going on well before Europeans came to the Western Hemisphere. Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey has a scene in the beginning where neighboring groups of pre-humans are competing with each other, one of them discovers they can use bones as weapons, and proceed to massacre the other group.

    What really ticks me off about the left is the same yahoos proclaiming land acknowledgements and calling North America “turtle island” are the same idiots who believe that Jews, who have inhabited Israel, Samaria and Judea, for over 3000 years, have no right to be there, and that the so-called Palestinians are entitled to a Judenfrei Arab-Muslim state “from the river to the sea” (and beyond). Apparently the ONLY who are “indigenous” (historically, no group is indigenous to anywhere if you go back far enough) but are not entitled to their historic lands, are Jews.

    Color me surprised. Just a reminder how much the left truly hates Jews.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. “Isreal: The only location where 3000+ year old archeology writings can be read by the current inhabitants, not just archeologists and ancient language experts.”

      Note, this isn’t even true of Italy and writings from the Roman empire or Arabic countries.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. In one of John Ringo’s unpublished “super-hero” novels, he has an Antifa guy apologizing to a Sioux about “stolen lands”, the Sioux comments that this area was stolen from another tribe not from the Sioux. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    Liked by 4 people

    1. The Great Plains horse culture would not have existed without Europeans re-introducing horses, as they had gone extinct in the Americas prior to being re-introduced. Watch leftist heads explode as they are told this and shown the evidence. Then watch them outright deny facts simply because they go against the leftist narrative.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. And they went extinct because they were hunted to extinction. Larry McMurtry says that the Apache preferred horsemeat to beef. If one Plains tribe could have killed all the buffalo, they’d have done it, just to starve out their enemies.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. I suddenly find myself stowing away the knowledge that the Great Plains horse cultures rose by way of cultural appropriation of European work animals.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Not just the Great Plains horse cultures, but all horse cultures that got here by foot and dog travois before the Atlantic boat and continental crossings (GHBO). Like the Nez Perce (PNW mountains) and their Appaloosas.

          There is some push back that horses never completely died out in the Americas. Personally I like the concept. The harassment of Mustang herds out west is evil. But it is also counter to fossils found. One can argue that the 500+ year feral herds fill a missing niche that the early human occupation wiped out. Just like release of a few hundred, or more, cheetah’s into the pronghorn population in the high plains, Oregon and Washington prairies would do. Wouldn’t that put a, well something, up certain peoples fundamentals? Certain fiction authors have speculated other large predators would fill missing niches throughout the wildernesses of the west, including leopards, lions, and tigers, oh my.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. FROWTS! Hurray for a new acronym.

    They’re Tim Walzs. The chance of any of them surviving by the time the rest of us get there to colonize is zilch.

    Ah, telephone sanitizers on Ark B.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well said. The idiots pushing the “land acknowlegements” BS are just another form of marxist scum in my opinion (or their useful fools). Divide people up into special little groups and convince them to hate everyone else so they can gain control over them. “You was robbed!!”. “You need us caring leftists to look after you!”………… Living in total denial of history and reality so long as it gets them power over others.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. (Deep, calming breaths. She’s not really asking about the geologic composition of the Southern Rockies. Don’t be all autistic, and make things awkward.)

    ;) Yes, the area was under the sea for much, if not most, of the past.

    Liked by 2 people

          1. Please refrain from going there. I already have a Jamaican crab spooling through head from the first mention. Perhaps what we need is a Jamaican trilobite?

            Liked by 2 people

  6. The Noble Savage concept. I am fighting the urge to commence a rant about Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I’m half-surprised you didn’t save some of your heavy cussing for a long tangent about him. (You really did get potty-mouthed today.)

    Ah, what does that man deserve? You yourself have suggested building a public lavatory over the tomb of Karl Marx. For Rousseau — who probably gave Marx some unidentifiable portion of his ideas — I’m thinking a nuclear waste dump. France has lots of reactors: all that stuff needs to go somewhere.

    It’s all just so much self-loathing anyway. The Sioux/Micmac/Palestinians/etc. are merely the lucky recipients of the autoflagellants’ largesse. (Usually paid out of someone else’s pockets.)

    Republica restituendae, et, Hamas delenda est.

    Liked by 2 people

      2. If you have a gun*, the rifle should be unnecessary. But redundancy is a beautiful thing.

        And I am by no means a nuke, but I would not want to contaminate a nuclear reactor with bones. Perhaps a hog waste lagoon would be simple enough.

        *A gun is defined as a crew served weapon be it machine gun (gunner and co-gunner) or howitzer.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Yep. If ever there was a mind virus, it was spawned in the caesspool of that man’s skull. The infective memetic culture biota analogues may have roots that stretch into prehistory, but there’s a special flavour of stupid that came about right there.

        Like

    5. Yes, dear Sarah was salty today. Caused nostalgia for the rust belt F100 where I worked for many decades.

      Like

  8. “Coff. I want to open with a land acknowledgement:”

    It’s funnier in the USA, where you can’t be arrested for calling bullsh1t on land claims and fake Indian graves. Or pronouns. I could be arrested for that here, that’s one reason my blog doesn’t get many updates these days.

    Take the advice of a cranky old Canuckistainian; push that First Amendment hard, and don’t let up on the Second. IMHO the Founders got those in reverse order. Easy for me to say 200+ years later, but there it is.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. (cough) Actually, bison, tasty bison. And elk. Elk on the continental US were plains and open valley herds before they were pushed into the timber by, um, more recent civilization.

      Like

  12. They need to be beaten to silence with the fact that their favorite brand of noble savages ate every potentially useful animal larger than a dog into extinction, for one.

    This does not compute in the Leftist brain. I remember, even back when I was a foolish middle schooler, being confused as to how it was that I could be taught in science class about how evil humans were for using slash-and-burn agriculture and destroying the rainforests, and then go to history classes and be taught about how wonderful the Mayans were for using slash-and-burn agriculture in the rainforests, and how this ecologically sound farming technique proved that they lived in harmony with the land…

    I suspect that their brains simply won’t acknowledge that it wasn’t white Europeans who hunted the North American megafauna to extinction. You can tell them, but the “noble savages are doubleplusgood” subroutine will simply delete the information before it can be put into long-term storage.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Critical theory based history and pre-history is such a parade of wishful thinking and presentism that it would not be much worse science to propose inhabitation of NA in six waves of twice each sub-saharan africans, east asians, and inexplicably blue eyed blond white Europeans before the blond mutations rpobably happened.

      So, say, twenty three thousand ya to seventeen thousand, if that won’t conflict very much with the actual archeological evidence.

      “I live on land inhabited at one point by my unicorn riding ancestors, in between a bunch of other wars.”

      Where the Canadian alleged mass murder is concerned, I don’t exactly find GPR definitive if the survey was carried out, and interpreted by an organization that could have been seriously biased. One survey and no repeats on such a heated discussion might indicate a political thumb on the scale.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. my shocked face

          I’m not going to hire that firm to help me dig for oil.

          (I’m not in oil exploration, and I know that it is drill, but my humor is strange.)

          Liked by 2 people

    2. If you really want to mess with them, tell them about buffalo jumps. About the only things you can say in their favor is they were about the only way to get lots of meat, hides, etc., and the Indians involved had to risk their lives to do it. (Face it, covering yourself in a wolf skin to sneak up to a her of buffalo and stampede them over a cliff is a good way to get trampled. Which is why the buffalo jump site in Alberta was named, Head-Smashed-In).

      And if you want dumb, note the clerk at the Mountie Museum told us that a lot of tourists, told about the nearby site, would ask when the buffalo would jump next. So they could be there for the show, I guess.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Dead Horse Point, Utah state park. Near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. Not the only location where when driving the road both the driver and passenger sides are saying “Wow, it is a long way down” as the road is on top of the ridge line. Before Dead Horse Point was used as a corral (just a wide gate to block the animals in), it was used to drive animals, including horses before went extinct in the area, off the cliff.

        Like

        1. Hudson-Meng in Nebraska among others there termed a “bison kill” site. We had a family reunion at Fort Robinson in Nebraska near my parents’ ranch also out in the boondocks in the area. None of us are Nebraskans but the state is a hidden jewel of rivers, sand hills, Oregon Trail wheel ruts and other American history.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. “Jump the Buffalo”

        That is when the writers of a Western Series or Film go idea bankrupt and do something so incredibly trendy-stupid that the series/franchise/concept never recovers.

        Star Trek: The Original Series, although sci-fi, managed an epic Jump the Buffalo in the episode “The Paradise Syndrome”. Kirk gets noggin-knocked “I am Kirok!” goes native on a planet of Amerinds, knocks up a girl, etc. its…. bad.

        -Shatner- jumped the buffalo (“jumped” in another meaning) starring in dual roles as twin half-n-halfs in the epic gad-aaaaaafle “White Comanche”. (No really. He did it, and it was -worse- than Paradise Syndrome. Far, far, far worse. Like “how do Comanche say YGBFSM!”) Worst Western -Ever-. How? Promise.

        Liked by 3 people

    3. The slash and burn thing *sorta* makes sense. It’s great, until your population rises enough so that you can’t leave enough interval for the area to regenerat.

      Like

  13. I have a new work friend. When I asked her if she was someone who prayed (I needed help on something) she replied that she was First Nation, First Peoples, Canada and rejected the entirety of Christianity because bad things happened.

    Yes, bad things happened. But the really big “bad thing that happened” never happened, or at least there’s no evidence for it. There’s some propaganda/trope going on in Canada that there is a huge mass grave someplace, evidence that the Church/Christians killed a bunch of Canadian Indians. Which would be bad. It just never happened, and there are people who refuse to give up the idea that every single Canadian Indian is a VICTIM.

    We haven’t talked much about this. Yet. We’ll see how it goes. :)

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Aye, that was “found” in Kamloops (NE of Vancouver, BC), but the post-churchburning discovery was that the ground penetrating radar that “identified” the bodies found a bunch of roots. ($SPOUSE has relatives in that area. Whee.) My SWAG is that the researcher did ground radar on an abandoned orchard.

      Haven’t run into the land acknowledgement BS, perhaps because I haven’t been to an official meeting in several years, but I’d be sorely tempted to ask the ‘knowledger if he/she/xit was going to return the land or compensate the stealies with their own money.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I think relatively few people study geophysical measurement and especially geophysical inversion enough to really follow how many ifs, ands, ors, and buts it may be.

        Electromagnetic geophysics? The ground has moisture, the levels of which vary. Which means conductivity.

        The geophysicists seem to have figured out inverting for permittivity, permeability, and conductivity. Which has to partly be how many shots they take, and combining the traces.

        You basically would get reflections off of everything, anywhere there is a change in materials.

        There are people who can accurately identify stuff. It may be skill.

        I basically know nothing about the automatic software for this these days.

        Depending, roots and bones might give fairly similar reflections. There should be a way to distinguish those.

        Like

  14. Would the land acknowledgment for Poland include the Nazis? I’m curious what the rules are, and how consistently they’re applied. (In reality, there are no rules, and it’s just Marxist agitating.)

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Do the polish actually do land acknowledgement?

      On a slightly related note when my polish ancestors immigrated there was no Poland. I won’t go into the French/German/russian/jewish names in the family bible. They called themselves Polish, for whatever small or large thing that actually means.

      My thoughts on the Australian land acknowledgements was that actually had a tiny point, Its probably the least fought over piece of land in the world. Marsupials/lizards/birds->Aboriginals.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There is some circumstantial evidence that when the Hom. Sap. (plus admixtures – Denisovan Girls are Hot and Neander Bros) made it, there were Hom. Erectus-derived folks already there. No fossils yet, but a lot of Oz dirt now underwater was previously above water, and coastal regions have seafood.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. And re fossils, the Aboriginal political lobby has fair dinkum power in Oz politics, so permission to go around digging for bones willy nilly would be challenging.

          Like

        2. yea I read those articles as well but since they don’t do sea acknowledgements and there is zero proof that the homo Erectus got past the tropical shores that are now sea, ehh.

          For that matter while its rarely discussed aboriginals actually had a pretty reasonable idea how to war, so they probably had some practice in the past.

          Aboriginals have held Australia for some 65,000 years, ok I can accept that.

          Gadigal tribe have held this patch of sand for the last 65,000 years. nope. Totally unknown. Unless your in the practice of believing the most recent winners!

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Technically, when my Polish ancestors immigrated, there was no Poland. Because Poland had been parceled out when they decided to basically become a constitutional government in the 18th century—yes, a bit ahead of the American colonies—and the countries surrounding them decided We Can’t Be Having That.

        Turns out that having an ocean handy when you make those kind of decisions really helps them to stick.

        Anyway. “We all live on stolen land.” Sure, yeah, you betcha, and did I mention that I’m here now because MY ancestor’s lands were stolen from them, so they went somewhere else? According to these lunks, I’m completely in the wrong place, but I also have no place that is the right place. Not that they care about that…

        Like

  15. Lemme stop y’all right there. I like the humor; but I have s shorter version because I’m not as imaginative.

    God owns all the land. He built it.

    And wherever he put us is where we belong until He chooses to put our ungrateful tail feathers summer else.

    I’m thankful to be employed, married, and 8.5 years cancer free.

    That’s all. Go on back to your discussion. And have a blessed Christmas no matter what you celebrate or not on the 25th.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Isn’t it funny how the Democrats spew on and on about science, yet they can’t seem to get the science of natural selection as applied to human control of resources., such as land. Well, I shouldn’t be surprised since they can’t even understand the concept of “To the victors go the spoils” which has been proven since prehistoric times.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In fairness, much of what we call “civilization” is built around trying to find ways to distribute things without caving in your neighbor’s head first. The American left then takes that to extremes, but they can only do that because the basic idea that acts as the foundation is a good one.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Property, and titles to land, are within a law system/dispute resolution method, and that within a peace consensus.

    In that context, theft is maybe a word with no meaning, because for long periods of time we are talking hunter gatherers that did not have lasting enough peaces to really be said to be able to own the land.

    There were some sedentary tribes before displacement to reservations, and further back there were some sedentary agricultural tribes that might have had some sort of custom of that sort.

    If you don’t have much strategic depth, and you are relying on your fighters to control whatever land, sooner or later you have a bad run of fortune and relocate.

    (energy low, because I cross wired from there to space barbarians with fighter jets)

    Liked by 1 person

  18. As my dirt acknowledgement, I will solemnly note that every atom in this dirt was previously inside someone else’s sun, and as such our standing on this dirt deprives these predesessionalister beings of their sunlight. Amen.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. *bows down in homage* THANK YOU.

    As I’ve said before, elsewhere, my adoptive father was an enrolled tribal member. And a real piece of work. Just as a forinstance, he spent large amounts of time hammering home the concept that I chose really POORLY when I elected to be born female. I did not weep at the funeral.

    Thus I have an EXTREMELY jaundiced view of that “sauvages nobles” brand of racist bullpuckey, and have determined to call it out if anyone EVER in my presence tries one of those sickening “land acknowledgements”.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Darn. And here when I first read this, I was expecting noble SAUSAGES (YOU. Brain out of the gutter. Now. I see you). Now I am hungry. Eh. Pepperoni pizza should hold more sway than land acknowledgements. For one, you can eat it and not starve. For two, it won’t rot your brain.

    Also, somewhere way back in the dusty corners of the mind is the vaguest of memories that “noble savage” was linked to tribals that acquired Western culture. So, in other words, my own f*ckin ancestors. Pox on that sh!t that is JJR’s “noble sausage” bullsheep. A metaphorical dump on huge tracts of …land acknowledgements.

    Like so many things, it’s a fast and loose diversion aimed at shaking up existing powers so they are easier to take. They aren’t serious about it, obviously. They just want what’s yours. It’s a long and convoluted way of saying “Gimme dat.”

    My conquered land was paid for in the coin of the time: blood and violence. I own it through sweat equity and filthy lucre. If some idiot wants to give me their land that they paid for, now I have to pay taxes on it so I’d probably just sell it for a quick buck, depending. But that ain’t happening, so I’m not making any plans.

    Kowtowing to barbarian cultural interests in order to weaken the opposite partisans inside the walls is an old, old trick that rarely ends well. Our own local political parasites are just the kind of perverts to think they’ll get away with it this time. The volatile cocktail of competing interests within the modern left is utterly bereft without what I call the “crazies” within it.

    Not just their rent-a-jackboot, low budget thugs. The perverts and creepers, the molesters and monsters, the utter nutters and the barbarians that they think they can control. That’s what’s pushing their agenda now.

    It’s not ineffective in the short term. But there are already fractures within. Without the strong opposition of Trump et. al., they might have even shaken apart by now. But if that were the case, we’d all be in quite a bit worse shape, too.

    I’m thankful that’s not the case.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. I’m tired of this stupid.

    I know too much history to have any idea of the “noble savage.” The only difference between a stone-age nomad and a Roman Senator is that the Senator had enough wealth to buy slaves from the people they defeated.

    And usually didn’t eat the corpses of their enemies.

    It’s only been the last two hundred years that this wasn’t the default of humanity. And it is still this way in far too much of the world. I don’t want to go back to that kind of world.

    And these idiots are driving us back to that world.

    No kids, no grandkids. Wish I could have had them. But I don’t want the world to be terrible when I do leave.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Bravo, we screwed with people enough, set them free and watch them go, you break laws you go to jail, or just let us handle it ourselves, you don’t want that, I don’t want that. Judges certainly don’t want that, they’d be first in line I am sure by both sides. that’s what is really at stake in all this Judical Warfare, faith in the justice system, which is shit, and Judges only have themselves to blame.

    Like

  23. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » SORRY, BUT THE LACK OF THOUGHT BEHIND THE PLATITUDES REALLY BURNS ME:  Land, Genes and Culture, Oh

  24. The ultimate and sovereign antidote / preventative / remedy to all “land acknowledgement” stuff is, of course, to refute the old saw “they’re not making any more of it” industrially and merrily, and go build O’Neill colonies or the like. As (IIRC) one of my vignette characters put it, making “land for the free and a home for the brave” — several feet per second of continuous-cast cylinder wall at a time. This land is my land, this land’s not your land, we built it go away.

    QED, box, as they say in math-world.

    That said, my other point is a little bit less fun. There are indeed people who are already willing to claim that all the pre-existing land Out There — either in the Solar System, or everywhere off Earth period — is already owned by Someone = Everyone = Not You. I quote from the new preface to that interesting-but-irritating bit of (likely mostly-unwitting) anti-space-colonization propaganda called “A City on Mars?” in its new paperback edition:

    Right now, space is governed under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which makes space a commons.

    Which they do explain a little further later on, in case you don’t want to dig into the rest of the book (I already did that interesting but often-annoying chore some while back):

    As of now space is a commons that permits all comers to explore and conduct science, but not to claim territory — not to pursue manifest destiny with a flag. [Emphasis in original]

    What they’re actually doing (as best I can tell) is “bootstrapping” from the actual language of the treaty (freely available via the Web from UN’s ‘UNOOSA’ web site), which quite explicitly forbids “national appropriation” — all the way to it’s ‘the Common Heritage of All Mankind’ (CHOAM, as in the ‘Dune’ monopoly, and h/t to ‘Metamagical Arithmetist’ for that one) — and thence further to a sort of universal “tenacy in common” as actual American law (often) puts it.

    And since it’s the (arguably failed, but still technically in effect for its members) Moon Treaty of 1979/1984 (which also contains all the outright bans on ownership, only with one giant loophole to that nobody seems to notice), not the widely-ratified Outer Space Treaty, that limits itself only to the Solar System — what the two authors of “A City On Mars?” are actually claiming is that the entirety of all the land in the Universe beyond Earth itself is (already, and since before Apollo 11!!) “a commons” owned, somehow vaguely, by all-humanity. Yecch.

    To condense and collapse what could be pages, no, not really. Just because one nation cannot unilaterally claim land (and thus bring it under its own laws and sovereignty) Out There does not mean a consortium of nations — maybe even like the Artemis Accords alliance?? — could not do that. Indeed, the Moon Treaty itself proposes a UN organization to do just that, and hence the loophole: the organization couldn’t actually (legally) work without it. (Like the treaties, in text and not merely ‘as told to you by’ someone allegedly authoritative, the full Artemis Accords text is available at its own website too, just a search and a click away.)

    I’ll leave it at that for now; not only because I spent a few hours writing on this just last night, but also because I know there are other people more well-read or even professionally knowledgeable than I ‘here’ too.

    Land acknowledgements as we know them are, mostly, merely stupid, if a subtly pernicious sort of stupid; and see the OP for all that. This “space is a ‘commons’ already” stuff — that could do real harm to a hopeful human future still as-yet unstrangled in its cradle.

    Mostly, it’s simply a claim; one you’re supposed to meekly acquiesce to, because “it’s the law.”

    Question the (especially self-appointed) “authorities” — and as always, refuse the psy-op.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Okay. That “treaty”, declaration, or whatever, governments cannot claim land on the Moon, or any other plant or plant moon. Fine. Not a problem. Just because, for sake or argument, I/we (as a colony ship) come from the US, does not mean I/we am claiming land off of Earth for the US. Kind of claiming it for I/we-the-colony. Just saying. Shades of TMIAHM. If the US is too far across an ocean to be properly administrated by England in late 1700s, then the moon or any other habitable dirt off of Earth cannot be administrated by any government on Earth. So there.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. And… your very last point is one that so many of these “commons” people seem to miss. Just plain miss outright. It isn’t likely a long-term good idea for all of space and everything in it to be “administered” (or “managed” as in “a managed commons” as they like to say) from Earth, and particularly by some international bureau(klepto)cracy (esp. a UN that can’t even seem to run a reliable, functional escalator and PA system these days, never mind a WHO of the early 2020s).

        Even at its very best, having every settlement in space be a national colony — with no more home rule than the “parent” nation allows, just then — with zero rights to own even enough land to stand on for anyone, or the colony itself, by international law — well, sounds like a bad idea to me too.

        Yet, “A City on Mars?” specifically spends a chapter (or likely a good bit more) to also argue that making new nations in space wouldn’t be easy legally, and shouldn’t be done anyway. It all sounds to me like a great setup for some sort of eventual grand-scale revolution, maybe even a bit like 1776, plus “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” too (minus its Australia in Space aspects). Oops.

        They seem to get stuck in an “Earthbound mindset” where all they can see going on in space is a sort of Antarctic outpost, or maybe at most a sort of (temporary) mining camp; never mind that it was 11 years after 1967 (and the Outer Space Treaty) that Gerard K. O’Neill’s “The High Frontier” was first published (but see people like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky decades earlier), that was almost a half century ago now. And “A City on Mars?” is largely a book-length refrain of “but we don’t know exactly how to do this yet, so we should simply wait a generation or two.” But, still, by now, 2025 soon to be 2026, not just a massive failure of the imagination, but heads stuck deep in the sand.

        The entire rest of the Universe, guys!?! Got that, yet??

        And about your earlier point, there’s actually language in the treaty that allows just the sort of use you’re talking about, or arguably does. So you’re right about that too. From Article I of the Outer Space Treaty (para. 3):

        Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

        And while I’m at it, Article II says:

        Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

        That’s it, all of it. This is where they get all this “commons” stuff. And (I’d argue), a lot of thin air.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

          Oh yeah? Says you and what army?

          Which, in a nutshell, is the history of the human race.

          Someone, somewhere, sometime, will decide they want it and have the means to take it. A treaty is only as good as the army that enforces it.

          Like

          1. And if nations knew something special was Out There, they would create a new treaty to allow them to claim territory without wars between space-faring nations.

            Note, in Eric Flint and Ryk Spoor’s Boundary series, there was such a treaty created.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. We desperately need nations to be able to create territory. And EF was showing his “if we plan it and control it centrally it will work” roots. Wars will happen. That’s no reason to to colonize space. WHICH YES calls for property and national rights in space.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Well, it was an attempt to allow nations to claim territory off-Earth without the UN (or other idiots) claiming “You Can’t Do That”.

                I don’t think either author thought that it would permanently prevent war.

                Like

            2. The Artemis Accords (the international agreement to go with the “Artemis Project” to go back to the Moon) has some interesting stuff in it (like, basically, we’ll extract space resources if we want); and as of last count there are 59 nations on board with that. It’s an agreement, not some binding treaty (and you can withdraw from even the Outer Space Treaty by giving notice; and same for the Moon Treaty, Saudi Arabia just did). There’s even a bit of speculation that the whole aim of the Artemis Accords is essentially to end-run the Moon Treaty and make an international coalition that can do what the Moon Treaty tried and failed to do, set up a system to use international law to regulate and legitimize claims to things in space.

              Like the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty etc., the Artemis Accords text is public, just search for their Web site. (The competing Russian/Chinese agreement, with way fewer countries, isn’t telling any details at all, no surprise. Not much “sunshine” in totalitarian-land.)

              Like

              1. Interestingly, the Artemis Accords, signed off by the US and the other seven countries that were first day signatories on 13 October 2020, were one of the few DJT1 things not immediately disavowed by the Autopen Administration.

                Like

        2. This is out there to “prebunk,” any idea of Elon Musk/SpaceX having any control of his hypothetical Mars colony. That’s all it is.

          Like

    2. hmm. Banned property rights in space. I wonder what marxoid did that….

      And recall trump expressed some, “thats crap” about property not being ownable in space.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Note that the “banned property rrights in space” is either the Moon Treaty (which we didn’t ratify, and very few countries ever did, and now that Saudi Arabia has withdrawn it makes, IIRC, 17 in all including 0 major space powers), or sheer adventurism based on the Outer Space Treaty (see quote above). However, this “space is a commons” stuff really is (unless you look at it just wrong) a socialist land-grab — pre-emptively, too. (The Moon Treaty was pushed largely by the Soviets, though there’s also some evidence that was done as a “look, shiny thing!” to keep the UN busy.)

        But, yeah, especially if they base their “commons” claims on the Outer Space Traty (no restriction to the Solar System) — it’s quite literally “The Biggest (Slow-Motion) Socialist Land-Grab Ever.”

        There’s a right answer to that one. No.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. At least as to the U.N. Moon Treaty, I expect the ratifying states, those spaceflight powerhouses of Uruguay, Philippines, Peru, Netherlands, Morocco, Chile, and Austria, to jump right in and enforce the stupid thing real soon now.

          And since it is explicitly nonbinding on nonsignatories, the U.S. of right should tell any “common heritage” grifters who complain about pretty much anything to F.R.O. the moment it is brought up.

          Like

          1. And interestingly enough, Australia, a founding signer of the Artemis Accords and one of the 17 members of the (now dwindling) Moon Treaty ‘club’ — has said at the UN that they don’t see any conflict there, see

            https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/copuos/lsc/2021/statements/item_14_Australia_ver.1_4_June_PM.pdf

            for some vague and bureaucratic, but direct, confirmation of that. (“Australia’s position is that the Artemis Accords are consistent with Australia’s international legal obligations…”)

            Note the Artemis Accords say straight-up (Section 10) “Signatories affirm that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treay” — so not only the U.S. but everyone who signs the Accords has come decently close to saying, F.R.O., ‘commons’ freeloaders, already and openly-officially in writing as part of joining this ‘club.’

            ‘Commons’ boosters are generally not happy about this; but I’ll spare everyone the communalist rant links unless requested…

            Liked by 1 person

  25. the October attack on Israel was an atrocity.

    What has been done to Gaza since for the last 2 years is also an atrocity, you can’t see the images of all buildings in rumble and think otherwise. The killing of children is an atrocity, no matter how “rude” their parents are. I am against Muslim culture too, but I can’t condone the genocide of a population. You can’t watch the videos of what’s left and say that Israel is not trying to destroy them.

    the fact that you justify this to your soul that it has been done before time immemorial, that no one wants these people so let’s kill them then, it’s hard to read, but people have been doing this also since time immemorial.

    God save your soul.

    Like

    1. No. What has been done to Gaza is profoundly mild. And we’re not at home to Palestinian shills. We know about Pallywood and we know the numbers are lies.
      You may take your concern for my soul, fold it all in corners and put it up your ass, you meretricious encourager of rapists and murdeers, you whore for Baal and his murderous minions.
      I don’t need anyone in the pit of hell worrying about my soul. Go to Satan your master, you turd of Beezelbub.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Now now Sarah.

        What’s been happening in the Gaza is Terrible!

        But the problem was caused by Hamas and all of the “Good And Caring” people & nations that supported Hamas. [Very Big Twisted Grin]

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’ve been getting a recent spate of YouTube ads with some old white male who’s part of something called the ‘IRC’ (but there’s no explanation of what that is) who wants to tell me about the terrible starvation happening in Gaza right now. I cut the ads off before the ad has enough time to spew more nonsense than that, but I suspect that there’s a new push by someone or someones to try and build support for Gaza.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. My reply to Gaza and the “Palestinians” (AKA Arabs that no Arab country want’s in their territory) is the same as to the Japanese regarding Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo…

      Don’t start a war if you can’t take Joke

      Liked by 1 person

    3. I agree that Israel’s handling of Gaza has been an atrocity: they have pussyfooted around so much that the next group of subhuman savages will not have learned the lesson, and they got a bunch of their own troops killed in the process who didn’t need to die. The only silver lining is that they got some of the hostages out after months.

      A proper and civilized way of handling Gaza would have been a continuous conveyor belt of Arclight strikes until the entire landmass of the Gaza strip was physically carved away down to the deepest tunnel and the sea claimed the area.

      Liked by 4 people

    4. Rape and murder do not equal rudeness. Training children in jihad through children’s games is a sign that the culture will never change from within and cannot be a peaceful neighbor. The participants boasted! They posted themselves! The fact it’s been 2 years is a sign of restraint. They didn’t drop a bomb the day after to kill them all, the perpetrators and the supporters.

      Liked by 3 people

    5. Her soul doesn’t need saving, from that. Firstly, what Israel did is not genocide. Nor is it an atrocity. And the rest of the argument fails after that.

      Take it from a Jew born and raised who lost actual relatives in the Shoah.

      You, on the other hand, need to look to your glass house. And buy a dictionary written prior to the 21st Century.

      Liked by 3 people

    6. Cristina, 99% of the information coming from Hamas/Al Jazeera since October 7 is arrant lies. The other 1% is exaggerated almost to that point.

      Regarding the genocide accusation. Between 2005 (when Israel ejected their own people from the land) and October 7 2023, the population of Gaza doubled. While there have been tragic and regretful civilian casualties in this war, the blame for that rests on Hamas, not Israel. In the words of Agent J, “Don’t start none, won’t be none.”

      If Israel had truly wanted to level Gaza, it would have taken them less than 12 hours from when the first plane left the ground. The IDF and IAF have been more meticulous in limiting civilian casualties than any military force in history. Hamas are the ones who put their civilians in harms way. Not Israel.

      The fact that you think the mass slaughter, rape, and kidnapping of Jews by Gazans is “rude” is abhorrent and evil. If you truly believe that, your soul is the one that needs examining.

      Liked by 4 people

    7. What has been done to Gaza since for the last 2 years is also an atrocity, you can’t see the images of all buildings in rumble and think otherwise.

      Go blow your moral equivalence out a window, and give your father below a big french kiss.

      I might be tempted to think you meant it except that you only treat the actions by someone besides the need-to-be-bombed-forward-into-the-bronze-age barbarians when you’re figuring that what has happened in Gaza is an atrocity.

      Going in and claiming “rude” when someone is trying to mass murder a nation on the accusation that they are Jewish or not hostile enough to the Jews that live there, and people shooting back are accused of killing the children, shows you are just evil.

      Paliwood has been caught, repeatedly, claiming that Israel killed a child- when not only did they not, but if the child was even dead, they had been killed by those crying to avenge his blood.

      That is before you include things like hiding at least two of their captives in the hospital that Israel cleared out, and then taking him out claiming he was a Palestinian injured by Israel. Which we found out when one of those captives was returned alive.

      Liked by 2 people

    9. If they hadn’ta started none, they wouldn’ta got none. The state of Gaza and the Gazans who live there got what they voted for, which is why they celebrated. One reaps what one sows.

      Liked by 1 person

    10. The Palestinians have chosen to be savages. They have chosen to teach their children to be savages, with help from the U.N. They have spent more than 60 years proving themselves incapable of living in a civilized society. They have been booted out of every other Arab country because they won’t get along with anybody. Israel will have no peace so long as one Palestinian lives in Gaza. For their own survival, the Israelis have no choice but to treat the Palestinians as the savages they choose to be.

      The Palestinians remind me of the demons in Frieren — they use the words of civilized people to deceive and manipulate, without being in any way civilized themselves. They lie, about everything, all the time. Al-Jazeera is 100% HamAss propaganda.

      ‘Innocent’ Palestinians participated in the atrocities of October 7 2023, and the celebrations afterward. They still support HamAss and Hezbollah. ‘Humanitarian aid’ to Gaza is still used to support the terrorists.

      HamAss is perfectly willing to get hundreds or thousands of their own people killed merely to provide a pretext for falsely accusing the Israelis of war crimes.

      Using people as human shields is the actual war crime. It’s gullible dumbasses like you that make it an effective tactic and guarantee that the savages will continue to do it.

      Liked by 1 person

    11. The quickest way to end a war is to make it so terrible, so godawful, so painful, that the other side knows it is stupid to participate. Clearly the Palestinians, brainwashed by generations of hatred and goaded by their so-called “leaders” who sit safely in other Arab countries counting their millions, aren’t quite there yet. All they had to do was live in peace with Israel. That’s it. That’s all.

      At this point I’m getting close to thinking they have permanently lost the right to Gaza. Clear them out, give it to Israel, and let Gaza flourish and become productive again, and let the Palestinians become the problem of the Arab and Islamic nations that have been using them as human weapons for decades.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s been proposed, with the stumbling block being that no state, neither Arab or non-Arab, will accept the Gazans. Nor will the West Bank PA.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. The sick irony being that Iranians, being Persians, look at most of their fellow-Muslim Arabs with a racist disdain that makes Euro-descended Mexicans’ hatred for mestizos look like brotherly love. Palestinians dropped into Iran would be FAR worse off than they are right now in and around Israel! They’d do well to remember that.

            Liked by 1 person

    12. So communists do not live in peace with their fellow communists except when embedded in a non-communist society.

      The reason ‘communism was not tried’ is because the recipe shatters the internal protections of peace and produces ‘facism’.

      One element of since 2023, October 7, is the western communists adding their voice to the protests in the US. With certain idjits explictly saying the quiet part out loud, that they also mean mass murder of Americans. The mass murder of Jews was spoken of for many years, before some people were able to carry it out.

      It would be profoundly unwise for an American to presume that those who willingly support Hamas will be unable to carry out such a mass murder of Americans in the future. The preventative option would be to kill all of the supporters.

      Secondly, who has started the fights, again and again? Who has lost the fights, again and again? Who used what means in the attack? The attacker can pick and choose the timing of their attack. What does it say of someone who loses fights that they start? They have poor judgement, or no self control. A polity with such poor judgment, or such lacking control, which also uses heinous means, why should anyone choose to coexist with thme, if that polity could be erased?

      The US has a lot of strategic depth. Israel does not have a lot of strategic depth.

      By and large, in Israel’s place, many Americans would have favored wiping out all of those populations. These Americans often feel that Israel suffers from having an excess of love for their fellow human beings, or something like that.

      The interpretation we have of cries about ‘wrongs’ done to the slaves of Hamas is that people so speaking either a) believe false information b) are ignorant of the capabilities of modern weapons c) are being dishonest themselves.

      This is one of the factors that leads Americans to the conclusions that a) the UN is an evil, that should maybe be destroyed b) our western European ‘allies’ in NATO are not actually allies.

      Like

  26. Whenever I hear this “land acknowledgement”stuff, my first response is “OK, if you feel that strongly about it why don’t you give it back to the indigenous people you are acknowledging?” Or, if its in academia, “OK, why don’t you give your spot in this prestigious school up to a member of that indigenous group?”

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Per current law in most places, if I care for a piece of land for a sufficient period of time it is mine. More than one person has been embroiled in and lost a property claim because they owned land and someone built on it, purposefully or in confusion, and lost. Historically land was conquered, but most of it was settled. It wasn’t being actively used and the settlers claimed it. But that is still the law today.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. I absolutly detest the stupid “land acknowledgement” statements.
    They are always, always virtue signaling meant to show that the acknowledger is more holy/progressive/aware than everybody else– because it is so “healing” to state that you know the land you are on was “taken” by the evil white man from its most recent claimed occupant.
    They make me want to scream out, “And you’re going to give it BACK to them, right? If not, then SHUT UP!”

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Best land acknowledgement ever, in a very thick Burns Lake rez accent “I acknowledge that I am on the land that my stone age ancestors lived on before John Fraser and his buddies showed up and helped boost us to indoor plumbing, modern medicine, and not starving every year”

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.