Meaningless Land Acknowledgments?

I never parroted the obligatory land acknowledgments. Everyone opened with one: teachers, presenters, even meeting participants doing introductions. I didn’t get the point. I always wanted to ask, “That’s nice. So… are you giving the land back?” But I held my tongue.

Instead, I’m unpacking these statements through the WITAWOPS lens: What I Think About What Other People Say. Let me know if this resonates — or just makes you uncomfortable.

Image by Freepix

My Disclaimer (or Bias, if you prefer)

I grew up in Kenya — on land taken by white settlers and later sold to brown Indian-Kenyans like my family. Now, I live just outside Seattle — on land taken by white settlers and sold to brown Indian-Americans like... also my family. In both cases, the land wasn’t bought from the pre-colonial residents. So yes, I’m complicit. And no, I’m not pretending otherwise. Let’s get into it.

What Do I Think:

Let’s start in Indiana — my first U.S. home. From Indiana University Indianapolis:

“IU Indianapolis acknowledges our location on the traditional and ancestral territory of the Miami, Potawatomi and Shawnee people… Founded in 1969, IU Indianapolis stands on the historic homelands of Native peoples.”

Then there's the East Coast version, from Harvard University:

“Harvard University is located on the traditional and ancestral land of the Massachusett, the original inhabitants of what is now known as Boston and Cambridge. We pay respect to the people of the Massachusett Tribe, past and present, and honor the land itself which remains sacred…”

And from the West Coast, University of Washington:

“The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land… shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”

Each version offers respectful language. But what’s the point? Both IU and Harvard acknowledge they are located on someone else’s land. UW doesn’t go that far. None suggest restitution, reparation, or even the most symbolic transfer of ownership. These read less like acknowledgments and more like, well, a deflection.

Imagine I steal your car. Then I sell it. The new owner drives it around town, waving at you, saying, “I honor your historical car ownership.” Feel good about that?

Digging Deeper

One version stood out to me — from UW’s Center for Educational Justice. Here’s the key phrase:

“We acknowledge the ancestral homelands of those who walked here before us and those who still walk here, keeping in mind the integrity of this territory where area Native peoples identify as the Duwamish, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, and Puyallup, as well as the tribes of the Muckleshoot, Tulalip, other Coast Salish peoples and their descendants. We are grateful to respectfully live and work as guests on these lands with the Coast Salish and Native people who call this home. This land acknowledgement is one small act in the ongoing process of working to be in good relationship with the land and the people of the land.” (emphasis added)

Better? It at least hints at a process. But let me test it rigorously.

The purpose: "Good relationship"? Tell that to the plaintiffs in the Boldt Decision, the Culvert Case, or the legacy of forced boarding schools. No one in a “good relationship” needs to keep suing for basic rights.

"Integrity of this territory"? That phrase implies the land is sovereign, undisturbed, and not occupied by others. But the treaties and laws say otherwise (not sovereign). Look at all the development that has taken place over the past 200 years (disturbed and occupied). So either we’re misusing the word integrity, or we’re pretending it means something symbolic. It doesn’t.

"Guests on these lands"? That one is especially confusing. The U.S. Government signed treaties in which tribes ceded land. Legally and practically, the land was sold or taken. So the buyer isn’t a guest. They’re the new owner — however uncomfortable that truth may be. If we really believed we were guests, we’d pay rent. Or leave. (read my other posts:  Mistakes: Can we correct, repent, offer reparations, and remember  and The U.S. is Really a Colonial Power).

Why Should You Care?

I strongly believe that words really matter. If you’re going to say something — especially in public — be intentional, know the purpose of your words, and understand their implications. Don’t parrot a land acknowledgment just because everyone else is doing it. If you do not tie your words to any any tangible action, policy change, or benefit to American Indians, then are you being sincere or dishonest.

Let me know if this post stepped on toes — or if it got you thinking. Both ways work for me and keep me writing!