Land Acknowledgments

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

As I said earlier, before there can be redress, it has to be recognized that there was a harm.

I think you'll find that universities are working towards reconciliation, and that the land acknowledgement is that first step of acknowledging the harm and one's part in it.

[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.

As I said earlier, before there can be redress, it has to be recognized that there was a harm.

Homo Sapiens wiped out the Neandertals, possibly. What should be done about that? The last of the Beothuk in Newfoundland died in 1829. What should be done about that, since there's no-one living whose ancestor experienced that harm?

[mamselle]

Outrage trash fire.

Nothing to see here.

Move on.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

As I said earlier, before there can be redress, it has to be recognized that there was a harm.

Homo Sapiens wiped out the Neandertals, possibly. What should be done about that? The last of the Beothuk in Newfoundland died in 1829. What should be done about that, since there's no-one living whose ancestor experienced that harm?

We know virtually nothing about neanderthals, including what happened to them, so even if we wanted to there's nothing we could do about it. But since we do know they never came close to North America, we at least know there's no need to acknowledge their territorial claims over land we occupy here.

As for the Beothuk, there's not much to be done about them now, either, save perhaps doing what we can to preserve elements of their culture and existence. Anything we might do is clearly supererogatory.

These are easy, not hard, cases. And they don't even begin to suggest that we don't have duties towards, say, the Kanien'kehá:ka.

[marshwiggle]

Outrage trash fire.

I'm certainly not outraged. My point is that this is an issue that seems pretty poorly thought out, so that it's hard to see any way of satisfactorily bringing things to a conclusion. As with many things, cleaving history into the oppressors and the oppressed and then extrapolating to the present in a similar manner makes for a lot of bizarre inconsistencies.

[mahagonny]

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.

Hypocritical posturing when you consider the colleges don't pay real estate tax, yet the blue collar townies do. If they were really worried about who they owe a debt to...
That's a good reason to confess about land acknowledgment, isn't it? It's virtue signaling without the effort required to have virtue.

[Parasaurolophus]

Outrage trash fire.

I'm certainly not outraged. My point is that this is an issue that seems pretty poorly thought out, so that it's hard to see any way of satisfactorily bringing things to a conclusion. As with many things, cleaving history into the oppressors and the oppressed and then extrapolating to the present in a similar manner makes for a lot of bizarre inconsistencies.

And yet the peoples whose land claims are recognized in land acknowledgements are extant peoples who have suffered directly and in living memory.

[Morden]

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

I am surprised by this claim. In my province, we live and work on treaty land; we acknowledge the groups with whom the treaty was made (and promises not kept). These groups are still very much a part of our communities.

[OneMoreYear]

In my field, I'm now seeing land acknowledgements in author bios for book authors/editors (e.g., Dr. Brilliant was raised in [city/region/state] on the land of the [Indigenous tribe]). I think everyone has the right to include whatever they want in their author bios, but the inclusion of this information was somewhat unexpected for me. Is this typical practice others are seeing?

[Parasaurolophus]

In my field, I'm now seeing land acknowledgements in author bios for book authors/editors (e.g., Dr. Brilliant was raised in [city/region/state] on the land of the [Indigenous tribe]). I think everyone has the right to include whatever they want in their author bios, but the inclusion of this information was somewhat unexpected for me. Is this typical practice others are seeing?

I have not. At first glance, it strikes me as somewhat misplaced.

[mahagonny]

I can either be a thief who acquired someone else's land, now part of our college, illegitimately, or I can be a temporary stowaway on campus without a real job, who's been added to the faculty, but is never real faculty. You have to pick one.

This would be a funny bit: all the adjunct faculty, just before welcoming the student into the broom closet-office that they share with six others, do a ceremonious announcement about who owned those 60 square feel of land previously.

[downer]

In my field, I'm now seeing land acknowledgements in author bios for book authors/editors (e.g., Dr. Brilliant was raised in [city/region/state] on the land of the [Indigenous tribe]). I think everyone has the right to include whatever they want in their author bios, but the inclusion of this information was somewhat unexpected for me. Is this typical practice others are seeing?

I've never seen that.

The people who make land acknowledgments may well be sincere and their expressions may be heartfelt. But what exactly has the practice achieved? If it is by now decades long in some circles, we should be able to point to something.

My understanding of an apology is that it is made to the people harmed. Yet never have I seen a single native person present when the statements are read out. So it doesn't look like an apology.

It looks more like a statement of contrition, as practiced by religion people to their gods.

[Parasaurolophus]

In my field, I'm now seeing land acknowledgements in author bios for book authors/editors (e.g., Dr. Brilliant was raised in [city/region/state] on the land of the [Indigenous tribe]). I think everyone has the right to include whatever they want in their author bios, but the inclusion of this information was somewhat unexpected for me. Is this typical practice others are seeing?

I've never seen that.

The people who make land acknowledgments may well be sincere and their expressions may be heartfelt. But what exactly has the practice achieved? If it is by now decades long in some circles, we should be able to point to something.

My understanding of an apology is that it is made to the people harmed. Yet never have I seen a single native person present when the statements are read out. So it doesn't look like an apology.

It looks more like a statement of contrition, as practiced by religion people to their gods.

As I said initially, I think it's a necessary precondition for an apology. It is not itself an apology.

It is said publicly and at an institutional level because the harms were collective and public, not merely individual. And presumably it isdone in part to raise awareness.

Nobody did them here in Canada decades ago. They're new. And neither have we achieved the goals of reconciiation.

[marshwiggle]

In my field, I'm now seeing land acknowledgements in author bios for book authors/editors (e.g., Dr. Brilliant was raised in [city/region/state] on the land of the [Indigenous tribe]). I think everyone has the right to include whatever they want in their author bios, but the inclusion of this information was somewhat unexpected for me. Is this typical practice others are seeing?

I've never seen that.

The people who make land acknowledgments may well be sincere and their expressions may be heartfelt. But what exactly has the practice achieved? If it is by now decades long in some circles, we should be able to point to something.

My understanding of an apology is that it is made to the people harmed. Yet never have I seen a single native person present when the statements are read out. So it doesn't look like an apology.

It looks more like a statement of contrition, as practiced by religion people to their gods.

Except that the gods are assumed to be able to hear it. As you pointed out, if there are no people to hear it who were harmed, then it's perhaps more like a legal disclaimer in an ad.

[Parasaurolophus]

Except that the gods are assumed to be able to hear it. As you pointed out, if there are no people to hear it who were harmed, then it's perhaps more like a legal disclaimer in an ad.

As a practical matter, it's onerous (for everyone) if we canvas audiences to find out whether there are any relevant Indigenous people around before we do whatever we're doing.

But also, if the point is at least partly educational (as I've suggested), then it doesn't matter whether anyone in the audience is Indigenous. What matters is that their awareness is raised. If the point is also partly symbolic (as some have plausibly suggested), then again, it doesn't matter. Symbolic gestures do matter to people, after all, even if they're not in the immediate vicinity. That's why we send people flowers when someone close to them dies.