• Re: Speciousness of land acknowledgements

    From BTR1701@atropos@mac.com to rec.arts.tv on Mon May 11 18:41:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On Sep 9, 2025 at 2:36:00 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    On 2025-09-09 4:19 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    I don't think the Indians had a morally superior right to land over
    anyone who came later. It wasn't their land till they got here and began
    using it, whether settled permanently or not. I certainly don't recognize >> sacred rights to land they aren't currently using, treaty or not. But that >> doesn't mean they needed to be removed to make it possible for Europeans
    to live here.

    I think the only *legal* basis for indigenous land claims was the
    treaties signed between Washington and the tribes. (In Canada, it was initially the British Crown and then the Canadian government after Confederation.) Morally, of course, you could argue that the indigenous
    got shafted by those treaties and the indigenous people certainly want
    the rest of us to believe it.

    A pretty good bit on the absurdity of Canadidian land acknowledgments:


    https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1914454338598236160/pu/vid/avc1/720x1086/3FtHIeMAS6hDWg5S.mp4?tag=12


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rhino@no_offline_contact@example.com to rec.arts.tv on Mon May 11 18:48:35 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 2026-05-11 2:41 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
    On Sep 9, 2025 at 2:36:00 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    On 2025-09-09 4:19 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    I don't think the Indians had a morally superior right to land over
    anyone who came later. It wasn't their land till they got here and began >>> using it, whether settled permanently or not. I certainly don't recognize >>> sacred rights to land they aren't currently using, treaty or not. But that
    doesn't mean they needed to be removed to make it possible for Europeans >>> to live here.

    I think the only *legal* basis for indigenous land claims was the
    treaties signed between Washington and the tribes. (In Canada, it was
    initially the British Crown and then the Canadian government after
    Confederation.) Morally, of course, you could argue that the indigenous
    got shafted by those treaties and the indigenous people certainly want
    the rest of us to believe it.

    A pretty good bit on the absurdity of Canadidian land acknowledgments:


    https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1914454338598236160/pu/vid/avc1/720x1086/3FtHIeMAS6hDWg5S.mp4?tag=12


    That felt like it was staged but it certainly expresses how ludicrous
    the whole land acknowledgement nonsense is. I think the performers must
    be from this area because I recognize some of the names of the tribes
    (even if I can't say them).
    --
    Rhino
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BTR1701@atropos@mac.com to rec.arts.tv on Mon May 11 22:53:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On May 11, 2026 at 3:48:35 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    On 2026-05-11 2:41 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
    On Sep 9, 2025 at 2:36:00 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:

    On 2025-09-09 4:19 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    I don't think the Indians had a morally superior right to land over >>>> anyone who came later. It wasn't their land till they got here and began
    using it, whether settled permanently or not. I certainly don't recognize
    sacred rights to land they aren't currently using, treaty or not. But that
    doesn't mean they needed to be removed to make it possible for Europeans
    to live here.

    I think the only *legal* basis for indigenous land claims was the
    treaties signed between Washington and the tribes. (In Canada, it was
    initially the British Crown and then the Canadian government after
    Confederation.) Morally, of course, you could argue that the indigenous >>> got shafted by those treaties and the indigenous people certainly want
    the rest of us to believe it.

    A pretty good bit on the absurdity of Canadidian land acknowledgments:


    https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1914454338598236160/pu/vid/avc1/720x1086/3FtHIeMAS6hDWg5S.mp4?tag=12

    That felt like it was staged but it certainly expresses how ludicrous
    the whole land acknowledgement nonsense is. I think the performers must
    be from this area because I recognize some of the names of the tribes
    (even if I can't say them).

    Of course it was staged. It was a comedy skit. But it's funny because it's absolutely true.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rhino@no_offline_contact@example.com to rec.arts.tv on Mon May 11 23:01:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On 2026-05-11 6:53 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
    On May 11, 2026 at 3:48:35 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    On 2026-05-11 2:41 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
    On Sep 9, 2025 at 2:36:00 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
    wrote:

    On 2025-09-09 4:19 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    I don't think the Indians had a morally superior right to land over >>>>> anyone who came later. It wasn't their land till they got here and began
    using it, whether settled permanently or not. I certainly don't recognize
    sacred rights to land they aren't currently using, treaty or not. But that
    doesn't mean they needed to be removed to make it possible for Europeans
    to live here.

    I think the only *legal* basis for indigenous land claims was the
    treaties signed between Washington and the tribes. (In Canada, it was >>>> initially the British Crown and then the Canadian government after
    Confederation.) Morally, of course, you could argue that the indigenous >>>> got shafted by those treaties and the indigenous people certainly want >>>> the rest of us to believe it.

    A pretty good bit on the absurdity of Canadidian land acknowledgments: >>>

    https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1914454338598236160/pu/vid/avc1/720x1086/3FtHIeMAS6hDWg5S.mp4?tag=12

    That felt like it was staged but it certainly expresses how ludicrous
    the whole land acknowledgement nonsense is. I think the performers must
    be from this area because I recognize some of the names of the tribes
    (even if I can't say them).

    Of course it was staged. It was a comedy skit. But it's funny because it's absolutely true.


    Exactly.

    I think the next time I hear a land acknowledgement when I'm in the
    room, I'll interrupt and ask if we absolutely HAVE to hear this by law?
    If the answer is no, I'll ask the rest of the audience if they want to
    hear it. If they vote no, it will be interesting to see if the
    acknowledgement gets skipped.
    --
    Rhino
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2