Nate Morris, a Kentucky businessman and former CEO, is taking a stand against what he terms the left’s “woke trend” of land acknowledgments. In a recent video posted to X, he argued that these gestures misrepresent American history and serve as a tool to undermine the nation. Morris stated, “America was negotiated for and fought over,” rejecting any suggestion that it was simply “stolen.” He cites historical facts like the U.S. purchasing Alaska from Russia and the Louisiana Purchase from France to support his view. Drawing a stark distinction, he points out, “Compare that to how Europe, Asia, or the Middle East shifted borders for thousands of years.”
Morris’s assertion that land acknowledgments reflect a misguided understanding of history raises important questions about how history is interpreted and presented. He contends that the left’s framing lacks context and fails to honor the complexities of American territorial expansion. “The left wants to judge America by standards no other nation in history could meet,” he argued, signaling a deep frustration with the narrative he believes weakens the country’s foundation.
Furthermore, Morris challenges the knowledge of those advocating for these acknowledgments. He critiques their understanding of American Indian history, arguing that many do not recognize the conflicts and power dynamics that shaped this land. He notes that tribes like the Apache and Comanche were warrior nations, not merely symbolic figures in a politically correct narrative. “Heck, even the Comanche were cave dwellers in Wyoming until they got horses and conquered half of the United States,” he quipped, emphasizing the dramatic changes in American history.
Morris emphasizes that anyone who claims America was stolen is either trying to “rewrite history” or to “make America weaker.” His argument champions the idea that the nation was built on principles of private industry and a commitment to law and order, commonly associated with the notion of manifest destiny. He believes fervently that understanding this history is essential to fortifying American identity.
The conversation surrounding land acknowledgments is not limited to Morris’s assertions. Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville recently criticized the Democratic National Committee for opening a meeting with a land acknowledgment, arguing that such gestures have electoral consequences. “Please stop this, in the name of a just, merciful God,” Carville proclaimed, highlighting a growing unease among even some Democrats regarding the effectiveness of this trend. He candidly questioned what the party leadership, represented by DNC chairman Ken Martin, was thinking, underscoring the idea that political gestures must resonate with the electorate to be effective.
Bill Maher, a liberal talk show host, also weighed in, expressing concerns that the focus on land acknowledgments might alienate voters. His utmost recommendation was straightforward: “Democrats, if you ever want to win an election again, the absolute most important first step is to stop doing this.” Maher further admonished, “Either give the land back or shut the f—k up,” revealing a starkly blunt perspective on the discourse surrounding these acknowledgments.
In a rapidly evolving political landscape, the discussions around land acknowledgments—whether supported or opposed—raise critical reflections on American identity and history. Morris, Carville, and Maher, each from their vantage points, illustrate the contention surrounding these actions, intertwining them with broader electoral strategies and cultural narratives. Their statements reflect a deep concern that failure to grasp the complexity of history may lead to missteps in political strategy, ultimately influencing the future of party dynamics across the nation.
"*" indicates required fields
