Land Acknowledgments

[downer]

This article is the most popular ones in IHE today, still about 6 weeks since it was published
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/23/professors-land-acknowledgment-sparks-controversy

It's a good example of liberal attempts to acknowledge  past wrongdoing vs others dissenting views and some resisting administration pressures to conform to a party-line ideology.

Personally I find land acknowledgments problematic because if a university really believes it is on stolen land, it should give it back. Saying "we are on stolen land and we feel really bad about it but there it is" doesn't sound very convincing.

I guess I experience a land acknowledgement about every couple of months. Are they a fad? When did they start?

[mamselle]

Every church and liturgical function I attend online, and most historic academic conference papers I've heard do this as a matter of course.

I make a point of identifying myself as near a known Native American settlement whose fishing weirs were once 6 blocks from my home.

But I've been conscious of Native American land loss since I was very young. I was born in the Smoky Mountains, our family visited many historic sites in NC, OH, and elsewhere, and from the age of 8 I recall having very strong feelings about the significance of Logan Elm as a place of loss and dismemberment of native holdings.

Where I live now, when giving tours and talks, whether for children or adults, I don't start with the first English arrivants but with those who lived here before them, about whom a fair bit has been known for a long time. Teaching courses, one must discuss the many-sided altercations that erupted as those arrivants pressed their advantage and created false-flag excuses for attack, as well as disputes fueled by external bad actors who distributed knives to other, more outlying native societies, encouraging them to further bloodshed.

It's only responsible, as an honest historical guide and teacher, to do so. And I've done so for 30 years--I don't see it as something 'political,' or as a 'recent fad,' but something to do with ongoing historical accuracy.

I can't speak for others, but from my perspective, it's heartfelt.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

Land acknowledgements have become increasingly common in Canada as a result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action, and are fairly common in New Zealand. I imagine that their increased presence in the US is largely a trickle-down effect from the north.

As I see it, the point of land acknowledgements by public institutions is the recognition of historical wrongdoing (their point in Indigenous societies, and by individuals, is different). In Canada, in particular, the law requires treaties with Indigenous peoples for the use of their land, but nevertheless 65% of the country isn't covered by treaties (and it's not just the bush--that includes major urban areas, like Vancouver and the lower mainland of BC). Subsequent case law has established aboriginal title over that land. So there's a serious legal tension undergirding it all, and it's rooted in a long-standing (and ongoing) historical harm. Nor is it ancient history, since the Crown routinely flouts its duty to consult before undertaking projects on title (and disputed) land.

Think of apologies. A genuine apology acknowledges the harm someone has caused. That's the very first step. We deride non-apologies precisely because they don't do so (e.g. it's particularly popular to hedge with a conditional, as in, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone"). As I see it, land acknowledgements fulfill that function. They also fulfill an educational function, because it is not widely known that various places exist on stolen land (which, again, is technically illegal under Canadian law). The kids today know it, because they learned about it in school. But we didn't, and I'm not even that old. Remember, also, that the last residential school here closed in 1997.

So: as I see it, the purpose of a land acknowledgement is to prepare the ground for a genuine apology, and for moving forward productively. How and where we move forward from a land acknowledgement is, of course, a complex matter. But it's not all that different from how we respond to apologies. Some apologies are hollow non-apologies, and those aren't productive. Some are just pro-forma, and those aren't productive either. But when we receive a genuine apology, we can begin the process of moving forward.


As for this shithead, he's a total dickweed. And his understanding of Locke on property is superficial at best. If you're going to be an asshole, you should at least strive to be right. But when you can't even make your asshole point properly, it's just another sad performance of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He should stick to his day-job, and remember Lincoln's adage: it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

[marshwiggle]

Personally I find land acknowledgments problematic because if a university really believes it is on stolen land, it should give it back. Saying "we are on stolen land and we feel really bad about it but there it is" doesn't sound very convincing.

It's also a bit odd when multiple groups are acknowledged, when the archaeological evidence shows that they were there centuries apart, so that some of the groups abandoned the area long before the Europeans arrived. It seems like "acknowledging" all of the previous owners of a house, because some time ago they lived here, and eventually left for some reason or another.

[mamselle]

Except there's a paper trail of the deeds-of-purchase for the house, which had to have been paid for in each instance, including the latest.

M. 

[marshwiggle]

Except there's a paper trail of the deeds-of-purchase for the house, which had to have been paid for in each instance, including the latest.

M.

But as I pointed out, indigenous groups who had not occupied the land for centuries before the Europeans arrived did not have their land "stolen". (Or if they did, it was by the later indigenous groups. )

[mamselle]

Except there's a paper trail of the deeds-of-purchase for the house, which had to have been paid for in each instance, including the latest.

M.

But as I pointed out, indigenous groups who had not occupied the land for centuries before the Europeans arrived did not have their land "stolen". (Or if they did, it was by the later indigenous groups. )

Reading for nuance, please note the bolded text. I took your meaning, that's why I said that.

M. 

[artalot]

Agreed, land acknowledgements are not about the university stealing land or committing actual wrongdoing. They simply acknowledge that the land has a history, some of which is violent. As an historian, I think its about recognizing that land is never empty and we were never the first to occupy it. Space has a history that impacts those who inhabit it. We do this in Europe - I can give you a whole list of the peoples that occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why shouldn't we do it in the US?
I don't think land acknowledgements are controversial or leftist. They're just accurate.

[marshwiggle]

Agreed, land acknowledgements are not about the university stealing land or committing actual wrongdoing. They simply acknowledge that the land has a history, some of which is violent. As an historian, I think its about recognizing that land is never empty and we were never the first to occupy it. Space has a history that impacts those who inhabit it. We do this in Europe - I can give you a whole list of the peoples that occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why shouldn't we do it in the US?
I don't think land acknowledgements are controversial or leftist. They're just accurate.

But you don't start every meeting in the UK mentioning all the peoples who occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why not? Some (most?) of those changes involved lots of violence.

[Parasaurolophus]

Agreed, land acknowledgements are not about the university stealing land or committing actual wrongdoing. They simply acknowledge that the land has a history, some of which is violent. As an historian, I think its about recognizing that land is never empty and we were never the first to occupy it. Space has a history that impacts those who inhabit it. We do this in Europe - I can give you a whole list of the peoples that occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why shouldn't we do it in the US?
I don't think land acknowledgements are controversial or leftist. They're just accurate.

But you don't start every meeting in the UK mentioning all the peoples who occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why not? Some (most?) of those changes involved lots of violence.

Because (1) those peoples and cultures are all extinct, and (2) because they don't have live legal claims to title over that land.

[marshwiggle]

Agreed, land acknowledgements are not about the university stealing land or committing actual wrongdoing. They simply acknowledge that the land has a history, some of which is violent. As an historian, I think its about recognizing that land is never empty and we were never the first to occupy it. Space has a history that impacts those who inhabit it. We do this in Europe - I can give you a whole list of the peoples that occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why shouldn't we do it in the US?
I don't think land acknowledgements are controversial or leftist. They're just accurate.

But you don't start every meeting in the UK mentioning all the peoples who occupied Britain from the Iron Age to today. Why not? Some (most?) of those changes involved lots of violence.

Because (1) those peoples and cultures are all extinct, and (2) because they don't have live legal claims to title over that land.

As I said, acknowledgements often include groups who no longer exist, and who left the land long before Europeans arrived. Why are they mentioned?

[Parasaurolophus]

As I said, acknowledgements often include groups who no longer exist, and who left the land long before Europeans arrived. Why are they mentioned?

Because it's difficult to determine exactly who actually has title to some parcel of land, although it's easy to determine that the colonial state does not (since it established no treaty over it). Or perhaps because they were driven to extinction deliberately by the current occupants of the land, and in relatively recent history. Or perhaps because the acknowledger is mistaken or over-zealous (presumably you'll allow that there can be better and worse land acknowledgements).

It's hard to say, exactly, without specific cases to consider. What do you have in mind?

[mamselle]

And why begrudge folks the breath it takes to say a simple line or two to represent something that is true, fair, and kind?

Protesting the idea itself edges towards rightist virtue-posturing, to be honest.

Methinks the OP protesteth too greatly, in fact...

M.

[jimbogumbo]

Someone linked to this article earlier, but I can't find it: https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/indigenous-affairs-education-land-grab-universities

[marshwiggle]

And why begrudge folks the breath it takes to say a simple line or two to represent something that is true, fair, and kind?

In addition to the point made earlier, about it sounding lame, is the point that the more these statements get made at every event, in everyone's email signature, etc., it becomes just part of the cultural background noise. If there is some kind of redress that needs to be made, then it should be done so that the matter is legally concluded, and the history of the occupation of the land becomes discussed just like in any other country.