Turtle Island “forced out avowal”
What “if” there is a penalty for misuse?
Is it another statement with face value but no substance? If there is a penalty attached to its misuse, then could it be argued that it is forcefully done rather than with understanding and acceptance or admission of the truth. The “it” that I am referring to is the Indigenous Land Acknowledgement. While some are convinced that is has fulfilled its purpose others believe it has and still is failing to do so.
A Land Acknowledgement is a formal statement that recognizes the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional territories (LSPIRG, n.d.). Land acknowledgement is an honest and historically accurate way to recognize the traditional First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit territories of a place. They can be presented verbally or visually: think signage, short theatre presentations or simple spoken-word greetings (Mills, 2019). This leads me to ask: How effective and valuable has the Indigenous land acknowledgments on Turtle Island been in resisting and disturbing the colonial systems erasure of indigenous land rights and in changing the discourse in mainstream media surrounding indigenous land rights? After careful research, I am not convinced the way that many Land Acknowledgements are done effectively achieve the purpose Land Acknowledgements are supposed to serve. In fact, they are often done incorrectly and inaccurately, and without meaning. However, I do believe that the true meaning and application is still relevant, and we need to rethink how we go about doing it.
An example of the issues of the effectiveness of land acknowledgement is described by author Amanda Coletta (2019) in a recent article in the Washington Post that points out that even the indigenous people worry that it has become an empty perfunctory gesture, a way that they pretend they supported their communities. Coletta also voiced the failure to address the concerns of the indigenous people and even more seriously, building meaningful relationships with them. The Globe & Mail article June 2019, reported one such incident when a poster which was built as an Indigenous land acknowledgement for the Toronto’s Pride Celebrations didn’t even include the name of the First Nations who’s land it was acknowledging. The essence of the argument is that, the relevance and use of Land Acknowledgment based on the meaning and purpose, have lost the intended significance and the omission of names is a show of gross disrespect. This was highlighted in the media and criticized by many, but it has not resulted in much change. While it may be true that it is done more often in many more events, Dr. Cote-Meek in a recent Globe & Mail article June 2019 “reminds us that, it has to go beyond a tokenized gesture,” which supports my claim that the Land Acknowledgement does not effectively achieved this purpose but believe that the true meaning and application is still relevant.
It cannot be overlooked, that the land acknowledgment has become more commonly used, but at the same time, mispronunciations, use as standard protocol in public and other gatherings, incorrect citations and feign support also increases. In fact, these may even go unnoticed by the users and listeners alike, being less mindful about the effects such mistakes on this avowal have, especially on the Indigenous people. For instance, Dr. Cote-Meek in a Globe and Mail, June (2019) confirmed hearing the names of First Nations being mispronounced and wrong names being cited. Similarly, in this article, a decision was taken by politicians in Richmond Hill, Ontario, rejecting an initiative to open council meetings with a land acknowledgment; instead, voting to train staff on indigenous issues.
While it is true that land acknowledgements have grown more popular in Canada, many might hold the view that at least, its being done. Along the same line, others may question whether or not these particular elements, such as mispronunciations, are relevant. Although it may seem trivial to some, the accuracy is especially pertinent as it relates to the definition and in itself, does not change. In short, “all” incorrect actions that occur in the process of presenting them are evidence that proves and exposes factors such as the lack of thoroughness and high regard that it is deserving of. The value placed in land acknowledgement in this regard, when understood as intended, should create awareness and change the discourse in mainstream media and society surrounding colonial entitlement to the lands of Turtle Island. Lynn, an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe author in the Washington Post,(2019) explains that they wouldn’t say stop doing the land acknowledgement, but admits not being naïve to think that it is a great step towards reconciliation. This supports my claim in questioning the effectiveness of the Land Acknowledgement in achieving its purpose, but believe that the true meaning and application is still relevant.
D Society and Space (2019) author Daigle reported “The Truth and reconciliation process has naturalized and fetishized Indigenous suffering and trauma while cultivating settler colonial spectacles whereby white settler Canadians engage in hallow performance of recognition and remorse.” Such issues lead several professionals coming together to consider the performative and political effectiveness of the land acknowledgement by responding to questions which included, “How might acknowledgement be actioned differently by settler Canadians, “arrivants, immigrants, displaced peoples and visitors?” Writing from the Canadian Theatre Review, (2019), Robinson, Hill, Ruffo, Couture and Ravensbergen points to the fact that the freedom and privilege given to the immigrants lead to suffering of the Indigenous people as foreign ways, habits, lifestyles and cultures are introduced. These created unexpected events that was not consistent with the ways of life of the original keepers of the land.
Various views included Robinson’s who included his acknowledgements and puts it bluntly that we are on borrowed land and that a lot depends upon these specific word choices, but also upon our phrasing, the tone of our voices, the time we take as we speak about how we occupy space, and whose space we occupy. In fact, Robinson’s answers matters and supports my questioning of the effectiveness of the Indigenous land acknowledgments on Turtle Island in resisting and disturbing the colonial systems erasure of indigenous land rights and in changing the discourse in mainstream media surrounding indigenous land rights.
Writing in the Canadian Theatre Review, (2019) article, Daniel Heath Justice, a professor of the First Nation and indigenous studies says, that Land acknowledgments are about making legible truths that have been displaced and erased. Kesler, a land acknowledgement writer, in the Washington Post July (2019), pointed out the disingenuous nature of the presentations, and he expressed that he understands the concerns, but also agreed that he was not ready to give up on them. He admitted the acknowledgements can be used badly and even alienate the very people it is designed to address; but used properly it’s really of significant benefit. Clearly, the effectiveness of the acknowledgement can be justifiably questioned, not withstanding the importance. I am not convinced the Land Acknowledgement effectively achieved its purpose, but that it matters and is worthy. Land acknowledgements are an honest and historically accurate way to recognize the traditional First Nations and how it is used and applied must reflect that.
Have the Indigenous land acknowledgments on Turtle Island been adequate in withstanding the colonial system in regards to the erasure of land rights and making a difference in mainstream media in the same regard? Is it another avowal with face value but no substance? If there is a penalty attached to its misuse, then could it be argued that it is forcefully done rather than with understanding and acceptance or admission of the truth. Whether or not it is deemed to have fulfilled or is fulfilling its purpose is to dependent on perspective. What matters is that the understanding, relevance is still reconcilable. Dr. Cote-Meek, in the Globe & Mail article 2019, stated “the ideas that it has become merely symbolic gesture is giving people an excuse not to do it.” Unless the immigrants fully understands their “rightful place,” (as foreigners, settlers) who came to Turtle Island through generations before them and “gained” what some may even believe is their “rights” to this land because of colonialism, the relevance and appreciation for the acknowledgement may not be achieved as intended.
References
Globe & Mail. (June 27, 2019). As Indigenous land acknowledgments become the norm, critics question whether the gesture has lost its meaning. Globe & Mail, (GALE/A591040078), p.A1. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A591040078/STNDu=toro15002&sid=STND&xid=9c809f3a
Coletta, A. (July 25, 2019). Canada’s land acknowledgments draw criticism — from the indigenous peoples they’re supposed to honor: The Washington Post, Gale OneFile, (GALEIA594647658). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A594647658/AONE&xid=30f84510
Daigle, M. (2019). The spectacle of the reconciliation: On (the) unsettling responsibilities to Indigenous peoples in the academy. D Society and Space, Vol. 37(4), 703–721. Sagepub.com/journals, DOI: 101177/0263775818824342
Wilson, N. J. (2019). “Seeing Water Like a State?”: Indigenous water governance through Yokon First Nation Self-Government Agreement. Goeforum, vol.104(00167185), 9101–113, 13p. 137493549
