Democrat-run cities (be it small cities like my own of about 50,000 residents or much larger cities) often focus on what they perceive as past wrongs. For example, we have official land acknowledgments (recitations before meetings and posted on websites) recognizing that land presently occupied by the city was historically taken from pre-existing inhabitants and tribes, including “Native” American tribes.
Read more Jumping to conclusions
It’s a given that we shouldn’t diminish the suffering, displacement, or historical hardships experienced by pre-existing communities. Nor should we deny the reality that conflict, conquest, and dispossession occurred throughout American history. However, this governmental recitation at city council, board of education, and other meetings is divisive in practice, psychologically counterproductive, selectively applied, and inconsistent with the equal-treatment principles that should guide public institutions.
First, from a psychological and civic standpoint, compelled or ceremonial acknowledgments of ancestral wrongdoing risk fostering collective guilt instead of constructive civic engagement. Modern residents neither committed the historical acts at issue nor possessed the power to prevent them. Government-sponsored recitations that repeatedly associate current citizens with historical injustice may encourage resentment, shame, defensiveness, and social fragmentation instead of reconciliation. A healthy civic culture should unite residents around shared present-day responsibilities and mutual respect, rather than continuously categorizing people as historical oppressors and victims based upon events occurring generations before their birth.
Moreover, societies function best when public institutions emphasize common citizenship, equal dignity, and shared aspirations. Public rituals centered on inherited historical blame can unintentionally deepen tribalism, encourage grievance-based identity politics, and erode the principle that all citizens stand on equal moral footing before their government.
Second, a land acknowledgment creates a substantial inequity because it selectively recognizes only one category of historical injustice while ignoring numerous other groups that also experienced severe mistreatment, displacement, discrimination, violence, or state-sanctioned injustice throughout American history.
If a city intends to formally recognize historical wrongs, on what principled basis does it limit recognition solely to dispossession of pre-existing communities and tribes? American history contains many other painful chapters. Government should avoid becoming an arbiter of comparative historical suffering.
Third, there is a meaningful distinction between education and compelled civic ritual. Historical education belongs appropriately in schools, museums, scholarships, public discourse, and voluntary cultural programs, where historical complexity can be discussed honestly and thoroughly. A government-recited acknowledgment, however, transforms contested historical interpretation into an official civic orthodoxy. Citizens should not be pressured to participate in ideological or moral declarations as a condition of civic participation.
Additionally, these acknowledgments often oversimplify history. Indigenous tribes themselves engaged in territorial conflict, conquest, alliances, and displacement long before the formation of the United States. Reducing centuries of complicated historical interactions into a simplified ceremonial statement risks promoting political symbolism over nuanced historical understanding.
Read more From the alley to the Heaviside Layer: AI, redemption, and the human need for transcendence
Fourth, in my own southern California city, the Democrat-majority city council is debating reciting a land acknowledgment at every meeting before attendees recite the Pledge of Allegiance. What stands out to me is a troubling inconsistency when the proposed land acknowledgment is viewed against the prior misconduct of one city council member. During the last election cycle, this council member failed to recognize or meaningfully empathize with concerns raised by members of the Jewish community regarding the scheduling of political campaigning during the 2024 City Festival on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. That scheduling decision disproportionately impacted two of the three candidates in one district, both of whom are practicing Jews.
Rather than acknowledging that the City Festival Committee had made a serious error in permitting political activities on such a significant religious observance, this council member publicly argued from the dais that the affected Jewish candidates retained the “choice” whether to participate. He further suggested that preventing all candidates from campaigning on Yom Kippur would somehow unfairly prejudice non-Jewish candidates. Such reasoning demonstrated a profound lack of sensitivity toward the religious obligations and concerns of Jewish residents and candidates alike.
To date, despite my prior written requests, this council member, who is up for re-election, has failed to issue any apology, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, or meaningful expression of regret regarding these events. Before this council undertakes symbolic efforts to address alleged historical transgressions that occurred generations ago, it should first confront and remedy conduct that occurred less than two years ago involving its own current member.
A government body seeking moral authority to lecture residents regarding historical injustices should first demonstrate a willingness to address modern acts of insensitivity and unequal treatment toward its Jewish residents occurring within its own institution — not to prioritize acknowledgment and apologies for wrongs committed centuries ago by ancestors no longer related or otherwise affiliated with the community.
Rather than focus on land acknowledgments, shouldn’t local government resources and attention remain focused on the practical needs of current residents? Symbolic historical declarations may generate controversy and division without producing tangible improvements in the lives of Native American communities or any other residents.
If a city council, board of education, or other government agency wishes to recognize Native American history, there are more constructive and unifying approaches. These suggestions would educate without assigning inherited moral culpability or creating unequal governmental recognition among different groups.
- Voluntary educational programming.
- Collaboration with the local board of education for inclusion in history curricula.
- Support for local historical preservation efforts.
- Cultural partnerships.
- Scholarships.
- Museum exhibits.
- Collaborative community initiatives.
Finally, official land acknowledgments are not necessary. Instead, government should strive to treat all residents equally, promote social cohesion, and encourage unity based upon shared citizenship and common purpose. That would be a better acknowledgment.
Read more You can’t have two winners in sports
Image via Pexels.