My second reading on territory and treaty acknowledgements—another on the list I got from Matthew Anderson—a blog post by Métis writer (and lawyer) Chelsea Vowel, who blogs under the name âpihtawikosisân, the Cree word for “Métis.” Vowel is way ahead of settler-descendant writers on this topic, and her short discussion is important and valuable.
Vowel begins by noting that “Territorial acknowledgments have become fairly common in urban, progressive spaces in Canada,” and she notes that she had been hearing them for over 15 years at the time she was writing (âpihtawikosisân). She wants to ask several questions about these acknowledgments:
First, what is the purpose of these acknowledgments? Both what those making the territorial acknowledgments say they intend, as well as what Indigenous peoples think may be the purpose. Second, what can we learn about the way these acknowledgments are delivered? Are there best practices? Third, in what spaces do these acknowledgments happen and more importantly, where are they not found? Finally, what can exist beyond territorial acknowledgments? (âpihtawikosisân)
When these acknowledgements first began, Vowel continues, “they were fairly powerful statements of presence, somewhat shocking, perhaps even unwelcome in settler spaces. They provoked discomfort and centered Indigenous priority on these lands” (âpihtawikosisân). She disagrees with Bob Joseph’s suggestion that these acknowledgements can be a way of honouring traditional Indigenous territory protocols, however; such a suggestion, she argues, is dangerous. Another purpose is to make spaces which feel unsafe for Indigenous peoples, like settler-dominated universities, less alienating. “As a newer practice in such environments, territorial acknowledgments continue to have the power to disrupt and discomfit settler colonialism,” she states (âpihtawikosisân).
“It should also be emphasized that these territorial acknowledgments flow from the work of Indigenous peoples themselves, who are resisting invisibilization,” Vowel continues. “When they are crafted, they are usually done so in consultation with local Indigenous peoples” (âpihtawikosisân). At the same time, Indigenous critiques of territory acknowledgments are strongest in places like Vancouver, where such acknowledgments have existed for a long time, although Indigenous critiques can also exist where territory acknowledgments are relatively new.
“I believe territorial acknowledgments can have numerous purposes, and in fact can be repurposed, so merely examining the stated intentions of these invocations is insufficient,” Vowel writes. “What may start out as radical push-back against the denial of Indigenous priority and continued presence, may end up repurposed as ‘box-ticking’ inclusion without commitment to any sort of real change” (âpihtawikosisân). That is “the inevitable progression,” she suggests, “a situation of familiarity breeding contempt (or at least apathy)” (âpihtawikosisân).
The way these acknowledgments are delivered matters: “Are they formulaic recitations that barely penetrate the consciousness of the speaker and those listening? Are they something that must be ‘gotten through’ before the meeting or speech can begin? Can we escape dilution through repetition?” (âpihtawikosisân). In other words, she continues, “What do territorial acknowledgments mean for people who have heard them ad nauseum?” (âpihtawikosisân). “On the other hand,” she continues, “rituals and repetition are not necessarily bad things. Establishing a practice of acknowledgment can be part of wider attempts to address settler colonialism and build better relationships with Indigenous peoples” (âpihtawikosisân). Settler-descendants who offer territory acknowledgments need to think about what treaties mean and what the term “ceded territories” means (âpihtawikosisân). Territory acknowledgments are an opportunity to elevate Indigenous governance and jurisdiction (âpihtawikosisân). In addition, people need to do their own research, rather than relying on standardized institutional acknowledgments; the point is to participate in a “deeper engagement with the purpose and impact of territorial acknowledgments” (âpihtawikosisân).
Vowel suggests that territory acknowledgments are more commonplace in western Canada than elsewhere, and that they tend to be absent in rural spaces “where there is arguably the most tangible Indigenous presence” (âpihtawikosisân). “Yet these would be the spaces in which territorial acknowledgments have the potential to be most powerful; the settler rural/First Nations divide is huge and plays out in deeply problematic (and all too often violent) ways,” she writes (âpihtawikosisân). Those two solitudes “exist on lands that supply the bulk of resources extracted” to support urban areas, “meaning they also experience the effects of resource extraction in ways urban residents do not” (âpihtawikosisân). However, settler and First Nations communities are “accustomed to working in isolation” from each other, rather than being unified in response to the effects of resource extraction on the land and on local communities (âpihtawikosisân). Ignoring the First Nations presence in rural areas “is normalized, deeply ingrained, and central to rural settler governance,” Vowel states (âpihtawikosisân).
“This brings me back to the question of . . . why are people acknowledging territory in the first place?” Vowel asks:
When mostly urban institutions and circles are making these acknowledgments, who are they thinking of? Urban Indigenous populations? Rural and remote First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities? Is there a feeling of reaching out to or desiring partnerships with these communities? What of the non-Indigenous communities also found in rural and remote spaces? Are they implicated in urban-based territorial acknowledgments, or are they as ignored by their urban counterparts as they in turn ignore local Indigenous communities? (âpihtawikosisân)
Those are excellent questions, but they need to be considered within the context of the social and political divisions between urban and rural settlers, divisions which are reflected in, to take one example, the differences in voting habits between urban settlers and their rural counterparts.
“If we think of territorial acknowledgments as sites of potential disruption, they can be transformative acts that to some extent undo Indigenous erasure,” Vowel writes:
I believe this is true as long as these acknowledgments discomfit both those speaking and hearing the words. The fact of Indigenous presence should force non-Indigenous peoples to confront their own place on these lands. I would like to see territorial acknowledgments happening in spaces where they are currently absent, particularly in rural and remote areas and within the governance structures of settlers. (âpihtawikosisân)
At the same time, “territorial acknowledgments can become stripped of their disruptive power through repetition,” she continues. “The purpose cannot merely be to inform an ignorant public that Indigenous peoples exist, and that Canada has a history of colonialism” (âpihtawikosisân). Indigenous protocols could perhaps be a guide to moving territory acknowledgments into “the space beyond the acknowledgment” (âpihtawikosisân). “Stopping at territorial acknowledgments is unacceptable,” she contends (âpihtawikosisân).
For instance, if settlers start considering themselves to be guests on Indigenous lands, then they would need to learn about their obligations as guests, according to the First Nations on whose land they are staying. “What are the Indigenous protocols involved in being a guest, what are your responsibilities?” Vowel asks. “What responsibilities do your hosts have towards you, and are you making space for those responsibilities to be exercised?” (âpihtawikosisân). “What I am saying is that all Indigenous nations have specific expectations of guests, and of hosts, and so far non-Indigenous peoples have not been very good at finding out what those are,” she continues:
I think this needs to be the next step. It requires having actual conversations with Indigenous communities, saying things like “we want to be better guests, how to we do that according to your laws and hey by the way, what ARE your laws” and being prepared to hear the answers, even those that are uncomfortable like “give us the land back.” (âpihtawikosisân)
“Moving beyond territorial acknowledgments means asking hard questions about what needs to be done once we’re ‘aware of Indigenous presence,’” she concludes. “It requires that we remain uncomfortable, and it means making concrete, disruptive change. How can you be in good relationship with Indigenous peoples, with non-human beings, with the land and water? No ideas? Well, it’s a good idea that Indigenous peoples are still here, because our legal orders address all of those questions. So why aren’t you asking us?” (âpihtawikosisân).
The questions Vowel raises in this post are important and powerful, and in ways they lead back to Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s demand for concrete actions beyond settler consciousness raising. But are settler-descendants ready for “concrete, disruptive change”? Are they ready to be uncomfortable, to be discomfited, to be unsettled? I’m not convinced that they are, even if that is what the situation requires, and it might be that change will happen only at a speed which allows settlers to avoid discomfort. If that’s the case, that change may never reach the kind of place where they will begin to, for instance, ask Indigenous peoples about being in a good relationship with the land and the water, and take the answers seriously. And yet, if we’re to avoid ecological catastrophe, we might need to listen to Indigenous thinking about such relationships. I’m not sure what steps one might take to encourage people to embrace discomfort. There’s a lot to think about in this post, and I’m glad I took the time to reread and take notes on Vowel’s short essay.
Works Cited
âpihtawikosisân (Chelsea Vowel). “Beyond Territorial Acknowledgments,” 23 September 2016, https://apihtawikosisan.com/2016/09/beyond-territorial-acknowledgments/.
Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630.
