The Liberal Conceit of Indigenous Land Acknowledgment

I went to the Seattle Symphony Friday evening for a Pops concert of "Latin Fire," conducted by Mexican-born Enrico Lopez-Yañez. It was great fun, with lots of trumpeting from Costa Rican José Sibaja, ending with a suite from Carmen, with Enrico playing the part of the bull.

But before the concert began, an announcer made an Indigenous Land Acknowledgment, along the lines of:

The Seattle Symphony acknowledges that we gather on Indigenous land: the traditional territory of Coast Salish peoples, specifically the Duwamish Tribe (Dkhw Duw’Absh).

(Only the announcer did not try to pronounce "Dkhw Duw’Absh", bless his heart).

And during the concert Lopez-Yañez made a point of emphasizing that the so-called Latin music we were listening to was partly of indigenous origin.

But I cannot understand why our liberal friends, at the beginning of every mostly peaceful protest, do not make an American Land Acknowledgement on the lines of:

We peaceful protesters acknowledge that we gather on American land: the amber waves of grain above the fruited plain from sea to shining sea, once the traditional territory of the American People.

Now that would be a virtue-signal for the ages.

Let us analyze this Indigenous Land Acknowledgement thing from two perspectives.

If you are an Ally of Oppressed Peoples fighting against the White Oppressors, then the Indigenous Land Acknowledgement is a ringing war cry of the Ally to fight for justice.

If you are a racist-sexist-homophobic reader of Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed in which the world is divided up into the Anointed, the Benighted, and the Mascots, you would hatefully assume that the Indigenous Land Acknowledgement was made by someone Anointed with the sacred oil of government education about some regime-approved Mascot group, tame supporters of the regime.

Who is right? You make the call.

But let us ask a question or two:

Are our liberal friends proposing to give back the territories of the Coast Salish peoples to the Duwamish tribe? Er, no.

Are our liberal friends proposing to pay reparations to the Duwamish tribe for the rape of the territory of the Coast Salish peoples and the Duwamish women? Not with their own money. But they might very well tax the American people for those reparations.

Is the mayor of Seattle, Bruce Harrell, going to surrender his office to a Duwamish tribe member? Maybe he is exempt, because he has enough diversity Pokemon points as the child of an "African American father who worked for Seattle City Light and a Japanese American mother who worked for the Seattle Public Library" to be counted as Indigent Adjacent.

Is the Governor of the State of Washington, Jay Inslee, of "English and Welsh descent," going to surrender his office to a nominee of the Coast Salish peoples?

However, I wouldn't put it past our Anointed liberal masters here in Washington State to sign over some Benighted suburban land -- despoiled by F-150 drivers guilty of disinformation -- over to the Duwamish tribal Mascots. I mean, in the next few years there is going to be a lot of property surrendered by "threat actors" identified by the nation's Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for MDM (mis-, dis-, mal-information) violations. Who else should it go to, but to the indigenous?

By the way, you CISA chaps, how does your MDM AI algorithm differentiate between disinformation and irony and sarcasm and satire?

But here is my question. Why? Why are our liberal friends so concerned about the indigenous? The Brits don't worry about crushing the French in the Napoleonic Wars. It was time to put France in its place. We Yanks don't worry about crushing the Germans in WWI and WWII. That'll teach them to have leaders with wacky mustaches and be mean to the Jews. The Duwamish tribe doesn't worry about the pre-indigenous tribe that they conquered and displaced on the shores of Puget Sound.

And our liberal friends sure as heckfire don't worry about the white working class dying deaths of despair out there in flyover country.

I think it comes down to the Mascot issue. Our liberal friends care about Mascots, but only the Mascots licensed and bonded by Activist Central. Indigenous? Check. Transgender? Check. BLM? Check. Homeless? Check. Clarence Thomas? Uncheck. White crackers? Uncheck.

Also, I think there is a gender factor to consider. For progressive men, where honor is courage, you fight the evil oppressor enemy or die trying. Thus the Allyship instinct of fighting for the Oppressed Peoples against the White Oppressors. For progressive women, where honor is chastity (being a Good Little Girl), you feel sorry for the helpless victim. So you experience yourself as one of the Anointed good girls that have nothing to do with the Benighted girls and you share the tears and the lived experience of the Mascot girls.

I wonder what the next Mascot will be for the liberal ladies. How about Hindu Dalits? Whaddya think, Pichai?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Image: Skokloster Castle 

If you experience technical problems, please write to