They Mocked a Land Acknowledgment. What They’re Really Mocking Is the Truth.

Opinion

The dedication of the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago’s South Side this past Thursday brought back welcome reminders of the accomplishments of the first Black president of the United States.

It rekindled memories of a not-so-distant time when that president spoke of inclusion in a nation that has wrestled with racism since its founding.

The dedication also reminded us of a time when a president could disagree with another’s policies yet still show respect without resorting to name-calling or childish nicknames. The proof was visible in the audience: former President George W. Bush, a Republican, seated alongside former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. They came together to support former President Barack Obama. It was a moment that reminded us that civility was once possible within the small fraternity of U.S. presidents.

For me, the dedication provided a stark contrast between a presidency that inspired hope and rallied the nation around the message, “Yes, we can,” and the current administration, which is defined by daily insults, falsehoods and a far-fetched blame game.

For a brief moment, the ceremony offered a glimpse of a different era—one in which political differences did not require personal attacks and leadership was measured by the ability to unite rather than divide.

Unfortunately, the dedication also provided the right-wing conservative machine with a new target: a land acknowledgment delivered by Valerie Jarrett, chief executive officer of the Obama Foundation and former senior advisor to President Obama.

Jarrett said:

“We’d also like to take a moment to recognize the original inhabitants of the land upon which we are gathered today. We honor the Anishinaabe, the Council of Three Fires, the Ojibwe, the Odawa, and the Potawatomi nations.”

Predictably, right-wing commentators rolled their eyes, mocked the acknowledgment, and repeated a familiar refrain: “If you really believe the land belongs to Native Americans, give it back.”

It is a line designed for social media applause. It sounds clever. It sounds devastating.

It is neither.

What these critics are actually mocking is not a land acknowledgment. They are mocking history.

For generations, many of these same voices have fought efforts to teach honest American history. They oppose discussions about systemic racism. They object when schools teach the realities of slavery. They resist conversations about the forced removal of Native people, broken treaties, Indian boarding schools and the genocide of our ancestors.

Now they are offended because someone dared to publicly acknowledge who lived on the land before Chicago became Chicago. As a Potawatomi man, I felt honored even though I live in Michigan and my three adult children live in Chicago.

The irony is impossible to miss.

A land acknowledgment is not a property deed. It is not a legal claim. It is not an eviction notice. It is a simple act of historical truth-telling. It recognizes that Indigenous Nations existed long before the United States and that many of those Nations were dispossessed through federal policies that many historians, courts, and even government officials acknowledge were unjust.

Why is that so threatening?

The answer may be that land acknowledgments challenge a version of American history some people desperately want to preserve—a version in which westward expansion was inevitable, conquest was noble, and Native peoples simply disappeared.

Native people did not disappear.

We are still here.

The descendants of those who signed treaties with the United States are still here. The descendants of those forced from their homelands are still here. The descendants of those who survived Indian boarding schools are still here.

And that fact appears to make some people uncomfortable.

Conservative critics often argue that land acknowledgments are performative. Sometimes they are right. Acknowledgment without action can become empty symbolism. Indigenous people have every right to ask whether institutions are backing their words with meaningful partnerships, investments, and respect for tribal sovereignty.

But that is not the argument many of these commentators are making.

Instead, they ridicule the very act of acknowledgment itself. They mock the idea that Native history deserves recognition. They treat Indigenous peoples as props in a culture war rather than as living nations with ongoing political, legal, and cultural relationships to the United States.

The “give it back” argument is especially revealing.

Most Native people understand that no one is handing over downtown Chicago, Manhattan, or Washington, D.C. tomorrow morning. The purpose of a land acknowledgment is not to erase modern America. It is to recognize that modern America was built upon Indigenous homelands.

Those are facts.

The same commentators who insist Americans should honor history whenever Confederate monuments are debated suddenly become allergic to history when Native people enter the conversation.

Apparently, some history is sacred and some history is inconvenient.

The deeper problem is that Indigenous peoples are still expected to remain silent about our own experiences. We are expected to celebrate American greatness while ignoring the costs that Native nations paid to make that greatness possible.

That expectation is changing.

As the nation marks its 250th anniversary, Americans are increasingly willing to confront the full story of the country’s founding and expansion. That story includes remarkable achievements. It also includes broken treaties, land theft, forced removals, and generations of federal policies designed to eliminate Native cultures.

Recognizing those truths does not weaken America.

It strengthens it.

A mature nation should not fear the truth. A confident people should not be threatened by historical facts. And a democracy committed to justice should not ridicule those whose histories were ignored for generations.

The mockery directed at the Obama Presidential Center’s land acknowledgment says far more about the critics than it does about Native people.

Because in the end, acknowledging history requires very little.

It requires honesty. And for some people, honesty remains the hardest part.

Thayék gde nwéndëmen – We are all related.

Related