As I slowly begin working on yet another paper about walking in Saskatchewan—slowly because my brain is still on its Christmas vacation—I find myself thinking about the kind of verbal land and treaty acknowledgments that are made by, for instance, universities at official events. I need to know more about such acknowledgments, and my starting point for this research is a list of articles compiled by my friend Matthew Anderson. I decided to tackle “Canadian University Acknowledgment of Indigenous Lands, Treaties, and Peoples” by Rima Wilkes, Aaron Duong, Linc Kesler, and Howard Ramos first. This 2017 article is based on research from 2015 and 2016, and while land and treaty acknowledgments, as well as responses to them, have changed a lot in the ensuing five years, but this paper is a good place to start.
“Canadian University Acknowledgment of Indigenous Lands, Treaties, and Peoples” begins by noting that “Many Canadian institutions, ranging from governments to school boards, now make some kind of public acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples, lands, and treaties” (90). These began before the publication of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2015, although the publication of the TRC’s final report led to universities “introducing or reaffirming their commitment to a public acknowledgment and recognition of Indigenous lands, treaties, and peoples” (90). The purpose of their essay, according to the authors, is to describe “the content of acknowledgment as practiced at universities, tying it to treaty and colonial-Indigenous relationships” with the intention of stimulating discussion “on the role of universities vis-à-vis the practice of acknowledgement” (90). There are “five general types of acknowledgment: of land/unceded territory and peoples (seen largely in British Columbia), of treaties and political relationships (found among Prairie institutions), of multiculturalism and heterogeneity (typified by Ontario schools), of no practice (seen mostly in Quebec and some religious schools), and of people and territory (and openness to doing more; throughout the Atlantic)” (91). Different treaty relationships—or none at all—exist in different parts of Canada, and one of the goals of the paper is to examine “the extent to which the nature of these treaties and the accompanying colonial relationship upon which they are based shapes how universities engage in practices of acknowledgment and reconciliation” (93).
“Acknowledgment in and of itself is a complicated term, at times referring to a recognition of truth or existence and at other times implying gratitude or appreciation,” the authors contend. “At is core, it might be stated that acknowledgment refers to a recognition and appreciation of another’s right to self-determining autonomy and existence” (91). Yet recognition “is an inherently challenging political project,” particularly in settler-colonial states like Canada, which “have long used recognition as a means of defining Indigeneity and therefore setting the terms of who is entitled to Indigenous peoples’ land” (91). Indigenous resistance to this state of affairs has led to acknowledgment and recognition spreading “to subnational spheres, such as cities, as well as to institutions such as universities” (91). In universities, the practice of land and treaty acknowledgment developed
from the actions of three groups: faculty and students at Aboriginal and Indigenous studies departments and centers, who recognized visiting guests and speakers from other nations and territories as well as the territory and nation that they were on; activism from movements such as Idle No More; and the influence of large-scale political events and dialogues such as the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the 2008 to 2015 Indian Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (92)
“It is therefore important to note that the current practice stems from the work of Indigenous activists and that it has spread as a result of this work,” the authors conclude (92).
The authors looked at the web sites of 98 universities in Canada, searching for such acknowledgments, and contacted representatives of those universities to confirm what they had found on the web sites and to ask whether they had missed any acknowledgment practices. This work took place in the spring and summer of 2015, but a year later, when they followed up on their initial research, they found that many universities told them that their acknowledgment practices were now different, “indicating the pace and rapid nature of change on this practice” (94). The authors conclude “that acknowledgment as a practice at universities has been led by Indigenous faculty, students, and centers” (95). “The vast majority of people we contacted expressed enthusiasm for the need for the project,” they note (95).
Acknowledgments in British Columbia reflect the fact that the institutions involved exist on unceded territory, which was sometimes called “traditional territory” in the acknowledgments (95, 112). In the prairie provinces, though, “the focus of acknowledgment changes to peoples and treaties” (112). In Ontario, acknowledgments “have the most diverse content and often prioritize cultural values and traits over treaties or unresolved land claims,” leading the authors to describe those acknowledgments as forms of multiculturalism or “heterogeneity” (112). “That Ontario universities are more diverse and also made specific references to culture likely reflects the fact that they are situated on territories represented in a mix of numbered and land purchase agreements,” they suggest (114). Universities in Quebec tended to have no acknowledgment practices when the research was undertaken, although some institutions, such as Concordia University, indicated that they were in the process of developing an acknowledgment (114). “The lack of acknowledgment is likely linked to the competing nationalisms of the province, which has struggled to build an independent Quebec state and Indigenous people deal with double colonization from Quebec as well as Canada,” the authors write. “This might also be traced to the fact that recognition of Indigenous territory would conflict with narratives about Quebec as a distinct society, and for sovereigntists, as a distinct state” (114). In the Atlantic provinces, “official protocols of acknowledgement” were generally not in place, although acknowledgments were sometimes offered on an ad hoc basis (114). As in Quebec, some institutions noted that they were working on more formal processes of acknowledgment (115).
“Overall, the typologies of acknowledgment documented in our analysis reflect the ongoing treaty and colonial relationship between the Canadian state and Indigenous peoples,” the authors conclude (116). No university was acknowledging urban Indigenous or nonstatus peoples, they note, “mirroring the lack of recognition of these groups by the federal government” (116). For that reason, “in their current form, university acknowledgment, if primarily referencing treaties and treaty relationships, could be on pace to maintain colonization rather than lead to full reconciliation,” opening them to critiques by writers such as Glen Coulthard and Jeff Corntassel of pursuing rights within the current political system (116). Thus, the authors continue, two considerations need to be taken into account. “First, acknowledgment as a practice is fluid and likely to change over time,” they write. “Second, meaning making and positionality around acknowledgment need to be considered. The meaning of Indigenous peoples acknowledging treaties and colonial relations as well as each other is different than when non-Indigenous people do it” (116). For some non-Indigenous people, it’s possible that “engaging in acknowledgment could be ‘unsettling’ insofar as there is an implied ‘what next’ to acknowledging either unceded territory, residential schools, or a treaty relationship,” they suggest, referring to the work of Paulette Regan and Jeffrey S. Denis in connection to the term “unsettling” (117). Until land is returned to Indigenous peoples or treaties renegotiated “or abrogated entirely,” however, the consciousness raising involved in such “unsettling” will not disrupt settler colonialism, they continue, citing Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s article “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor” (117). “For these reasons, it is important for universities and other institutions to critically question what is meant by acknowledgement and who is doing it,” they state (117). This work should not be left to Indigenous studies departments or Indigenous faculty and students, the authors conclude, because “everyone is responsible for reconciliation” (117).
This article provides a snapshot of land and treaty acknowledgments, and thinking about those practices, from a relatively early point in their evolution. It will be interesting to keep reading to see how those practices—and more importantly the ways people think about them—have changed since 2015. I would predict that many discussions of such acknowledgments will return to Tuck and Wang’s call for the “repatriation of Indigenous land and life” (21), and their argument that practices that do not directly lead to such repatriation—such as settler consciousness-raising—are utterly inadequate (19). They write, “the front-loading of critical consciousness building can waylay decolonization, even though the experience of teaching and learning to be critical of settler colonialism can be so powerful it can feel like it is indeed making change. Until stolen land is relinquished, critical consciousness does not translate into action that disrupts settler colonialism” (19). No doubt that is true, and if land and treaty acknowledgments are understood as an end in themselves, rather than as a starting point towards decolonization, then they would indeed be useless gestures. Surely there can be a movement from critical consciousness to action, and if land and treaty acknowledgments can play a role in that movement, they will have some value. We will have to see whether those acknowledgments can play a role in that movement; that is one of the things my current research is intended to discover.
Works Cited
Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization; Indigeneity, Education, and Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40.
Wilkes, Rima, Aaron Duong, Linc Kesler, Howard Ramos. “Canadian University Acknowledgment of Indigenous Lands, Treaties, and Peoples.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, vol. 54, no. 1, 2017, 89-120.