[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm not missing the point at all.

You say this, yet the next paragraph clearly demonstrates you don't understand it.

There are layers of meaning in land acknowledgements and the layer that bothers me the most is the one where my kids need to implicitly apologize for existing on land that is not their own.

This isn't implied by land acknowledgements. It's you attaching your own narratives to it.

This isn't their home; they're interlopers. They have to thank people from hundreds of years ago for "allowing" them on their land, even though that "permission" comes with a never-ending guilt trip.

This can vary from based on where the LA/TA is taking place but, in many circumstances, it's on unceded territory. I agree that "thanking" them is dumb, but probably for different reasons than you do. I think it's dumb because it's dumb to thank someone for something that was stolen from them in the first place. It'd be like my stealing my neighbour's TV and then thanking him for all the sports I get to watch on it.

That doesn't mean your kids should have to feel guilty. It's simply acknowledging the history of the land. It's also an ongoing occupation of these lands in many instances. Would you prefer a more sanitized version of history and current affairs for your kids?

I think it's unhealthy for young people and certainly unfair.

Sorry, these are children. They shouldn't have to 'acknowledge' somebody else's former ownership of land just to exist.

This sounds like the argument GOP parents make about not teaching the lasting impacts of slavery in schools because it makes the white kids feel guilty.