Land Acknowledgements and Reconciling Our Settler History

[mininamib]

It's all ridiculously mucky.

The GTA area was very sparsely populated by the Huron-Wendat (about 20,000-25,000 people) until the mid-1600s. They primarily lived between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay (hence the name Huron). Toronto itself was used as hinterland hunting grounds or for transportation and had practically no permanent settlements.

In the mid-1600s, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy invaded southern Ontario from New York and killed, assimilated, or displaced most of the Huron-Wendat people. The Haudenosaunee established a couple of settlements near Toronto, but they were abandoned by 1687 when the Ojibwe Anishinaabe, who later became known as the Mississaugas, invaded and drove them out. This is about the time when European "settlers" began arriving. Today, only about 29,000 people of indigenous identity live in the City of Toronto--or about 0.8% of the population--which is fewer than the number of people of Korean background, nevermind many others. This is not because they were driven out or killed by "settlers", but because there were essentially no permanent Indigenous settlements in the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Toronto#Early_history

In terms of land claims, most of what is now Toronto, Vaughan, and King was purchased from the Mississaugas in 1787 and 1805, although the terms of the agreements were disputed until 2010, when the Mississaugas reached a $145 million settlement (representing the ancient value of the land) with the Federal Government. The majority of the GTA is covered by undisputed treaties or purchases, with the exception of the ongoing Rouge Tract Claim by the Mississaugas, which covers Scarborough, some of North York, and most of Markham. This is in the claims process and will likely result in some form of settlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Purchase
https://mncfn.ca/the-rouge-tract-claim-submitted-in-2015/

I am very interested in understanding history, but I find the quasi-mandatory, rote nature of GTA "Land Acknowledgements" and the breathless reverence they are given in certain circles irksome. It is ironic that they typically list all the Indigenous groups that have even briefly crossed the GTA, but neglect to mention that they repeatedly invaded and displaced each other from that same land in quite recent history. Most statements also mention the lands being subject to Treaty, but omit that almost all claims have been peacefully resolved. The unstated suggestion is that displacement was caused by white "settlers" (an "us-versus-them", fruitless, and clearly pejorative-academic term) or that there are ongoing disputes regarding title to "stolen" land in Toronto, where neither are fundamentally true.

For these reasons, I think the conversations in this thread will tend to be inflammatory and misleading.

None of this is to say that there aren't places where land acknowledgements make perfect sense, where there aren't active title disputes, where settlement of the land didn't displace indigenous people, or that other actions of the pre-Canadian / Canadian government didn't negatively affect indigenous people. But the situation in the GTA happens to be different than in many other places. Rather than discussing "Land Acknowledgements" or "Reconciling Our Settler History", I think a far more more useful exercise would be to highlight where there are ongoing title claims or negotiations in Ontario (https://www.ontario.ca/page/current-land-claims) or to discuss how to resolve the socio-economic issues that face Indigenous people today.

Just my two cents and what I hope is some useful information. Now I hope that this thread just disappears.

Right. But let's not downplay the heaps of pre-contact and early contact archaeological evidence of Indigenous settlements both in Toronto proper dating back to the 14th and 15th centuries (Alexandra Site and Tabor Hill Ossuary) as well as significant sites in the GTA like Crawford Lake in Milton from the 13th century, the Damiani Site in Vaughan, the Mantle Site in Whitchurch-Stouffville which had over 95 long houses, and the Grandview site in Oshawa. There are numerous others which I have seen mentioned in the literature (such as villages in Campbellville) which I cannot find much of a web presence for. The archaeological assessments for new developments in Oakville, for example, also highlight evidence of human settlement in the area for thousands of years.

A great book recommendation which goes into detail about the archeological sites in Toronto proper is Toronto: A Short Illustrated History of Its First 12,000 Years (Williamson, 2015). It was in this book that I first learnt of the Taber Hill Ossuary which has the remains of over 500 Wyandot

Due to the geographical features of southwestern Ontario, mainly its access to water which was a vital form of transportation, it makes sense that the land was easily accessed by various Indigenous peoples over the years. And please remember, the Haudenosaunee movement into the peninsula and violent replacement of the Wyandot was a direct result of European colonialisation and inter-European conflict on the continent. The Spanish also pitted Indigenous nation and against nation in places like Mexico and Peru.

Unfortunately, much of the indigenous (pre-)history and archaeological sites have been damaged and not commemorated. It is difficult to find information or see any substantial recognition. Numerous sites such as Teiaiagon (Baby Point) in Toronto and the Mantle Site sit under subdivisions and have been effectively erased first by being overgrown by nature superficially and then later by 20th and 21st century construction.

 

[asher__jo]

If white Canadians have any responsibility to the indigenous peoples, it must be to demand their integration into settled industrial society and give them the same access to the privileges of industrial society that every other disparate ethnic group that immigrated to Canada has.

Yeah, I’m not doing anything with this ridiculous thread. Do not tag me in any further discussion

 

[Undead]

I've heard all this generic brainwashing in college and the only thing it's done is push me away from the modern left. My people were serfs for centuries and were seen as subhuman during the second world war. So miss me with all that nasty race rhetoric.

I get when you're white you can laugh off opposition to slave ownership and atrocities against people of color as 'fashionable' or synonymous with being an asshole, and nothing more, but to people of color and indigenous people, the fact that these symbols are still uplifted, supported and defended to this day show that we have a long way to go to make this an equitable and just society. Every shrug of the shoulders and dismissive response like this is a missed step on the path to progress.

 

[kyler]

I've heard all this generic brainwashing in college and the only thing it's done is push me away from the modern left. My people were serfs for centuries and were seen as subhuman during the second world war. So miss me with all that nasty race rhetoric.

oh man it's almost as if multiple kinds of people can be oppressed! But you were the ultimate victim, got it

 

[Northern Light]

oh man it's almost as if multiple kinds of people can be oppressed! But you were the ultimate victim, got it

You're being needlessly confrontational.

 

[lenaitch]

I was listening to a radio interview the other day and the person being interviewed spoken of 'settlers', used the term 'Turtle Island' and said she was part of the 'knowledge keeper' culture. I thought for certain she was Aboriginal; it turns out she was a student from South Asia.

I guess cultural appropriation isn't always considered a bad thing.

 

[Parkdalian]

Reading these responses, I can tell that issues about Indigenous people and race brings up a lot of fear and anxiety for people! It seems like people want simple answers like "the past is past" or "everyone was discriminated against in the past" so that they don't have to feel personally responsible for anything that happens in the present. But the same issues with discrimination and racism against Indigenous people are still happening now.

Picking out random people from "the left" to argue against some ideas is not very convincing because it is often a straw man argument. Are some of the people who have progressive beliefs silly, confused and not very thoughtful? Yes. But you shouldn't dismiss a belief because you can find an annoying person with that belief. You should consider the validity of the ideas themselves.

I have my own issues with Land Acknowledgements because I think they can be very usefully plugged into corporate seminars and tend to become rote. I think more institutions should be doing more for Indigenous people in general. But opposing Land Acknowledgements won't make Indigenous people's lives better, and at the very least, they do remind us of the complexity of the heritage of our country.

It's easy to say "that's not my responsibility!" or "don't make me feel guilty!" or "these folks on the left are annoying!" But it's maybe harder to actually deeply consider these ideas, and how you can try to make the world better for other people.

 

[kyler]

You're being needlessly confrontational.

I like to match the energy of the person I'm responding to.