REFLECTIVE ANALYSIS

---

Initially, the land acknowledgements were meant as to be a meaningful gesture of recognition and respect, integral to fostering awareness of Indigenous histories and ongoing relationships with the land, and the colonial history that is Canada. However, observations during first placement made me thinking more critically about them, particularly in regards to their efficacy in the classroom. The routine repetition of land acknowledgements, without meaningful engagement or reflection, has the potential to diminish their impact, turning them into performative exercises rather than opportunities for genuine learning and dialogue. Anecdotally, I have a few friends who work in more Northern schools, and some Indigenous students find the acknowledgement very "cringey," or "embarrassing," which we can all understand, because we were all once teenagers and the pressures to fit in are immense. This highlights a growing generational shift in how younger students seek representation compared to the approaches that were once necessary to bring Indigenous community concerns to the forefront of Canadian consciousness. While land acknowledgements may have fulfilled their initial purpose, or at the very least are now undermining their own impact, the question remains: What comes next?

Juveria’s post on Padlet of her class demonstrated a model that felt more intentional, integrating the land acknowledgement into the daily routine in a way that mirrored the national anthem. This approach seemed to reinforce a sense of collective participation, yet without deliberate follow-up, even well-structured acknowledgements risk becoming static rather than catalysts for deeper understanding. Beyond Juveria’s class, discussions on the Padlet showed many classrooms did not have land acknowledgements at all. Among those that did, the process often felt impersonal and prescriptive, lacking the depth and intentionality necessary to foster genuine reflection. Rarely were acknowledgements paired with discussions about their significance or with efforts to deepen students’ understanding of Indigenous communities and histories.

What was particularly surprising was the reluctance of many peers to critically engage beyond the acknowledgement itself. While everyone agreed and recognized the importance of authentic Indigenous voices, this has led some to disengage entirely, fearing they may say the wrong thing. This hesitancy, while understandable, ultimately results in silence and complacency, the very opposite of allyship. The most striking aspect of this reluctance is that many of my peers grew up hearing land acknowledgements in school, whereas for others, including myself, this was not the case. Yet rather than fostering greater reflection, the repetition has seemingly rendered them devoid of meaning, leading to a general apathy about their purpose and impact.

This disengagement is particularly disappointing given the role of educators in advancing the goals of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). While land acknowledgements serve as an entry point, they must not be mistaken for action. If they are to hold any meaning, they require consistent follow-up, discussions, curriculum integration, and concrete steps toward reconciliation. As educators, there is a responsibility not just to acknowledge the land but to actively work toward the broader Calls to Action, ensuring that students understand both the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization and their role in reconciliation.