The Empty Gesture of Land Acknowledgments

Land acknowledgments have become a common practice across various institutions in the United States. Intended to recognize the Indigenous peoples whose land was stolen, these statements are often seen as a step towards action. However, many Indigenous leaders and Native voices are increasingly calling out these acknowledgments as a “waste of time” and “empty speeches,” questioning their actual impact and effectiveness. We believe these actions to be the latest form of virtue signaling and continued marginalization.

Kevin Gover, a citizen of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and undersecretary for museums and culture at the Smithsonian Institution, expressed his concerns: “If it becomes routine, or worse yet, is strictly performative, then it has no meaning at all. It goes in one ear and out the other.” Despite the Smithsonian’s vast influence, only one or two of its museums have adopted land acknowledgments. Gover highlights the brevity of these statements, noting that even the National Museum of the American Indian’s acknowledgment is only one sentence long.

CNN reported that Indigenous leaders often view land acknowledgments as an empty gesture, a mere token of recognition without any substantial follow-up actions. These acknowledgments, they argue, serve as a way for institutions to feel good about themselves without making any real commitments to Indigenous communities.

Graeme Wood, a staff writer at The Atlantic, offers a stark critique: “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.” Wood’s comparison underscores the hollowness of these gestures when tangible reparative actions do not accompany them.

Furthermore, land acknowledgments can unintentionally convey misleading narratives about the history of dispossession and the current realities of American Indians and Alaska Natives. As highlighted in Anthropology News, these acknowledgments often become “highly performative, feel-good empty gestures, signaling ideological conformity to a naïve, left-wing, paint-by-numbers approach to social justice.” This performativity can obscure the deeper issues at hand and the need for more meaningful actions.

Wes Frank, a historian with a Masters in American History from Northwestern University, echoed this sentiment on Quora, labeling land acknowledgments as “rather pointless” and dismissing them as “a dollop of liberal guilt.” Jeff Means, an associate professor of History at the University of Wyoming, also criticized these acknowledgments as potentially disingenuous and condescending.

Indigenous scholars and activists are urging for actions that go beyond mere acknowledgment. Summer Wilke, a Cherokee graduate student at the University of Arkansas, emphasizes that land acknowledgments are not enough; they must be coupled with efforts to support tribal sovereignty and address the ongoing impacts of colonization. Similarly, Joseph M. Pierce, a Cherokee Nation citizen and associate professor at Stony Brook University, argues that land acknowledgment without action is “an empty gesture, exculpatory and self-serving.”

Chyana Marie Sage, in a piece for HuffPost, questions whether these acknowledgments are simply hollow efforts from people hopping on progressive bandwagons. Her skepticism reflects a broader frustration among Indigenous communities that these gestures are being co-opted for performative purposes rather than leading to genuine change.

The growing discontent among Indigenous leaders and Native voices should prompt institutions to reconsider the purpose and impact of their land acknowledgments. Without concrete actions and commitments, these acknowledgments risk becoming little more than a “waste of time” and “empty speeches”—a hollow echo of what could have been a meaningful step toward reconciliation.

The Native Americans for Sovereignty and Preservation (NASP) calls upon institutions to recognize that Land Acknowledgments are useless and do not benefit Native communities. NASP emphasizes that these statements do not pose any action or responsibility on anyone or any institution. NASP urges organizations to move beyond empty words and engage in meaningful actions that support real on-the-ground tribal sovereignty, cultural preservation, and reparative justice.