Last week, King Charles III of England made a trip to Canada to deliver the speech from the throne, which set out the agenda for the new Liberal government of Canada. This is the third time in Canada's history in which the British monarch delivered Canada's throne speech, the other two which were during Queen Elizabeth II's reign. During this speech, King Charles began with the following:
I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. This land acknowledgment is a recognition of a shared history as a nation. While continuing to deepen my own understanding, it is my great hope that in each of your communities, and collectively as a country, a path is found toward truth and reconciliation, in both word and deed.
This sort of statement is known as a land acknowledgement. A land acknowledgment is a formal statement that recognizes and respects indigenous people as the traditional stewards of the land. It is supposed to be a way to honor the original inhabitants of the land while acknowledging the subsequent effects of displacement. While they are intended to show respect and promote reconciliation, they act as nothing more than a performative gesture.
Let us start with the reality that for much of history, conquest was a widely accepted means of acquiring land. The modern day concept of property rights (e.g., John Locke, Adam Smith), as well as international law stating that conquest is not a legitimate means of acquiring land (e.g., UN Charter, Article 2(4)), is relatively new. As reprehensible as the actions of Christopher Columbus, Hernán Cortés, and Francisco Pizarro were by modern standards, white people do not have a monopoly on violence, brutality, or colonization.
The Iroquois partook in aggressive warfare, whether through the Beaver Wars or mourning wars. The Crow Creek Sioux tribe had the Crow Creek Massacre in the 1300s, which killed about 500 people. The Inca Empire was created by a combination of peaceful assimilation and conquest for those who did not accept Inca rule peacefully. The Aztecs fought large-scale wars to expand their empire, as well as partook in ritualized violence and human sacrifice. The Māori tribe of New Zealand committed mass murder, enslavement, and cannibalism of the Moriori people. Then there was Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Aurangzeb of the Mughal Empire, the creation of the Ottoman Empire, the Achaemenid Persian Empire, and the Songhai Empire in western Africa, to name a few.
If I were a betting man, I would say that everyone has at least one ancestor who partook in conquest of some sort or fashion. Why? Violence, colonization, and conquest made up much of pre-modern history, regardless of race or ethnicity. Some were simply more effective and brutal than others. Rather than acknowledge historical reality, it provides another opportunity for woke people to oversimplify racial relations into the racist and inaccurate claim of "White people = bad; minorities = good." History is more complicated than that and there are brutes across all races and ethnicities.
For argument's sake, I will be a good sport about it and give the a benefit of a doubt. Let us assume for a New York minute that the indigenous people are unquestionably the rightful owners of the land. If so, there is another major issue that arises. The purpose of these land acknowledgements is reconciliation. Do land acknowledgments lead to genuine reconciliation?
Ever since the beginning of modern-day land acknowledgments in the late 1970s, there has not been a single land acknowledgment that has resulted in the restoration of land ownership to indigenous nations or the establishment of indigenous governance over ancestral territories. What these land acknowledgements are in practice is being akin to someone stealing your possessions, writing a half-hearted, hand-written note admitting to the theft, and then doing nothing to either return the possessions or compensate you for the loss. How does that show respect for the aggrieved party?
It is even more mind-boggling to do a land acknowledgment for a tribe that no longer exists as a distinct, unified entity, whether that is the Yamasee, Susquehannock, or the Massachusett tribe. To reconcile is to restore a sense of peace or harmony between both parties. Short of a Casper the Friendly Ghost situation, you cannot reconcile with a group of people that no longer exist.
In the Canadian case cited at the beginning of this piece, it is not as if King Charles were a plebeian with zero clout. Although the monarch of England is largely a ceremonial role, he is still on the throne of one of the world's largest powers. If these land acknowledgments were meant to be about actual reconciliation and compensation, something of substance should have come about as a result of these land acknowledgements.
The lack of outcomes as a result of land acknowledgements show how hollow and disingenuous land acknowledgments truly are. If you actually want to make a difference, put your money where your mouth is. Either give the aggrieved party their land back (or at least some form of compensation to help out indigenous people) or shut your hole. Otherwise, the moral exhibitionism that is land acknowledgement is as feel-good and useless as using plastic straws or recycling.
No comments:
Post a Comment