Althouse: "Because the ritual [of land acknowledgment] still treats land as something that can be owned..."

July 24, 2026

"Because the ritual [of land acknowledgment] still treats land as something that can be owned..."

"... it names the theft while leaving the idea of ownership untouched. Indigenous relationships to land were not about possession or title. They were about reciprocity, care, responsibility. Wendy Red Star, an Apsáalooke artist, put it this way: 'The concept of territory is a completely Western idea. When we make land acknowledgments, we’re putting a Western, colonial concept on the relationship between the Native people who were stewards of the land. It’s not ownership.'"

Writes Reid Walker, in "Please Don’t Thank Us for the Land" (NYT gift link).

54 comments:

tim maguire said...: Tribes were as territorial as any European, even if they didn't put it in writing. And they stole from each other as eagerly as Europeans stole it from the last owner.

Whatever, it was centuries ago. Claims that today's "indigenous" have rights to it are based on a theory of inheritance that nobody believes. The survival of the concept is dependent on never clearly talking about it. Because talking about it directly would reveal the grift.; 7/24/26, 7:40 AM
Michael said...: Anyone with a minimal understanding of tribal relations in the Americas in 1491 know that territory was a gigantic issue among the natives.; 7/24/26, 7:52 AM
Humperdink said...: “The concept of territory is a completely Western idea.”

Not to the Seneca tribe in western N.Y. They crushed the surrounding tribes and subjugated them. They maintain a foot print here. They are finally getting even with the white man - they built a giant casino in Salamanca.; 7/24/26, 7:54 AM
boatbuilder said...: Here is the thing, Wendy. The concept that nobody owns property has proven historically to be unworkable and a recipe for endless war, famine, poverty and misery. The concept of property ownership has proven to be wildly successful. Also, in just about everywhere, the relationships were never about "reciprocity, care, responsibility;" They were about who was more powerful. "Stewardship" is a property-based concept.; 7/24/26, 7:55 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: "The concept of territory is a completely Western idea."

Demonstrably false.; 7/24/26, 7:55 AM
rehajm said...: ….in addition to rule of law, access to capital property tights are essential for humans to thrive…; 7/24/26, 7:58 AM
Robert Marshall said...: "Native people ... were stewards of the land. It’s not ownership."

But in British Columbia, the Cowichan tribe recently claimed, and won a court judgment of title to land south of Vancouver, based on their having spent summers in the area, fishing for salmon, 150 or so years prior. If it wasn't ownership back then, how could it be ownership today? Could it be that Cowichans speak with forked tongue, much like white folk are accused of doing?; 7/24/26, 7:59 AM
J L Oliver said...: Ran off or butchered any tribe in their way, mostly. Also used up the land’s resources and then moved on doing the above.; 7/24/26, 8:01 AM
Michael McNeil said...: There was wide variation in how American Indians regarded the land, but while many native American peoples had no concept of private ownership of the land, they still commonly knew what land their tribe owned, possessed, and defended. There would have been no need for the Indian Wars of U.S. and colonial history if that weren't the case: the Indians would have been happily dispossessed because they didn't “own” the land anyway, right? Wrong.

But way beyond that, private ownership of land wasn't unknown among American Indians. In far northwestern California, for instance, the riverine peoples of the lower Klamath River watershed (California's 3rd largest river)—the Yurok, Hupa, and Karuk peoples—owned privately (by individuals) all valuable land within about a mile of the river, which still constitutes (e.g.) the Yuroks' (the largest tribe in California) official reservation—who thus have kept possession of essentially all their original land.; 7/24/26, 8:04 AM
Aggie said...: Oh. So the Native Americans never fought between themselves for territorial supremacy? Oh. So they never took slaves from other sides, or celebrated victories with savage maltreatment of their vanquished? Oh. And they lived in perfect harmony with nature, and all the lands they coexisted in, in perfect harmony, were managed with absolute natural perfection? Oh.; 7/24/26, 8:07 AM
bagoh20 said...: Territory is one of the most basic natural animal characteristics, common to many, including insects. The left is missing that gene that makes one question ideas that are obviously stupid and anti-factual. It may be a form of Tourette's.; 7/24/26, 8:21 AM
rhhardin said...: Every aspect of indian culture is risible.

KInky Friedman, in wise indian voice: You can't own land, you can't own a horse or a dog or a waterfall, you can only own a casino.; 7/24/26, 8:21 AM
bagoh20 said...: What is unique to humans about territory is that we can peacefully transfer it. Stealing it by force is the standard and natural transaction.; 7/24/26, 8:23 AM
bagoh20 said...: They believed that people could be owned. They would steal your women, your children, or even the hair off your head, and then it was their property. They took it further than the Europeans.; 7/24/26, 8:27 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: "Ran off or butchered any tribe in their way, mostly."

Sometimes not even in their way. The myth of the benightedly innocuous pre-Columbian noble savage needs to die.; 7/24/26, 8:31 AM
tcrosse said...: Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis has been renamed Bde Maka Ska, which is purportedly the Dakota name for it. I'm surprised they didn't name it Lake Floyd.; 7/24/26, 8:33 AM
Dave Begley said...: And because the Indians didn't have ownership of real estate is why they remained savages. They didn't even have wheels. A failed culture. But they are getting their revenge now.; 7/24/26, 8:35 AM
William said...: "Property is theft." There is a segment of the population that believes this is a great truth. That's the segment of the population that writes songs and stars in movies. They're not actually in control of anything, but they are, nonetheless, an influential group.......The Indians fought wars to retain ownership of their lands. They lost militarily but perhaps they will fare better in the propaganda wars. They've got some influential allies.; 7/24/26, 8:36 AM
rrsafety said...: "Indigenous relationships to land were not about possession" is a historically inaccurate statement.; 7/24/26, 8:37 AM
William said...: There's a kind of white supremacy latent in these arguments. Only white men have the will and mind set to come up with pernicious doctrines like land ownership. Indigenous peoples have a child like simplicity and are incapable of the kinds of great crimes that only white man are capable of. White men are supreme but only because they are innately more evil than indigenous peoples.; 7/24/26, 8:47 AM
Temujin said...: Not sure that I buy this. There were many Native American tribes who would attack those moving into their 'hunting grounds'. Or simply attacking early white pioneers into the southern plains or what is now Texas. The Comanches would attack anyone entering their territory. They may not have considered it their 'land', but they surely considered whatever they called it, 'theirs'. And I doubt very much they considered 'reciprocity' when it came to the land around them.
And none of them had any compunction at stealing other people. People were an asset to be used or sold.

And the concept of owning land is not just a 'Western' idea. It is a concept that has historically been known throughout Asia and the Middle East, and Africa. This nobler than thou narrative might have applied to some native American tribes. But it is not a common mindset among more developed communities of people where ownership of property is among the most treasured rights an individual can have.

What we did to the Native Americans is appalling and was wrong in so many ways. But I'm not sure saying a rote acknowledgement either assuages the white guilt so many on the left walk around with, nor makes things any better for the native Americans who suffered the historic atrocity.

It happened. We can teach our youth (and ourselves) what took place before us, but our spoken guilt, by government edict, seems ridiculous at best at this point.; 7/24/26, 8:47 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: The origin of Baton Rouge, LA:

"From there [Manchacq] we went five leagues higher and found very high banks called écorts in that region, and in savage called Istrouma which means red stick [bâton rouge], *as at this place there is a post painted red that the savages have sunk there to mark the land line between the two nations, namely: the land of the Bayagoulas which they were leaving and the land of another nation—thirty leagues upstream from the baton rouge—named the Oumas.*"; 7/24/26, 8:48 AM
Dude1394 said...: Man what a crock. You don’t think the Comanche thought of the vast swath of the west they controlled as theirs. Try traveling through it.; 7/24/26, 9:23 AM
baghdadbob said...: The absence of an historical written language allows African & pre-Columbian Indigenous People to be romanticized as peaceful, spiritual folks. With no written historical record, Cannibalism, Human Sacrifice, Territorial Battles, Slavery & Bloody Torturous Warfare can be ignored, as if they weren't commonplace.; 7/24/26, 9:28 AM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: The area dominated by the Comanche in the 18th and early 19th centuries was known as the Comancheria.

6

Comancheria was not a formally recognized country with fixed borders, but rather the vast region where the Comanche exercised military, political, and economic control. At its height (roughly 1750–1850), it encompassed:

Most of western and central Texas
Eastern New Mexico
Southeastern Colorado
Southwestern Kansas
Western Oklahoma
Parts of the Texas Panhandle

This territory covered approximately 250,000 square miles (650,000 km²), making it one of the largest Native-controlled regions in North America.

Why was Comancheria so powerful?

The Comanche became perhaps the finest horse culture in North America after acquiring horses from the Spanish in the late 1600s. Their advantages included:

Exceptional horsemanship
Highly mobile mounted warriors
Large buffalo herds that sustained their economy
Extensive trade networks with Spanish, Mexican, and American settlements
The ability to conduct raids hundreds of miles from their home territory

For much of the 18th and early 19th centuries, Spain, Mexico, and later the Republic of Texas had to negotiate with the Comanche because they lacked the military strength to defeat them outright.

What happened to Comancheria?

Its decline occurred primarily between the 1850s and 1870s due to several factors:

U.S. Army campaigns after the Civil War
The destruction of the southern buffalo herds
Disease, including smallpox and cholera
Increasing settlement by Americans
Defeat in the Red River War

By 1875, most Comanche people had been forced onto the Fort Sill reservation, effectively ending Comancheria as an independent Native-controlled region.

Many historians describe Comancheria as a Native American empire, because the Comanche dominated neighboring tribes, controlled trade routes, and compelled Spain, Mexico, Texas, and the United States to negotiate with them for decades.; 7/24/26, 9:48 AM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: The Mahicans lived along the upper Hudson River in present-day New York and western Massachusetts. Their primary Native American rivals were the Mohawk, the easternmost nation of the Haudenosaunee.

Why did they fight?

The main reasons were:

Control of the fur trade. European demand for beaver pelts made access to hunting grounds and trade with Dutch merchants extremely valuable.
Territory. Both peoples claimed lands near the upper Hudson Valley.
Political influence. Each sought alliances with European traders and neighboring tribes.
What happened?

During the Beaver Wars (roughly the mid-1600s):

The Mohawk, who had acquired European firearms through trade with the Dutch, gained a military advantage.
The Mahicans were defeated in a series of conflicts, especially by the 1620s–1660s.
The Mahicans were forced to move eastward into western Massachusetts and Connecticut.; 7/24/26, 9:54 AM
FWBuff said...: “This land is your land,
This land is my land,
From California
To the New York Islands.
From the redwood forests
To the Gulf Stream waters,
This land was made for you and me.”; 7/24/26, 9:58 AM
Anthony said...: I thought we were done with this sort of crap. It's demonstrably false.

In the early-mid 20th century, scholars were convinced (or convincing themselves) that the Maya were a society of peaceful people led by wise astronomer-kings. This while wall paintings showing captives being killed were staring them in the face. Happily, once people started deciphering the texts everyone came around to the truth that they were as warlike as any European society.

The capacity for self-delusion, especially among so-called intellectuals, is nearly boundless.; 7/24/26, 10:11 AM
n.n said...: The evolution of indigenous Americans through genocide, redistributive change, and unchecked Asian migration.; 7/24/26, 10:25 AM
Dagwood said...: I recently attended a concert by a military band that began with a brief 'land acknowledgement'. But then something special happened. Members of the Kiowa Black Leggings Warrior Society - all of whom are military veterans - came onto the stage serving as color guard and led us in the pledge of allegiance.; 7/24/26, 10:28 AM
Hassayamper said...: *** Claims that today's "indigenous" have rights to it are based on a theory of inheritance that nobody believes. ****

I'll start taking the Left's sermonizing about native land rights seriously at about the same time they agree that the Crusades were a morally justified defensive war and it's time to run the Turks out of Constantinople.; 7/24/26, 10:49 AM
Smilin' Jack said...: "Please Don’t Thank Us for the Land"

Why would we? We got it the same way you did. We took it.; 7/24/26, 10:49 AM
MadisonMan said...: Land Acknowledgments always struck me as sticking the knife in and twisting it: "Nyah Nyah, we took your land. Here's a reminder". In other words, empty words blathered out before a meeting or conference, signifying absolutely nothing.; 7/24/26, 10:50 AM
Jake said...: No problem. You didn't give the land to anyone. It was adversely possessed. Perhaps if you had developed those concepts and others you wouldn't find yourself clinging to the past and feeling victimized.; 7/24/26, 10:51 AM
Biff said...: Do you really think you own your own property? Tell that to the municipal collector of property taxes, and learn who ultimately owns it. You just own a temporary license to use the feudal sovereign's property.; 7/24/26, 11:00 AM
Earnest Prole said...: DNA is now capable of revealing the innumerable times a male population swept into a new territory, killing all the males there and breeding with the females. That was the norm in human history until quite recently.

For an entertaining primer, google the YouTube video ‘David Reich Unknown Ancestors’. As he states succinctly, “The people who lived in any one place a thousand years ago or five thousand years ago are almost never directly ancestral to the people who live in that place today.”

That is true whether your people hail from Europe, Africa, Asia, or the New World.

Put differently, your ancestors were all rapist settler colonialists, regardless of whether they were white, black, yellow, or indigenous.

Science is real.; 7/24/26, 11:10 AM
Mame said...: Author holds the illogical position that the natives didn’t own the land but somehow the whitey stole it from them.; 7/24/26, 11:13 AM
Justabill said...: I live in an area where one tribe decimated and drove out another tribe over trapping and trading disputes. Who knows what might have happened if land ownership had been at stake.; 7/24/26, 11:27 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: Who truly believes that the "Noble Red Man" was a "steward of the land". Just more liberal clap trap. People living on the land, wherever it is or whatever it is, have historically taken advantage of (burned it, ate it, used if) whatever resources were there.; 7/24/26, 11:30 AM
Yeah Right Sure said...: Why would I thank you for the land? You got it, sweetie.

We took it. Fair and square. Just like your ancestors did from whomever was on that patch of dirt prior.; 7/24/26, 11:43 AM
Rocco said...: Ron Winkleheimer said...
The area dominated by the Comanche in the 18th and early 19th centuries was known as the Comancheria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comancheria#/media/File:Comancheria.png; 7/24/26, 12:05 PM
Steve said...: The natives would decide real fast what their territory was when a rival tribe was on their hunting grounds.; 7/24/26, 12:20 PM
mccullough said...: Injun tribes killed each other over land. The Crowcreek massacre predates the arrival of Whitey by centuries.

Let’s start acknowledging how savage they were.; 7/24/26, 12:28 PM
RideSpaceMountain said...: I used to have this argument with my wife all the time until I won (I usually do). Boil it all down and it really comes down to *Europeans got there first*. It's not jealousy per se, more ethnic soul searching about what might have been with just a bit more gumption now that it's been done and everyone lives in that future world of realized 'Columbian' potential.

Moreover, Columbus could've been another ZhengHe, another wasted opportunity, but it took vision - and the British - to realize just what shrunk distance actually meant.

We got there first. We got there best. They'll never forgive us.; 7/24/26, 1:05 PM
MadTownGuy said...: Humperdink said...
[“The concept of territory is a completely Western idea.”]

"Not to the Seneca tribe in western N.Y. They crushed the surrounding tribes and subjugated them. They maintain a foot print here. They are finally getting even with the white man - they built a giant casino in Salamanca."

Tax War Between New York State, Indians Heats Up, Blocks Traffic (July 17, 1992)

"A tax war between Seneca Indians and New York state grew more divisive Thursday as Indians dropped burning tires off a highway overpass and clashed with state police.

Thirteen protesters were arrested early Thursday and seven people, including four state troopers, were injured.

More than 200 extra troopers were sent to the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation about 30 miles south of Buffalo, Sgt. Gregory Lang said.

The protest focuses on sales taxes. Sales to Indians on reservations are exempt from state taxes, but the state wants businesses on the reservations to collect taxes from non-Indians on gasoline and cigarette sales. The tribes say that will cut their business and interfere with their sovereignty."

Indians, Tea Partying. History rhymed again.; 7/24/26, 1:42 PM
NKP said...: It people existing in USA before arrival of Europeans did not believe in ownership of property, what's with claims to control use of millions of acres containing a few "sacred" burial sites?; 7/24/26, 2:15 PM
pious agnostic said...: They say that something is a "completely Western idea" as if that's a BAD thing, instead of a very, very, GOOD thing.; 7/24/26, 3:48 PM
Clyde said...: Give me a break! "The concept of territory was a Western concept" until some other tribe tried to come onto their land. Tribes fought other tribes and dispossessed them and drove them out before the Europeans arrived on this continent, so don't try to give the noble savage story.; 7/24/26, 4:10 PM
chuck said...: I expect the Native People have a good understanding of conquest. It is ancient, and the natives were well practiced in the art.; 7/24/26, 4:42 PM
Craig Howard said...: Not to the Seneca tribe in western N.Y.

The Senecas in alliance with the Iroquois conquered the Erie tribe and murdered every last man, woman, and child. Noble, no. But savage.; 7/24/26, 5:14 PM
Aggie said...: I have to admit, it does seem odd to me that entire groups of conquered peoples want the modern concept of land ownership, which has evolved as a matter of legal evolution to protect the rights and principles of private ownership, to now be apologized for, and further, that their former claims be recognized, whatever they were. But claims for what? Ownership?

'....Because the ritual still treats land as something that can be owned, it names the theft while leaving the idea of ownership untouched. .....'

How can you take away something by 'theft', if it isn't owned? Haven't we been over this before?; 7/24/26, 5:15 PM
Mason G said...: "How can you take away something by 'theft', if it isn't owned? Haven't we been over this before?"

These are people who can't define "woman", so there's that...; 7/24/26, 5:24 PM
Lazarus said...: "Western" here seems to mean what used to be called "civilized." East Indians, Chinese, and Japanese must have had concepts of property. So did the Mesopotamians before "Western civilization" was even a thing.

The only answer I can give to this is that there was no one "Indian" or "native American" way. There were general ideas of territoriality and some groups took that further than others.; 7/24/26, 5:56 PM
Blair said...: My policy on Land Acknowledgments is to believe the claims of anyone making them, and therefore full expectation that said dirty White liberal commie should return said land to the acknowledgees.; 7/24/26, 6:50 PM