Smithsonian's 'Stolen Land' Narrative Is Biased, Not Neutral History
Source: John Fonte. "Smithsonian Has No Business Saying America Is Built On 'Stolen Land'." September 8, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Smithsonian is unfairly telling visitors that America was built on 'stolen land' and was founded through genocide, when this is really a one-sided political narrative dressed up as neutral history. He points out that history is messier than this simple story—indigenous tribes also took land from each other—and suggests the Smithsonian should instead honor the pioneers, settlers, and various groups (including Native American allies) who built America.
Conclusion
The Smithsonian Institution is wrong to promote a 'stolen land' narrative and land acknowledgements characterizing America's founding as genocidal and illegitimate, since this is a biased, weaponized political position rather than neutral, nuanced history.
Premises
- Smithsonian leaders (Bunch, Hartig) claim to present neutral, unbiased history, but their actual content (e.g., 'The Indian Problem' video) explicitly asserts the U.S. committed genocide against American Indians.
- The term 'genocide' has a specific legal definition requiring intentional, planned extermination of a group, and the Smithsonian curator's assertion ('We know that there was') bypasses proper historical argumentation.
- Land acknowledgements used by the Smithsonian imply that tribes still own the land (referring to 'their territories' in the present tense), which logically suggests Americans are illegitimately occupying the country.
- This 'stolen land' framing has become institutionalized elsewhere, as shown by the NEA's guide instructing teachers to use terms like 'genocide,' 'ethnic cleansing,' and 'stolen land' in acknowledgements.
- Historical analysis of specific cases (e.g., the Black Hills, taken by the Lakota from the Cheyenne and Crow, who took it from the Kiowa) shows that land conquest and displacement among indigenous groups themselves was common, undermining a simplistic settler-versus-native 'stolen land' narrative.
- The White House's own critique ('Saving America's Story') corroborates that the Smithsonian frames America's founding as fundamentally oppressive and genocidal.
- The purpose of this narrative, per Hartig's own language about wanting to 'problematize' the founding, is to delegitimize historic America as part of a broader effort to 'fundamentally transform' the nation.
Assumptions
- A national museum should present history that emphasizes national pride and legitimacy rather than emphasizing historical wrongs or complexity.
- Acknowledging that some land was taken from indigenous peoples through conquest or coercion is equivalent to broadly delegitimizing the nation's founding, rather than being one true fact among many.
- Because indigenous groups also displaced one another, this diminishes or cancels out the moral or historical significance of European colonization and U.S. expansion into indigenous lands.
- The Smithsonian's use of terms like 'genocide' and its promotion of land acknowledgements are primarily politically motivated rather than reflecting genuine (if contested) historical scholarship.
- A single video, curator's quote, and land acknowledgement practice are representative of the Smithsonian's overall institutional stance and educational content.
- Present-tense language in land acknowledgements ('their territories') necessarily implies an ongoing property claim rather than being a customary rhetorical/ceremonial convention.