On the Practice of Land Acknowledgements

I’m curious about the accuracy of the land acknowledgments which seem to have become fairly common practice at the beginning of meetings, presentations, seminars and the like- almost wholly among those of us with a leftist persuasion. I also find them on the websites of some of the therapists and educators I follow on Instagram.

They usually go somewhat like this- “I want to begin this presentation by acknowledging that we are currently on the stolen land of <insert name of the native people or the nation that historically occupied the land>”.

As far as i have seen, there is no follow-up action that is suggested after the acknowledgment has been made. It’s almost as though the whole point of the acknowledgement is to simply state this “historical fact” and move on with the agenda. An obligation that has been fulfilled. An obligation to whom? The native people apparently.

I don’t take issue with the position that one must acknowledge and learn about the horrifying ways in which the native people of this country have been deprived of their land and dignity by the colonisers. I also agree that genuine action needs to be taken to address the issues faced by indigenous communities. However, as mentioned, my issue is with the accuracy of the land acknowledgments.

First, the particular tribe or nation of people which is being acknowledged is the earliest KNOWN occupant of the land. This is important because I don’t think that these acknowledgements take into full consideration that the native people had a history of their own before the Europeans came over. That they probably had their own territorial disputes and feuds, during which they displaced one another from the lands they occupied.

Consequently, I wonder whether we can be entirely sure that a particular tribe or nation of people were the original occupants of a particular section of the land. It is entirely possible the people being acknowledged may have in fact displaced another tribe of people of whom we do not know the history, and hence are not acknowledging.

It seems to be that human beings have occupied North America for the last 20,000 years. But I assume that in these land acknowledgments, we are only acknowledging the people who most recently were occupying the land; those of whom we have direct knowledge, those who were present on the land at the time of colonial invasion. What about the groups of people before them? Those whose names and histories we aren’t aware of yet? Aren’t we being inaccurate in our land acknowledgments by ignoring a large chunk of the land’s occupational history?

Second, the acknowledgments state that these lands were “stolen” by the colonisers from the native people. Which implies that the lands at some point were owned by the native people. Would the native people themselves say that they “owned” their land? I don’t know.

But in implying that the native people owned the lands, aren’t we falling back into the egotism that these lands, and the Earth itself, somehow belongs to human beings? Once again perpetuating the false notion that human beings, who have spent a negligible amount of time on this Earth when viewed against the entire history of this planet, are special enough to claim this planet as theirs. Forget all the other species that have occupied this planet for much longer periods of time than we have.

Again, this does not mean that the European colonisers have not brutally and forcefully displaced the native people from the land they occupied. I am simply saying that human history is the history of various groups of people continually displacing each other from the lands they occupy. The land itself does not belong to any one of us.

Or, it belongs to all of us. And I mean every single species that has inhabited the land. In which case, the land acknowledgment should acknowledge every single species and group of people that has ever occupied these lands before the Europeans came over. If you’re going to do it, then do it right.

It sounds like I’m trying to mock the very idea of a land acknowledgement. And maybe I am. Because if I look closely at our land acknowledgments, they seem to be empty words, which are historically inaccurate and involve no call to action. Once again, I feel like we are using language to absolve our guilt, while distancing ourselves from initiating any real change.

I invite any alternate opinions or viewpoints on the practice of land acknowledgments. I have only spoken to what I am aware of, and hence welcome any corrections or additions to my perspective.