Analysis of a Land Acknowledgement

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Jan 22

The text of the land acknowledgement runs as follows;

“As members and guests of [name of parish], we acknowledge that the lands we live, work and meet on are the traditional territories of the Erie, Neutral, Huron, Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Mississauga. This land is covered by the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, which was an agreement between the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabek to share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. We further acknowledge that this land is covered by the Between the Lakes Purchase, 1792, between the Crown and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. As settlers it is our responsibility to learn about and acknowledge our colonial history and the ways in which we continue to perpetuate it. As people of faith working for justice, we are called to discern how we are to respond to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”

This land acknowledgement is intended to be recited in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, before an exclusively non-aboriginal audience, of members of a club to each other.

Analysis:  Hamilton was never Haudenosaunee (i.e Mohawk, Iroquois) territory.  The Iroquois lived in New York State and only passed through Hamilton to slaughter the Erie, Neutral, Wendat, and Huron.  The last slaughter, as Hamilton’s Roman Catholics know, occurred in 1648, that wiped out the Hurons and produced the Canadian Martyrs, such as Fr. Jean de Brebeuf.  Afterwards, the Iroquois withdrew back to New York.

The Mississaugas, a few thousand strong, moved into the area of Ontario south and west of a line from the eastern end of Lake Ontario to the southern part of Georgian Bay - after the area had been conveniently cleared of Hurons by the Iroquois!  There never have been Indian settlements excavated in the lower city of Hamilton.

It is noteworthy that, in terms of land possession, the period between 1650 and 1792 is but 142 years.  Between 1792 and 2022 lie 230 years.  Hamilton has been in the possession of the Crown for almost a century longer than the Mississaugas possessed it.

The Dish with One Spoon treaty is an oral tradition binding on its signatories (so to speak), and we aren’t one of them.  The Peace of Paris of 1763 also covers this area, and is the treaty (in black and white) relevant to us because it put the Hamilton area under the British Crown and took it away from the French monarchy.  We don’t expect the Peace of Paris to concern the Indians, so why should we be concerned about an oral tradition among Indians?  (It is noteworthy that the Dish with One Spoon treaty is between the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabek, because they had annihilated all the others.)

The Between the Lakes Purchase, as the name says, indicates that the British Crown bought the land in question.  That means the Mississaugas ceded it.  That’s what a purchase agreement means, the transfer of real property in exchange for money.  It became ours.  And 230 years on it’s still ours.

It simply makes no sense to say that because we bought parcels of land from Indians, that “it is our responsibility to learn about and acknowledge our colonial history and the ways in which we continue to perpetuate it.”  ‘We’ didn’t colonize.  The Crown bought the land.  In what way are we today perpetuating colonization, notwithstanding that the Crown legally purchased the land we’re on and never colonized in the first place?  We’re not squatting on Indian land!  Depending on how you count, I’m the sixth generation to have lived in Hamilton.  I’m six generations removed from being a ‘settler.’  I’m not perpetuating colonization.  How long does it take to be a native of Hamilton?

‘We’ aren’t squatting on Indian land.  We bought this legally from the Mississaugas, the Indians in actual possession of the land when British authorities arrived here.  Settling on your own land isn’t colonizing.  We can’t be perpetuating an injustice when no injustice was ever committed in the first place!

As people of faith, it is our moral responsibility not to tell lies, to bear false witness against our neighbours, and it is false witness against our neighbours to accuse them of committing an injustice by living their lives in Hamilton, and to accuse them of ‘perpetuating’ the injustice of colonization.

 I’m sorry, United Empire Loyalists were pouring into British North America after the American Revolution, and British authorities bought land from the Indians so the UEs could have a legitimate place to settle.  Immigrants to Hamilton from the 1830s arrived at a place already well settled by people of British or American extraction, and those of us who are their descendants didn’t have a say in where we were born.  I simply can’t see how my mere existence here constitutes an injustice against people who don’t live here, and never have.

Conclusion:  There is no factual or rational basis to conclude that white people need to feel guilty about squatting on unceded, Indian land.  The land was ceded.  It’s been in possession of the Crown for longer than it was in possession of the Indians it was bought from.  Since this recitation of sackcloth and ashes isn’t expected to be made before an audience of aboriginals, what is the point of it except to lay a guilt-trip on people who never committed an injustice and aren’t the descendants of people who committed an injustice?

This is nothing but a weird guilt-trip that’s expected to soften up the reciters psychologically for conclusions altogether too obvious, such as, why aren’t you giving it back?  (But you can ease your conscience with a few million dollars!)

-30-