Listen to the article
Kentucky Senate Candidate Criticizes “Land Acknowledgments” as Misleading and Anti-American
A Kentucky businessman seeking to replace retiring Senator Mitch McConnell has sparked controversy with his strong criticism of the practice of “land acknowledgments,” calling them misleading and “anti-American.”
Nate Morris, a multimillionaire and former CEO of Rubicon, one of Kentucky’s largest software companies, released a video on social media platform X arguing that America was “negotiated for” and “fought over,” rather than stolen as some progressive activists claim. Morris described the trend as “one more left-wing attempt to weaken America from within.”
“We bought Alaska from Russia and the Louisiana Purchase was purchased from France,” Morris stated in the video. “We negotiated, traded and signed treaties covering millions of acres. Compare that to how Europe, Asia, or the Middle East shifted borders for thousands of years… the left wants to judge America by standards no other nation in history could meet.”
Morris also challenged what he sees as historical inaccuracies in how some tribes are portrayed during land acknowledgments. “The Apache and the Sioux – they weren’t into Disney movies – they were warrior nations. The Comanche were cave dwellers in Wyoming until they got horses and conquered half of the United States,” he noted.
The Senate hopeful added that people who claim America was “stolen” rather than “conquered” are attempting to “rewrite history” or “make America weaker.”
Land acknowledgments—formal statements recognizing Indigenous peoples as traditional stewards of lands where events take place—have become increasingly common at academic, cultural, and political gatherings across the United States in recent years. Supporters view them as a way to recognize historical injustices and promote reconciliation, while critics like Morris consider them divisive and historically oversimplified.
The practice gained national attention earlier this year when the Democratic National Committee (DNC) opened a high-profile meeting in Minneapolis with a land acknowledgment. During that ceremony, Lindy Sowmick, Treasurer for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota, stated that the U.S. perpetuates a system of suppression against Indigenous peoples.
Interestingly, criticism of land acknowledgments has emerged from within Democratic circles as well. Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville blasted the DNC’s use of the practice, pleading, “Please stop this, in the name of a just, merciful God. Don’t you see what’s happening? Don’t you see where this has brought us to?”
Liberal talk show host Bill Maher also weighed in on the trend earlier this year, saying, “Democrats, if you ever want to win an election again, the absolute most important first step is to stop doing this.” Maher added provocatively, “Either give the land back or shut the f—k up.”
Morris’s candidacy for McConnell’s seat comes at a time of evolving Republican politics in Kentucky. As a businessman positioning himself as an “America First” candidate, Morris represents part of the changing guard within the GOP as McConnell, a traditional establishment Republican who served as Senate Majority Leader for six years, prepares to leave office.
The debate over land acknowledgments highlights broader cultural tensions that continue to influence American politics. While some view them as necessary recognitions of historical wrongs, others, like Morris, see them as divisive gestures that misrepresent American history and potentially damage national unity.
As the race to replace McConnell heats up, Morris’s stance on cultural issues like land acknowledgments will likely be one of many factors Kentucky voters consider when determining who will represent them in the U.S. Senate.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
I can appreciate the candidate’s attempt to provide historical context, but some of the claims seem oversimplified. The realities of land acquisition and Native relations in America are far more complicated. I hope the debate on this issue can be thoughtful and fact-based.
While the candidate raises valid points about the complexities of America’s land history, I’m concerned the rhetoric risks minimizing the very real harms and injustices experienced by Native populations. This is a sensitive topic that requires nuance and empathy, not political grandstanding.
I find the candidate’s perspective interesting, but I’m not fully convinced. The realities of land acquisition and Native relations in America are highly complex, with much room for debate. I hope this discussion can remain civil and focused on facts rather than rhetoric.
The candidate makes a fair observation that America’s land dealings were more nuanced than simple ‘theft’. However, the treatment of Native populations was still often unjust and damaging. It’s a complex issue that deserves thoughtful, balanced dialogue rather than partisan rhetoric.
You’re right, this is a nuanced topic that requires careful and respectful discussion from all sides. Oversimplifying or inflaming the rhetoric is unlikely to lead to productive solutions.
The candidate makes some reasonable observations, but I worry this video could further inflame partisan divides rather than promote constructive dialogue. These are sensitive historical issues that deserve careful, impartial analysis – not political point-scoring.
This candidate raises some interesting points about the complex history of land acquisition in the US. While the narrative of land ‘theft’ can be oversimplified, it’s also important to acknowledge the often fraught and uneven power dynamics involved. A nuanced discussion of these topics is warranted.