Honestly, I would have more respect for people who do land acknowledgements if they tried to give the land back. I don't think they should (because I believe that we shouldn't attempt to fix the sins of those who are long since dead), but at least then they would be attempting to walk the walk. Right now it comes off very poorly because people go "this land belongs to the natives" and then happily continue to possess it as if saying "well you own this technically" makes everything alright.
> I believe that we shouldn't attempt to fix the sins of those who are long since dead
I mean, we should try where it's possible and reasonable and the impact is ongoing. When a bunch of long dead people passed a law saying that women can't own property we were right to later correct that sin. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be trapped by the horrible choices of the dead. We just have to be careful about when and how we try to correct the wrongs of the past.
You must be well impressed with Gough Whitlam and Eddie Mabo et al then.
> to fix the sins of those who are long since dead
A good number of land right issues and acts of racism began with those long dead and continued forward under the actions of generations that followed, perpetuated in some form by some still living.
In a US context there are still current acts of administration that impact native title and rights to reservations that are current and contentious.
