Land acknowledgements often ignore history
Eminent scholar Lawrence Krauss nicely critiques the fatuousness of indigenous land acknowledgments in a National Post piece, brief excerpts of which are posted below.
In sum, he argues that such land acknowledgements, whether well-intentioned or not, often ignore historical facts and scientific evidence. In particular, claims of indigenous presence since “time immemorial” are historically and scientifically unfounded, as evidenced by archaeological findings and indigenous oral histories.
Instead of perpetuating myths, he argues, we should celebrate our shared cultural diversity and recognize our interconnectedness as descendants of past colonizers and colonized groups.
Land acknowledgements often ignore history
Lawrence Krauss
National Post
February 23, 2025
I remember the first time I heard a statement at a public event along the lines of, “This building is located on traditional unceded Aboriginal land.” It was in Australia, and it struck me as disingenuous, simplistic and patronizing. If the people making this statement really felt that badly about [it] …, then they would reasonably choose to give the land back along with all they had built upon it.
Moreover, the land acknowledgments also skip over the reality that in some nations, treaties cover part or all of the territory — Canada and New Zealand, as examples.
I live in Prince Edward Island and … the last time I heard the phrase, it was slightly different, and it jarred me. I heard that the Mi’kmaq, the Indigenous tribe with deep roots in the province, had been here “since time immemorial.” Since that event, I have begun to hear more extreme versions of this prescribed mantra, with “time immemorial” replaced by “the beginning of time.”
Archeological evidence in Nova Scotia, meanwhile, places the earliest human activity in the Maritimes at around 10,000 years ago … Research from 1871 suggested that Mi’kmaq believed they had emigrated from the west, and that they warred with people already on the Island; recorded tribal traditions pointed to another group called the Kwēdĕchk as the original inhabitants.
Oral histories are notoriously unreliable, but it is telling that in traditions recorded 150 years ago, when the need to connect inhabitation of the land to time immemorial was less pressing, the Mi’kmaq themselves recognized what archeology now tells us to be true. Namely, that North American inhabitants emigrated from the west, and moreover, that Mi’kmaq territory was established with a less-than-peaceful takeover. Now, however, arts organizations that claim to represent the Mi’kmaq, like Indigenous PEI, ignore historical records and claim the Mi’kmaq have been in PEI for over 10,000 years, far longer than the archaeological record supports: the oldest human bone found on the Island is only 5,000 years old.
The claim that Indigenous tribes were not themselves the successors to earlier groups who had emigrated from elsewhere does a disservice to these groups, and to history. Ultimately, all human groups in what is now North America, even the first groups that occupied various locations here were colonizers from what is now Asia.
We all share this land, its laws and resources, whether our ancestors moved here decades, centuries or even millennia in the past. These ancestors were, at various times in history among the colonizers or the colonized. Let’s celebrate the diverse cultural mix that makes up present-day Canada, along the fact that if we go back far enough, we are all related, instead of creating myths to appease any modern guilt about the past.
National Post
Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist, is a senior fellow of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, President of the Origins Project Foundation, and Chair of the Board of the Free Speech Union of Canada. His most recent book is The Edge of Knowledge, and his new book, due out in July, is The War on Science.
Indians good, White man bad. That is the vacuous and simplistic narrative being driven by our academic and political class in Canada today. Why? because it feeds a large and insatiable industy of grievance. There is a lot of power and money to be had if you align yourself with this narrative and you risk ostracicm and career suicide if you point out inconvenient historical facts. I used to think land acknowledgements were harmless virtue signalling, as they were generally pretty innocuous "we are on the traditional territory of the [name of tribe]" or something, but they have become more and more strident and less factual over time as you need to be increasingly extreme in your view of Canadian white supremacy in order to stand out as more virtuous, which means fully adopting the post truth mantra of feelings over facts. You can say anything in a land acknowledgement and no one will dare question it. This has lead to a substantial and growing backlash which the Grievance Industry leaders call "the far right". That's right- calling for truth and historical accuracy is now regarded as a far right position. A reset is badly needed.
People can acknowledge all they want, IMHO, because we are supposed to have the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to not listen to BS.
But what these grifters are doing is dismissing our equal right not to be forced to listen to the drivel. We have to listen to this BS when we willingly attend events and visit institutions for an entirely unrelated purpose. We end up being guilty by association.
The fact that they have done this at Veteran's Day memorials proved to me that the people behind these hostage-takings are crass, unworthy individuals who should be marched right off the premises by those who are being held hostage. That includes the ass-kissing even organizers who do not respect the right of the invitees not to be forced to listen to misrepresentations and nonsense.
In my case, in Ottawa in 2025 at the Veteran's Day Memorial in my community, I stated openly to anyone who would listen that I will not leave the memorial just because frauds have decided I must particpate in their appropriation of the memorial for their own greedy agenda.
These self-appointed arbiters of what we must listen to have to be removed from all events and institutions, period.
Many people agreed with me.