When land acknowledgements aren't enough

Every Fraser Valley community exists on unceded land.

But what does that mean, exactly? What actions are needed by those who recognize that reality? And should we just say ‘stolen?’

In an era of reconciliation, the recitation of land acknowledgements have become common. But whether they serve a purpose has been put into question by some Indigenous people.

“It’s a concerning thing that it makes people feel like they’ve done something when no work has been accomplished,” Chilliwack podcaster (and Chawathil First Nation councillor) Aaron Pete said in his latest podcast episode.

Pete was speaking with lawyer and historian Bruce McIvor in his latest episode of the Bigger Than Me Podcast.

“I’ve heard many compare it to the idea of like, I took your food or I took your cookie and then I’m acknowledging that I did, in fact, take that. And there’s no plan in place to address that,” Pete said.

Today, we share a conversation between Pete and McIvor about the ‘tokenism’ of land acknowledgements, the harm caused by ‘pretendians', the role of status cards, and more.

The following is an excerpt from Aaron Pete’s latest episode of the Bigger Than Me podcast, where he discusses reconciliation, land acknowledgements, and ‘pretendians’ with Bruce McIvor, historian and practitioner of Aboriginal law in Canada.  

Aaron Pete: One thing that you hear at the beginning of a lot of conversations, political dialogues, email signatures, is land acknowledgments. And one of the things I landed on when I was listening to your interview with Dan George, was your kindred spirits in this regard, and it felt like it gave me voice to share my opinions on land acknowledgments more openly, because I had a lot of the same trepidations I think you have, and Dan George reflected, which is that this is a form of tokenism.

It’s a concerning thing that it makes people feel like they’ve done something when no work has been accomplished. I’ve heard many compare it to the idea of like, ‘I took your food or I took your cookie and then I'm acknowledging that I did, in fact, take that.’ And there’s no plan in place to address that. And so would you mind sharing your perspective on land acknowledgments?

Bruce McIvor: I have one of my clients, they describe it as someone stealing your truck and as they’re driving away, they lean out the window and say, 'Thanks,' and drive off. I thought that was pretty funny.

There’s a really good sketch people can watch on YouTube, the Baroness von Sketch [Show]. She’s got a really funny piece on land acknowledgement and how they are, not all the time, that can be really performative.

That’s not just a lost opportunity, I think. I think it’s more than that. I think it can be a way to silence Indigenous people. We see that a lot. And for me, it’s part of this wider tendency with some segments of non-Indigenous society to weaponize apologies. And you’ll see that the basic response is, ‘Well, we apologize, what are you still complaining about?’

And you’ll see that with land acknowledgments: ‘we gave our land acknowledgement so now you don’t have a right to voice your concern, and to make us feel uncomfortable. ‘

Pete: This is one of the things I think you’re good at addressing. But when I tell people how I feel about it, I feel like a controversial person because they’re so widespread, they’re so commonplace now to say that it doesn’t feel productive—or maybe there’s different ways to go about this—it feels like I’m the bad person in the room, [that] I’m raining on everybody’s parade.

I’m wondering how you feel, because what your book does so eloquently, is it points out the challenges with tokenism with this idea of surface level action without deep rooted action. And so I’m just curious, is this something challenging for you to carry when you’re kind of the spoiler of the party, you’re the one saying, ‘Hey, maybe this isn’t as productive as everybody would like to think it is?’

McIvor: That’s a great question. I was talking to a friend of mine about this—and you’ll know this better than most do—one of the ways you deal with that is through humor. So you start off and one of the ways to do [it] is when you know you’re going to make someone uncomfortable, start with telling jokes. Make them feel comfortable. You’re open, welcoming, they lean in, they’re laughing, they make themselves vulnerable, and then you hit them with the truth.

And I don’t have a problem doing that. Maybe it’s just I’ve gotten to a certain point. I have such support of my clients and Indigenous colleagues all across the country. Maybe I just don’t have a filter or have less of a filter these days. I gave a talk in Ottawa last week. One of the things I felt comfortable getting up and saying is this: I don’t like all this talk about settlers. I don’t like people getting up—and this is the very same thing with land acknowledgments right—identifying as being settlers. I don’t like that binary.

Because what that does for me is it triggers this whole idea of Indigenous people as being part of wilderness, of being savages, of being Nomad on the land, of being unsettled. And the settlers come in and introduce civilization, everything else, which there are problems, but I just have a problem with that binary. I don’t like getting into that. And I think it’s important for us to be aware. And I might be totally wrong, right. But I’m not shy about saying it. I know I said it at a conference in Ottawa last week. And I could see some people in the audience feeling a little bit uncomfortable, because that’s how they always introduce themselves. I think we should have that conversation.

Pete: I like that, because it’s often how I bring up how this all started. So when we look back, and when we talk about the basics of history, we often look at it like two people who were on different pages, but how it started was Indigenous people being open to working collaboratively.

And that’s how we have Metis people, like yourself, is that there was a willingness to collaborate and then that was betrayed. Start there. And so Indigenous people have always been open to people coming to this land and to utilizing and to working collaboratively. But that shifted when we were betrayed and when we were undermined, that sentiment was modified but it doesn’t mean that this started from an adversarial place to begin with.

McIvor: That’s such a good point. I give my couch surfing analogy all the time. I don’t know if you’ve heard that one before… what is reconciliation about, at least as the courts in Canada have said: it’s like someone showing up at your door knocking.

They’d like to sleep on your sofa for the night and you’re welcoming. You don’t want to leave someone out there in the cold without food so they can come in, they sleep on your sofa.

They’re there for a couple of days, three days, you come home, they’re taking a shower. They’ve made themselves comfortable. You come home again, they’re in your fridge. 'Oh, wow they’re really comfortable.'

You come home again, they’re building a house in your backyard. And then they say, ‘Hey, let’s sit down and talk about reconciliation.’ And you’re like, ‘What do you mean reconciliation? It’s my home. I just invited you in to help take care of you and make you safe. And now you’re saying we need to [reconcile]? I don’t understand that.

Watch, listen to, and download the entirety of Pete and McIvor’s conversation, as well as other editions of Pete’s Bigger Than Me podcast.