Land Acknowledgments

[mamselle]

Oh, but such a slippery, scary slope, these beginnings...!

White people might have to admit they were wrong about something!

We can't have that!!

M.

[marshwiggle]

Also, most of these statements say nothing about giving the land back. They simply acknowledge that the institution sits on what once was (or in my case, still is) indigenous land. This is just a fact, the same as saying that the Britons inhabited England before the Roman invasion or that VCU Doha is located on land belonging to the country of Qatar.

I actually haven't seen any universities that advocate returning their land - where would they go? The most daring I have seen are statements that support indigenous sovereignty in territories and reservations already occupied by native peoples. Not sure what's so radical about saying that you support upholding the law. Some acknowledge that land removal was part of a larger colonial policy of genocide and/or assimilation, but, again, that's an historical fact. I don't see how requiring people to include facts about the university's history and mission violates anyone's free speech. Are we going to start rioting because we must include academic dishonesty policies, required readings, or learning objectives?

Yes, that's true of the statements I have heard read out. Indeed, it has felt like some kind of religious or spiritual model for the moment. People have been invited to reflect on the facts. I've found those moments puzzling. What am I personally meant to feel? Of course, participating in a benefit received on the basis of using stolen land makes us all accomplices and bad people. We should all move off the land.

This is how it seems to me, as long as the term "stolen land" keeps coming up, as it has in this thread. If the university had a statement acknowledging that "We employ slave labor", wouldn't that require said employees to be released?  "We built the student centre with laundered money from drug cartels". Should the student centre just go on as normal?

If the institution is suggesting some sort of historical, voluntary or involuntary, complicity in crime, what's the point of doing so if it lacks any specific action of sufficient scope to count as reasonable redress?

I do wonder what other moral or spiritual insights people are looking for. We think about it for 90 seconds and then move on. It feels more confessional than political. If the aims are political, then they should be transparently political, and demands should be voiced.

That was my thought as well. To people from a religious background, the liturgical tone and ubiquity is very familiar. Used to open a meeting, it's like a call to worship. Used at the end of an email, it's like a benediction. Being able to recite it word perfect identifies someone as a member of the community.

[mahagonny]

As for what you're supposed to meditate upon, I'm not sure you are. You seem to think these things are about making white people feel guilty. They're not about white people. They're about Indigenous people.

so it took about two hours for someone to prove you're wrong:

White people might have to admit they were wrong about something!

We can't have that!!

[Parasaurolophus]

She was glossing your worry, not telling you how to feel.

[mahagonny]

She was glossing your worry, not telling you how to feel.

I do not self identify racially. But I do notice that 'white' people in the past have done quite a bit of admitting they were wrong. As a result, the West doesn't have slavery any more. But they do have it in parts of Africa. Still slavery is a 'whiteness' thing, in perpetuity, the story goes.

Mamselle's corny routine is typical virtue signaling with the flip side included, out-crowd white shaming. 'I admit I am wrong! How about a round of applause for my humility!' (thanks to Steve Martin for the line)

[Anon1787]

Most unis have a whole page dedicated to their founding, another to their mission, more than one to their sports accomplishments, and a paragraph dedicated to a land acknowledgement. I'm not sure why it's beyond the pale to create a land acknowledgment and ask faculty to link to it or include it on their syllabi. Truth, I am much more upset about my uni's made up learning objectives and the way they affect my teaching than I am about a land acknowledgment that has no bearing on what I say in the classroom.

However bad, learning objectives are directly related to the subject matter of the course. A land acknowledgement placed in a syllabus for a course on computer programming has no immediate relevance at all to the course. And, of course, it's not a very good argument to say that one bad practice justifies introducing another bad practice.

A university posting such a statement on its website and the like at least makes it clear that it reflects the views of the administration. To repeat, the syllabus is mostly a faculty document and faculty should not be expected to host the political statements of others.

I do wonder what other moral or spiritual insights people are looking for. We think about it for 90 seconds and then move on. It feels more confessional than political. If the aims are political, then they should be transparently political, and demands should be voiced.

That was my thought as well. To people from a religious background, the liturgical tone and ubiquity is very familiar. Used to open a meeting, it's like a call to worship. Used at the end of an email, it's like a benediction. Being able to recite it word perfect identifies someone as a member of the community.

They are shibboleths and expecting others to participate in such quasi-religious practices makes them even more objectionable.

[Caracal]

Most unis have a whole page dedicated to their founding, another to their mission, more than one to their sports accomplishments, and a paragraph dedicated to a land acknowledgement. I'm not sure why it's beyond the pale to create a land acknowledgment and ask faculty to link to it or include it on their syllabi. Truth, I am much more upset about my uni's made up learning objectives and the way they affect my teaching than I am about a land acknowledgment that has no bearing on what I say in the classroom.

However bad, learning objectives are directly related to the subject matter of the course. A land acknowledgement placed in a syllabus for a course on computer programming has no immediate relevance at all to the course. And, of course, it's not a very good argument to say that one bad practice justifies introducing another bad practice.

A university posting such a statement on its website and the like at least makes it clear that it reflects the views of the administration. To repeat, the syllabus is mostly a faculty document and faculty should not be expected to host the political statements of others.

I do wonder what other moral or spiritual insights people are looking for. We think about it for 90 seconds and then move on. It feels more confessional than political. If the aims are political, then they should be transparently political, and demands should be voiced.

That was my thought as well. To people from a religious background, the liturgical tone and ubiquity is very familiar. Used to open a meeting, it's like a call to worship. Used at the end of an email, it's like a benediction. Being able to recite it word perfect identifies someone as a member of the community.

They are shibboleths and expecting others to participate in such quasi-religious practices makes them even more objectionable.

Syllabi include all kinds of rote language. Is there really anybody who has been pressured to include a land acknowledgement? This reminds me a lot of the anxiety about gender pronouns in email signatures. Some people do it, some people don't. You could certainly have reasonable discussions about whether it's a good practice or helps anybody, but there's no need to pretend that somebody is trying to make you do it. There's something a little juvenile about this fear that the forces of society are trying to make you do something you don't want to do-it's very Holden Caufield.

[mahagonny]

Yes, Stuart Reges was pressured to include a land acknowledgement in his syllabus. That's what pressure is. When some start adopting a new ritual and expressing the same political message verbatim. It's really a story of DEI departments out of control.
A friend of mine retired earlier than he had planned because almost everyone in his department had BLM support messages on their desks. He could have stayed and followed suit, just to be sociable, or not, but either way, he had grown to hate the workplace because it was political.

[waterboy]

I've been wondering the following for quite some time: did those native peoples also fight over these lands and take them from one another? Or are we assuming all was peaceful and good?  Because if the former, then a land acknowledgement is ridiculous. And, honestly, if the latter, we're largely virtue signaling.

[mahagonny]

I've been wondering the following for quite some time: did those native peoples also fight over these lands and take them from one another? Or are we assuming all was peaceful and good?  Because if the former, then a land acknowledgement is ridiculous. And, honestly, if the latter, we're largely virtue signaling.

No, people never fought, argued, cheated or dominated others before whites inserted themselves into the situation. There's a video somewhere of Dr. Brittney Cooper explaining. Amazing the things people learn with PhD. I should've spent more on education.

[Parasaurolophus]

I've been wondering the following for quite some time: did those native peoples also fight over these lands and take them from one another? Or are we assuming all was peaceful and good?  Because if the former, then a land acknowledgement is ridiculous. And, honestly, if the latter, we're largely virtue signaling.

And I've been wondering for a long time whether some poasters care at all about productive dialogue, or whether they're just vice-signaling.

[mamselle]

Bingo.

M.

[Caracal]

This is how it seems to me, as long as the term "stolen land" keeps coming up, as it has in this thread. If the university had a statement acknowledging that "We employ slave labor", wouldn't that require said employees to be released?  "We built the student centre with laundered money from drug cartels". Should the student centre just go on as normal?

If the institution is suggesting some sort of historical, voluntary or involuntary, complicity in crime, what's the point of doing so if it lacks any specific action of sufficient scope to count as reasonable redress?

Oddly, I agree. Of course, tearing down the student union wouldn't help anyone. The money has been spent and the thing has been built. If the institution could afford it, I think you'd say that the right thing to do would be to donate the money to an appropriate group or cause. However, most institutions probably couldn't do that without significant, and possibly ruinous, financial hardship. It isn't really reasonable to say "well, we screwed up and accepted money from the wrong people so lots of people uninvolved in that decision are going to lose their jobs."

However, yeah, restitution is about actually taking substantial actions. It's good for people to be aware of the history behind institutions, but that isn't about wallowing in guilt-it should be about figuring out what the institutions could do going forward to address the systematic inequalities they have participated in-and often continue to participate in.

[mahagonny]

This is how it seems to me, as long as the term "stolen land" keeps coming up, as it has in this thread. If the university had a statement acknowledging that "We employ slave labor", wouldn't that require said employees to be released?  "We built the student centre with laundered money from drug cartels". Should the student centre just go on as normal?

If the institution is suggesting some sort of historical, voluntary or involuntary, complicity in crime, what's the point of doing so if it lacks any specific action of sufficient scope to count as reasonable redress?

Oddly, I agree. Of course, tearing down the student union wouldn't help anyone. The money has been spent and the thing has been built. If the institution could afford it, I think you'd say that the right thing to do would be to donate the money to an appropriate group or cause. However, most institutions probably couldn't do that without significant, and possibly ruinous, financial hardship. It isn't really reasonable to say "well, we screwed up and accepted money from the wrong people so lots of people uninvolved in that decision are going to lose their jobs."

However, yeah, restitution is about actually taking substantial actions. It's good for people to be aware of the history behind institutions, but that isn't about wallowing in guilt-it should be about figuring out what the institutions could do going forward to address the systematic inequalities they have participated in-and often continue to participate in.

Well, here in the USA, higher education loves paying wildly different amounts of pay for the same work where teaching is concerned as well as hoarding health insurance for some workers and keeping it out of reach for others. So, you're right if you suggest these land acknowledgements are arbitrary and meaningless without action. but to me that is the point. Higher education does not want equitable outcomes. It wants to be on the winning side in woke political (moral) causes. I don't get to write my own syllabus so i won't be including land acknowledgments in even if others are doing it. But if the college wants to confess to being crooks, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I already considered them that.

[mamselle]

"Corny?"

Ha, I take that as a compliment.

My brother and I used to raise corn in the backyard, where we grew up, in Ohio.

M.