I think this is a mischaracterization of both my post here as well as the general attitude of leftists towards this issue. I don’t take issue with someone who isn’t white talking about the experiences and political goals relevant to them. I take issue with liberals making a land acknowledgment as a means of rinsing their conscious and postering themselves as allies to marginalized people, when liberalism itself is antithetical to the advancement of marginalized people. An indigenous person saying “you’re on unceded territory” is way different than a white person saying “you’re on unceded territory” — I’m taking issue with the latter because it’s the latter that’s the problem when in passive voice. Such a person isn’t sacrificing anything anyway. And so it’s egregious to me that, given that’s the reality, they can’t even be inconvenienced to actually point a finger toward the legitimate enemy in a such a moment. Like even doing that very small, minimum effort thing to put a spotlight on why the territory is unceded, would apparently cause them too much discomfort and would break this conscious-rinsing social paradigm. Generally it’s white people, it’s liberals, etc making land acknowledgments to other white people and liberals. And I don’t think a land acknowledgment is a silly thing in itself, I just think they’re being disingenuously utilized to shore up the status quo even more. And I’d say that is what the vast majority of leftists correctly think on this issue

I haven't met a leftist, white or otherwise, that does that. If there are indeed leftists like this then they must be baby-leftists who still need deprogramming. Where I'm from it's basically impossible to be a leftist while having reactionary views on race, even if you're white.