The Deception and Insincerity Behind ‘Land Acknowledgements’ by John Robson
Commentary
Starting off by admitting that this column was plagiarized on a stolen computer by a notorious brute, I urge everyone to aspire to create a better world by following my lead. However, if you wouldn’t take advice from a dishonest thug and believe that I should return the laptop to its rightful owner, then you might want to steer clear of Canada.
In Canada, every high-profile or public-sector event typically begins with a solemn acknowledgment that we are on stolen land. Whether it’s deemed “traditional,” “unceded,” or “unsurrendered,” the assertion is false, hypocritical, and harmful.
This hypocrisy is hard to swallow. Those who self-righteously claim to be residing on stolen territory have no intention of returning it because they either do not believe it was stolen or do not consider theft to be wrong.
Furthermore, the narrative of Canada being a racist nation built on stolen land is unequivocally false.
Although the devastating encounters between Europeans and Indigenous peoples are regrettable, if promises were made to Aboriginal leaders and not fulfilled, the legal system in Canada allows for recourse. This false narrative runs much deeper.
There is a fallacious notion that Indigenous peoples lived in perfect harmony with each other and nature before European colonization. Their limited environmental impact stemmed from primitive technology, not some innate ecological virtue absent in others. Additionally, they engaged in warfare, including acts of violence and ethnic cleansing.
Living in a lie is not in line with Canadian values, and it is crucial to reject pervasive falsehoods about Canada being built on stolen land. These fabrications undermine trust in the authorities and perpetuate distorted historical grievances which can have detrimental social implications.
Ultimately, pretending to acknowledge a falsehood is not the Canadian way.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.