Thinking about the Territorial Acknowledgement

Thinking about the Territorial Acknowledgement  

I often lead learning sessions and meetings and I begin each of these
with acknowledgements. I believe it is the right thing to do when a
group of people gather together to work.

I acknowledge everyone for making the effort to attend the meeting,
especially teachers who have to prepare lessons and do lots of extra
work above and beyond their normal routines just to be in attendance.
If the meeting I’m at is being hosted by someone else then I acknowledge
the host and thank them for inviting us and for the effort they made to
accommodate us. And I also do a Territorial Acknowledgement.

A Territorial Acknowledgement is small and simple gesture to
address something much larger and complex. With this action I’m
acknowledging that I’m participating in a gathering of people on
territory that doesn’t necessarily belong to me (or us). That’s a strong
statement, isn’t it: “doesn’t belong to me (or us).” That takes some
understanding of history to grasp. Let me explain.

I view history this way…. The area we call Canada now was occupied
by a wide variety of nations when Europeans first arrived. These nations
stretched from the east coast to the west coast and from the far north to
the south going into what we now call the rest of North America and
South America. These nations lived and survived and created great
cultures, histories, art, languages, and complex societies.

As Europeans arrived they relied heavily on the support of the nations
for survival and the nations, let’s call them the First Nations, welcomed
the Europeans. They made agreements to share the land and resources
for the people of the First Nations knew they had a bounty of resources.
The agreements were for the First Nations and Europeans to live side by
side but the Europeans didn’t honour this.

Soon, Europeans were trying to change the way First Nations lived.
They changed the economies, system of trade, religion, and societal
structures. They even brought their European wars to the First Nations.

As more and more Europeans arrived they listened less and less to the
agreements of living side by side and in sharing resources. The push
was causing conflicts so King George III of England issued a proclamation
in 1763. He stated that the lands of what we know as Canada belong to the
people of the First Nations. He said that that land could only be negotiated
for by agents of the monarch or government. That means that your average
pioneer couldn’t sign a contract for land; it had to be an agreement between
nations - between the monarch or British government (Canada wasn’t a
country yet) and the people of the First Nations. These treaties were nation
to nation agreements.

So we entered an era of treaty negotiation. Europeans were asking for land
and in return the First Nations negotiated for a range of benefits that included
free education, free health care, monetary compensation, fishing and hunting
rights, and much more - it varied from treaty to treaty.

This sounds like a great plan and everything should have worked out. The
problem is Europeans didn’t uphold their end of the deal. Sure, the Europeans
got the land but the First Nations didn’t receive all they were promised.

Let’s look at the Kitchener-Waterloo area where I host most of my meetings
and learning sessions. The treaty called for yearly compensation for the land
which was settled by Europeans (think of it as a 999 year lease  with rental payments). Our government has failed consistently from the time since the treaty was signed to compensate the Haudenosaunee for the land they leased to us. That bothers me. It should bother you. And it should bother every Canadian, for we state we believe in a just and fair society. In Canada, if you don’t pay your rent you are evicted.

I’m sure that the Haudenosaunee would be better off if we settlers were evicted
but they aren’t calling for that. They have asked us to address the back rent and
to pay our fair share going forward, which I think is only fair.

So why do I say, I’m acknowledging that I’m participating in a gathering of
people on territory that doesn’t necessarily belong to me (or us)?  It’s because
the territory doesn’t belong to us.

Does my Territorial Acknowledgement solve the issue? No, but it tells the
world that I acknowledge this injustice and that I’m holding out for this to be
corrected. In the meantime I acknowledge the wrongness of the situation.

I think of the Territorial Acknowledgement as a gesture just the same as “O
Canada” is a gesture. When people stand and sing “O, Canada” it is a gesture
to being Canadian. One still has to live by Canadian values, vote and participate
in our democratic institutions, and respect the laws of our country.

In the same way, the Territorial Acknowledgement is a gesture towards correcting
wrongs and in taking steps towards reconciliation. I still have to actively campaign
and put pressure on my government to right the wrongs of the treaties, I still have
to make connections with Indigenous community members, I still have to live
as a vocal and active ally, and I still have to continue my Indigenous learning
journey.

I want to pause here and correct a misunderstanding. Some people think that a
Territorial Acknowledgement is a challenge to their religious values. I call this
a misunderstanding because a Territorial Acknowledgement has nothing to do
with religion. Acknowledging the territory one is gathering on is a purely
secular activity. Anyone of any religion can acknowledge that there is a
historical and political injustice that has occured that has nothing to do with
religion. I would think most religions would support the acknowledgement
because most belief systems are based on morals of honesty and fairness
which our broken treaty system is not.

So, in conclusion, the Territorial Acknowledgement is a gesture towards
correcting a greater injustice but I my own little sphere of influence, it’s
the least I can do.