The Debate Over Indigenous Land Acknowledgement

 

Two Row Wampum

Not everyone thinks that making an Indigenous Land Acknowledgement (ILA) at meetings is necessarily a good idea. For example, on Jan 5th the New York Times published a guest essay titled, "Enough With the Land Acknowledgments." In her essay, Dr. Kathleen DuVal, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina, who makes no claim to being Indigenous, makes some good points, most of which I have made myself on various occasions, including this one about the point of an ILA: "The point is to make us more aware of the dispossession and violence that occurred in the establishment and expansion of the United States. But they’ve begun to sound more like rote obligations." The point applies equally to Canada, of course. Generally, I do not disagree with the points she raises but rather with her conclusion: therefore we should STOP making Indigenous Land Acknowledgments. That's quite a leap of logic when there is a host of alternatives to consider.

A decision to make an ILA should be researched and decided with forethought and consultation, and then implemented in an intelligent and meaningful way. At a minimum, it must include a commitment to learn more about Indigenous history and issues. I know someone who works for a local health organisation. They make an ILA at all their formal meetings with the understanding that whoever reads the ILA follows up by taking one or two minutes to tell attendees about some fact or issue pertaining to First Nations, Metis or Indigenous Peoples that they have learned. This person I know is from Winnipeg and told her colleagues about Louis Riel and the Métis Rebellion of 1885 and the present day follow-up which honours Louis Riel. More recently I heard the president of the Peterborough Particular Council, after he read the local ILA, share how the development of the Trent Waterway flooded vast areas of agricultural land reserved for local first nations, in violation of treaties, making them dependent on 'hand-outs' which White people today consider 'charity'. This is one easy way you can overcome an ILA becoming rote, and a better way than simply abandoning the practice which will take us backwards.

Learning the Land: Walking the talk of Indigenous Land acknowledgements

Indigenous activists have drawn attention to threatened waterways, neglected Residential School cemeteries and other social issues by walking across Land. Here a group of settlers on an Indigenous Land acknowledgment pilgrimage. Laurence Brisson/The Concordian, Author provided

Matthew Robert Anderson, Concordia University
University, religious, sports and other gatherings often begin with an Indigenous Land acknowledgement. For instance, this article was written in Montréal, or Tiohtiá:ke, on the traditional and unceded territory of the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk), a place which has long served as a site of meeting and exchange amongst nations.
Land acknowledgements recognize what for some Canadians is an uncomfortable truth. These are formal statements that recognize “the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional territories.”
On Land where territorial treaties were negotiated, the acknowledgement may use the term “traditional Lands,” and go on to specify the treaty and its number (Treaty 4, for example, includes much of southern Saskatchewan.) Land is so important that Gregory Younging — scholar, editor and author of the copyeditor’s book Indigenous Style — insisted Land be capitalized.
But when governmental and business meetings are far less likely to include acknowledgements of Indigenous Land titles, or when artistic and educational events move from initial statements to silence about their political and economic ramifications, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that such recognition is simply lip service.
What do groups mean when they say they recognize Indigenous presence, resilience and Land? And how can settler groups begin to walk the talk?