lloyd Hawkeye Robertson (Indigenous Scholar) and Sharon Romanow (Winnipeg resident Metis) question the purpose of trendy Land Acknowledgements by pointing to absurd context and statements made within some of the Winnipeg specific versions.
LA Examples
‘We acknowledge that we are gathered on the ancestral lands, Treaty 1 territory, traditional territory of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and on the National Homeland of the Red River Meti’
‘We acknowledge that we are gathered on ancestral lands, on Treaty One territory. These lands are the heartland of the Metis people people. We acknowledge that our water is sourced from Shoal Lake 40 First Nation.’
‘We acknowledge that we are on Treaty One, the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabe and Ininiwak. We acknowledge that these lands, water and waterways are the unceded territory of the Dakota and the homeland of the Metis Nation.’
‘The U of M campuses are located n the original lands of Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and on the homeland of the Metis Nation. We respect the treaties that were made on these territories, we acknowledge the harms and mistakes of the past and dedicate ourselves to move forward in partnership with Indigenous communities in a spirit of reconciliation and collaboration.’
Digest
Land acknowledgements have become a fixture across Canada, replacing traditional prayers at government and city council meetings, appearing on school walls, and opening everything from university lectures to sporting events. Yet their growing presence has rarely been met with serious scrutiny.
In Winnipeg, these statements usually refer to Treaty One territory—a relatively small region in southern Manitoba that stretches to the U.S. border but not across the prairies. The wording of these acknowledgements, however, often varies widely. Some versions list groups such as the Dene, Oji-Cree, or Cree, describing the land as their ancestral homeland. Historical records show that Treaty One was signed by the Anishinaabe and some Cree, which raises the question: if the acknowledgement is meant to reflect those who signed the treaty, why do so many versions expand beyond that?
Other additions complicate things further. Some acknowledgements now include a “water statement,” noting that Winnipeg’s water comes from Shoal Lake in Treaty Five territory. This extends the recognition beyond Treaty One altogether, blurring the boundaries of what is being acknowledged.
Another point of contention lies in the frequent declaration that every region is “the homeland of the Métis Nation.” Such blanket claims cannot all be true, yet they have become standard phrasing. This repetition has prompted doubts about whether the statements are grounded in fact or merely follow a formula.
In some settings, participants are even asked to declare themselves settlers and identify their family origins. For those whose families arrived in Canada fleeing persecution, this demand to acknowledge settler guilt feels misplaced. It raises an uncomfortable question: are land acknowledgements meant to convey historical truth, or are they being used to impose a moral or political message?
If they are not historically accurate, they cannot serve as education. And if their purpose is not to teach but to promote collective guilt or conformity, their legitimacy must be questioned. Rather than enlightening, these recitations risk becoming ritualized performances that obscure more than they clarify.