We, the undersigned–the Indigenous students and allies of Michigan Technological University–want to express our disgust at the egregious lack of inclusivity on this university campus: we continue to be treated as our ancestors were treated at the creation of the treaties. If and when Indigenous students are brought to the table to participate, we are oftentimes given very little time to speak, or our conversations are moderated to the point where we cannot afford to voice our concerns and work toward a solution that makes constructive progress that will better our time and experiences in academia. Time and time again, events designed to recognize and create an inclusive environment for Indigenous Peoples at Michigan Tech are done so by self-appointed allies who fail to bring Indigenous students to the table. We find it reprehensible that self-appointed allies are able to indigenize this university through the misappropriation of cultural identities and practices–going so far as to create an environment where it is acceptable to appropriate those practices without consequence.
Our concerns deserve to be addressed, so we are bringing them forward with this letter. It will be impossible to address the entirety of our concerns with the appropriation and inappropriate behavior we have seen toward our culture, so we intend to address the canceled event: Guidance for (Land) Acknowledgments Within Ojibwa Homelands event held by the Institute for Policy, Ethics, and Culture (IPEC) that would have taken place on November 30th. After the restorative justice meeting with Rob Bishop, Director of Academic Conduct, and Stefka Hristova, Associate Professor of Digital Media in the Department of Humanities and Director of the Institute for Policy, Ethics, and Culture, we were allowed to view and edit the materials (a Google Slides presentation and an itinerary) intended for the land acknowledgment event. We have looked these materials over and decided that there were simply too many corrections to address at such short notice.
This letter was originally drafted to amend a Google Slides presentation for an event addressing land acknowledgments that we were originally excluded from. These amendments were made to a document shared with us on Tuesday, November 28th, 2023, two days prior to the event. Not only did we receive this information at such short notice, we were sent an “updated” version the next day on Wednesday, November 29th, 2023 and were, again, asked to edit the information.
If we had been consulted during the process and creation of this event, we would have been able to work together to produce an affair that was respectful and appropriate. However, we were not made aware of this event by IPEC or anyone else working on the project. Instead, we found out by a third party and were not able to professionally address our concerns until November 28th–two days before the event–in our restorative justice meeting. Following the timeline below, the contents of this letter are what we were intending to publish prior to finding out about the cancellation of the event.
We have decided to document the timeline of events that have occurred over the past month, so that administrators and appropriate personnel can understand the full capacity of the actions we have witnessed within this university.
On November 2nd, our President was contacted by the CDI asking if we were involved in the upcoming Guidance for (Land) Acknowledgements Within Ojibwa Homelands event on November 30th.
On November 8th, we were invited to an RSO lunch meeting with President Koubek.
The Director of Academic Conduct, Robert Bishop, reached out to our AISES President for a meeting about our concerns regarding the land acknowledgement event on November 13th.
On November 27th, Robert Bishop shared the script for the restoration meeting intending for November 28th.
On the morning of the 28th, our advisor met with Laura Bulleit and Robert Bishop to amend the Talking Circle script.
At 4PM we met with Robert Bishop and Stefka Hristova, the IPEC Director, and stated our concerns about the event that would be held two days later.
At 8PM we received the Google Slides presentation and itinerary intended for the event.
Our advisor reached out early in the morning on November 29th for another meeting with Stefka Hristova.
At 7PM, a member of AISES emailed the only Indigenous person involved in the land acknowledgement event creation.
An hour later, we received an email from Stefka Hristova about the cancellation of this event.
The entirety of this workshop lacks an Indigenous representation and/or prior consultation. The introduction is being conducted by the university liaison, who is not Native. This liaison should have been obtaining Anishinaabe input since they began creating this slideshow in October. By doing this, the liaison is taking a voice and an opportunity away from an Indigenous person.
The land acknowledgment was scheduled to be recited by a non-Native speaker, who has appropriated Indigenous culture in at least one known past event at Michigan Tech. In a past event, this presenter grossly imitated an Indigenous ceremony in front of scholars, guests and students during a Zoom meeting for a Kinship book club. The presenter has also claimed the identity of a queer shaman. This shamanism has nothing to do with Anishinaabe culture or the cultures of other peoples indigenous to Turtle Island and is not a free pass to appropriate the cultures of other people. Furthermore, while being brave enough to reclaim the slur “queer” is commendable, this use of it in a Settler Move to Innocence is deeply disrespectful to the generations of queer people that fought for their own liberation from systems of oppression. We worry that the presenter will be doing something similar at this land acknowledgment event, using the Anishinaabe practices that are not theirs to use. It is very concerning that this presenter is involved with the IPEC and yet actively appropriates other cultures within public spaces and on social media.
Issues with Historical OverviewWe implore the presenters to recognize the traumatic experiences that Indigenous Peoples have and continue to endure at the hands of settler colonialism. It would be repugnant if this historical overview is void of discussions surrounding land dispossession, resource appropriation and extraction, Indigenous genocide, and the historic and contemporary policies that were and are designed to decimate Indigenous Peoples. It is necessary to be cognizant of the historic trauma associated with the boarding school system and the policies aimed at eradicating our cultural identity and heritage. If this space does not offer healing, then it is not a space that is inclusive to Indigenous Peoples. Any white-washing and smoothing of difficult histories is utterly unacceptable, and it, along with the use of land acknowledgments, should not be used to alleviate white settler colonists of their association and guilt with their colonial past.
‘Rocks and Roots’Who is the “we” in “we have deep and varied relationships with . . .”? While the geological aspects of the Keweenaw are significant to our relationship with the land, the land we are discussing is far larger than the Keweenaw, and our roots run much deeper than Keweenaw soil. We find that it is morally and ethically reprehensible to provide a deep time overview of this landscape to an audience that, if we had not invited Indigenous Peoples to the table, would have largely been non-Indigenous. There is no way to connect the land Indigenous People stand on today to the land that Indigenous ancestors once stood on without inviting Indigenous people to the table so that they can speak on their relationships to the land, their ancestors, and the more-than-human beings from the past, present, and future.
Although the migration story is important to the relationship Anishinaabe People have with this land, this is not the setting to tell this story and share this knowledge. Furthermore, the slide addressing the migration story was the only slide that specified an Indigenous speaker in the footnotes.
The figure used in this slide comes from The Mishomis Book, a book developed for children. This book was written by a Native author and is a great resource for children. This is not a professional figure appropriate for this meeting and it demeans the migration of the Ojibwe and is condescending to the audience when used in this way. There are more professional figures available.
Explanation of the Michigan Tech Land Acknowledgment“Michigan Technological University is located within Ojibwa (Chippewa) homelands and ceded-territory established by the Treaty of 1842, the shared lands and waters of Native American nations in Gakiiwe’onaning (Keweenaw Bay), Gete-gitgaaning (Lac Vieux Desert), Mashkii-ziibing (Bad River), Odaawaa-zaaga’iganing (Lac Courte Oreilles), Waaswaaganing (Lac Du Flambeau), Miskwaabikong (Red Cliff), Wezaawaagami-ziibiing (St. Croix), Zaka’aaganing (Sokaogon Mole Lake), Nagaajiwanaag (Fond du Lac), Misi-zaaga’iganiing (Mille Lacs), and Gaa-mitaawangaagamaag-ininiwag (Sandy Lake).”
Who wrote the land acknowledgment and approved its wording? Furthermore, were the Anishinaabe People consulted in the writing process? The phrasing of the Michigan Tech land acknowledgment is ignorant and insensitive through the continued exclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their respective Nations that were not listed under the 1842 Treaty of La Pointe. By neglecting such details, it gives the impression that Indigenous People did not exist prior to this treaty. Similarly, it asserts that the Anishinaabe Nations listed are the only communities to occupy this landscape. This perpetuates the erasure of our heritage and dismisses the fact that these lands are and will continue to be our homelands. Additionally, the latter half does not acknowledge all tribes who were included in the Treaty of 1842, nor does it acknowledge tribes that were wiped out through genocidal governmental policy.
Performing and/or PracticingMany of these points are not only common critiques of acknowledgments, but also critiques of misappropriation, pretendianism, and exclusionary practices. Throughout the entire planning and execution of this event, only one Indigenous member of the community or university unaffiliated with this project was consulted or informed.
A single Indigenous person was involved with this event, and has since dropped out over continuing concerns and apprehensions concerning the event. We urge settlers/non-Indigenous people to understand that any arguments to the effect that this event is not appropriative on the grounds of having a singular Indigenous person involved would be tokenizing that Indigenous individual. This should not be something that is put on the shoulders of one person as there are different perspectives on what should be shared by a community. There should be consultation from people in our communities especially if this is going to be shared with non-Indigenous Peoples. A group, possibly a committee, recognized by tribal communities as a reliable source of information.
It was up to us, the AISES chapter, to reach out and ensure that more Indigenous People were involved in this discussion on Indigenous land acknowledgment. This was a prime example of insincerity and a lack of appropriate actions being taken. Additionally, the reason we have access to this presentation in the first place is that we were asked to “co-create” and “approve.”
If you would like to move beyond performativity, start with including Indigenous People in these conversations and allowing them to guide these discussions.
Issues with the Medicine Wheel and TeachingsThe medicine wheel is a sacred teaching and has no place in this discussion. We want to recognize the pride that the scholars may have in the “Seasons of Acknowledging Land and Life;” however, the appropriation of the medicine wheel in this format would be considered unacceptable to many and a gross overstepping of boundaries as an ally.
This format of discussion is very structured; we believe that in this case this structure makes it difficult to discuss the core issue of land acknowledgments. This structure accepts land acknowledgments as they are and does not allow us to critique land acknowledgments themselves. Some discussion subjects to consider include what land acknowledgments are, how they are perceived, issues with them, and how we can accomplish what land acknowledgments are attempting to do.
Research History and Place (Four Directions Teachings)The first two questions in this slide (“What treaty(ies) and people are associated with your institution’s place and history?” and “What historical and ongoing harms need to be addressed?”) are capable of generating a productive discussion forum. However, we invite everyone to be cognizant of the many ongoing harms that need to be addressed–harms that perpetually impact Indigenous Peoples and students through the colonial frameworks and intentional and unintentional ignorance–which we wish to discuss at another time. The last question on this slide (“How do you connect with this place and history?”) should be reframed in such a way as to allow participants to acknowledge how their relationship to this place and history has led to biases. There needs to be a recognition of these biases from non-Indigenous people when approaching land acknowledgment discussions.
Locate PracticesWe need to have a more in-depth discussion about land acknowledgments in general before we can consider bringing such practices into everyday work. There are good ways to bring such practices into everyday work, depending on the type of work. All of them involve increasing Indigenous representation and involvement.
Identify BarriersMany institutional barriers prevent practices of acknowledgment. However, one barrier that is consistently overstepped is whether or not the person acknowledging has the right to do that, is doing it in a good way, and is doing it with Indigenous permission, guidance, and/or involvement. We should reframe these questions to include that some boundaries should be there to prevent misappropriation.
Honor Land & LifeWhy is there a sweetgrass braid on this slide? Is there a significance to it or was it simply added to appeal to a non-Indigenous audience and give the appearance of Indigenous involvement in this presentation?
This slide gives few clues as to what “the center” is and what will be presented here, other than personal reflections from the facilitators. We have concerns about these personal testimonies, which we will discuss below. Additionally, we feel that the amount of time allotted to the personal reflections, testimonies, and identities of the facilitators will take away from meaningful discussion.
In the itinerary shared with us, the time allotted for group discussion and community input is limited to fifteen to twenty minutes. The conversation appears to be held within tables, presumably small groups, that will be moderated by event facilitators. This restricts tribal members, actual Indigenous Peoples, or AISES members from actively participating or giving sufficiently thorough input. Therefore, this further suggests that this event was not meant to include Indigenous perspectives when it is necessary to have such viewpoints throughout the entire conversation. In order for this event to meaningfully fulfill its intent, our input needs to be welcomed throughout, rather than as an afterthought in the form of a structured discussion. Tribal members should be allowed to come into this space and give their opinions because, ultimately, this is their land the university is attempting to acknowledge. We deserve the opportunity to speak on how our land is acknowledged.
The final concern we have is with the amount of time allotted for personal testimonies by the facilitators. We were not given any detailed information of what they truly intended to share, besides the loosely provided information on the Google Slides document. Thus, we are not able to fact-check any of the history or practices that will be administered to an audience of allies. It is incorrect to share skewed history, improperly use Anishinaabemowin (dialects differ by tribe, they cannot be gleaned from the Internet), or discuss closed practices to allies and audiences who likely will not fact-check such information. We are afraid the time given for these testimonies will serve only as a space to allow the facilitators to appropriate our closed practices and language, rather than give such time to actual tribal members. Testimonies from tribal members from the land that was taken from them (land that was taken before the Treaty of 1842, which is referenced by the land acknowledgment of the university) would be much more appropriate and powerful.
We find again that history is repeating itself. The drafting and signing of the Treaties had no Indigenous voice. We were silenced and oppressed. To this day, we are still oppressed, but we will not be silenced. Our voices must be heard in discussions surrounding Indigenous rights. That is why we have chosen to step in and share our voice. We will not accept being ignored, having people who are not Indigenous speak on our behalf, and watching as boundaries are consistently overstepped.
In conclusion, we find it appalling to invite us to review, edit, and revise the document two days before the event, especially documents that contain teachings and information that are not acceptable to be presented outside of the community. The information being presented is not yours to present; this is an egregious abuse of your power and position within the ivory towers of Western education systems. We would implore you to act ethically as you move forward but it is unfortunate to say that none of us can legislate virtue.
If we want a constructive conversation about land acknowledgments, it is your job to invite us to the table. These conversations should not exist without Indigenous People being invited to the table. If you want our take on the Michigan Tech land acknowledgment–and what you probably obtained from this letter–we find that it must do a better job of being more inclusive of ancestral and contemporaneous ties to this landscape. In fact, we do not recognize that treaty, and nor should you. This treaty perpetuated the dispossession of land and the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, and above all else, was not honored. Therefore, we find that to honor this treaty is perpetuating white settler colonialism and this is abhorrent and reprehensible.
We will leave you with this:
Graeme Wood (2021) says, "The practice of 'land acknowledgment'—preceding a fancy event by naming the Indigenous groups whose slaughter and dispossession cleared the land on which the audience’s canapés are about to be served—is one of the greatest associate-producer credits of all time. A land acknowledgment is what you give when you have no intention of giving land. It is like a receipt provided by a highway robber, noting all the jewels and gold coins he has stolen. Maybe it will be useful for an insurance claim? Anyway, you are not getting your jewels back, but now you have documentation."
Think about these words and why you use land acknowledgments. Then think about how Indigenous People will perceive this: while we may feel recognized, land acknowledgments do nothing to advance our people, our human rights, or our cause. So perhaps the recognition of our land can be done in a subtle and more inclusive manner that does not bring the fanfare to the historic dispossession of land and genocide of Indigenous Peoples. If you want help, invite us to the table. We are not your enemy, but we will not be artifacts for you to display at a whim under the guise of education.
We request that you, the recipient, take into consideration our concerns.
Sincerely,