If you travel in certain circles, you have probably encountered the “Land Acknowledgement.”
It is when the facilitator opens a gathering with a statement acknowledging that “we are on [insert tribe name] land.”
The first time I heard the “Land Acknowledgement” was eight years ago. The statement was given by an Indigenous trainer with the National Education Association. When the Indigenous trainer made this statement, I was totally floored by her courage. There were about 100 of us training participants. I noticed most of us were nodding our heads as she spoke. A few of my colleagues looked anxious. I was very proud of her.
Today, I hold equal parts gratitude for and discomfort with the “Land Acknowledgement.”
I feel gratitude for the Indigenous activists who dreamed up this statement. Your idea of forcing awareness of Indigenous people has worked.
On the other hand, each time I hear it, I feel uncomfortable. I often wonder if the well-intentioned non-native person giving the acknowledgment has any idea that I, or perhaps other native people are in the room. Being SPOKEN FOR in this context strikes me more as an erasure of our presence, rather than an amplification of it. Perhaps I could offer an edit to the Land Acknowledgment: If the desire is to acknowledge the people who once occupied the land, then why not ask if there are any Native Americans present who would like to say something or who would like to be acknowledged?
To acknowledge the original people of this land is to recognize the special significance we hold in the founding of this country: our genocide, which made way for it, and our way of life, which shaped it.
What the Land Acknowledgement Avoids
To acknowledge that “we are on native land” avoids the truth behind the statement: it wasn’t “native land.” Land ownership wasn’t a concept held by the indigenous people of this land mass when Europeans arrived. The original people lived in kinship with the land, the animals, and all living beings.
Europeans did not “take our land.” Europeans killed us. They brought disease and genocide. Many indigenous tribes were killed to extinction. When we were dead, Europeans claimed the land.
To acknowledge the land, but not the genocide is painful, because it prolongs our invisibility.
The day that we now celebrate as “Indigenous People’s Day” was the day that the genocide began.
When Christopher Columbus’ ships landed on Hispaniola on October 12, 1492, there were as many as 8 million people living on the island. Fifty years later, less than 25 Taino people remained. Christopher Columbus Day — made a federal holiday by Congress in 1971 — overlooked the fact that upon his arrival, Columbus and his crew quickly began killing, enslaving, and raping the people of the island.
The Catholic Church got reports of the inhumane behavior, and — in what they must have considered an act of mercy — declared in 1513 the Requerimiento. This gave the Taino people a chance to escape death by accepting Christianity. At this time, few if any Taino people could understand Spanish, so they “chose” to die. Those who managed to understand and converted to Christianity were (generously!) granted the opportunity to get baptized before the Conquistadors enslaved, raped, or killed them. The Requiermiento stopped short of viewing the “Indians” as “children of God.”
Slowly, thanks to activism by Native Americans and their allies, many states and cities have taken steps to replace Columbus Day with “Indigenous Peoples Day.” That is a step in the right direction. But perhaps we could also use the second Monday in October to acknowledge the genocide of the original people of this land at the hands of Europeans, AND find another day to celebrate the actual, living, indigenous people and culture. (How does the second Tuesday in October look for you?)
The Indigenous People of this Land Were Also FOUNDING FATHERS/MOTHERS
When Europeans arrived here, as a people, they had lived under feudalism for hundreds of years. Upon arrival, their social relations largely mirrored those in the old world with the church, royalty, and wealthy calling the shots.
What they encountered among the tribal people was something radically different. The indigenous people they encountered were politically organized into horizontal, dynamic, (often) matriarchal democracies.
We were the freest people most Europeans had ever encountered. This includes the wealthy, white, men that later went on to found the United States of America. How did the Founders come up with the ideas on which the United States was created? Of course, much credit has been given to their scholarly debates of ancient Greek societies that they had never witnessed with their own eyes. Little is attributed to the complex, democratic governance of the indigenous societies they encountered frequently.
The founders were indeed likely influenced by theories of democracy written in books alongside ideas forged through scholarly, drunken, pub debates. But these men were also shaped by the example they borrowed from the strong, free, and democratic societies that surrounded them on the “new” land.
Let’s acknowledge the land, but at the same time, the genocide that stains it and the living, original people who are still here.
Be First to Comment