The first step to decolonizing Humanism

Attend nearly any event in Vancouver in the past few years, particularly ones held by progressive organizations, and you are likely to hear some variation on those words. The practice of territorial acknowledgements has spread farther, with variations in communities across Canada and the USA recognizing the local indigenous peoples.

For many Humanists, these statements can be reminiscent of ritualistic Christian prayers that have often been said before formal events (and in some places still are). This is further complicated when a local indigenous elder is invited to give the acknowledgement and they invoke a deity — either from their own spiritual traditions or in some cases the Christian God.

But given our commitment to reason, we should resist knee jerk reactions and look critically at these issues.

This is what it means when much of British Columbia is described as “unceded” territory. No war was fought, no treaty was signed, no exchange was made. Settlers merely started moving onto these lands and eventually they forced those who’d been living here prosperously for tens of thousands of years onto smaller and smaller Indian Reserves.

At the same time, the Government of Canada also began expanding the Residential School program, largely through partnerships with the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches.

This should be a low bar for Humanists. We already reject the existence of the divine, so the divine right of kings and queens that was used to justify the colonization of these lands is logically also nullified. Therefore, we should see no challenge in asking by what basis British Columbia and Canada has to claim these lands.

Of course, to raise such questions is to invite consideration of serious and radical challenges to the legitimacy of the society we live and work in. However, as Humanists we shouldn’t shy away from denying a truth because of potentially unsettling consequences.

If we set aside (for now) those larger ramifications, we can at least start with some practical first steps toward reconciliation. This is where territorial acknowledgements come in.

Territorial acknowledgements are a symbolic recognition of the local indigenous history by recognizing the first peoples of these lands and the relationship of the current state to those Nations. The practice evolved out of traditions of many indigenous peoples that would begin gatherings by recognizing the lands that they met on. For settlers and the decedents of settlers (like myself), it can be the first step in acknowledging the continuing injustices that undermine the rights and dignity of indigenous peoples.

Of course, acknowledging the land is only a small first step.

One of the criticisms levelled against territorial acknowledgements by indigenous activists, and others, is that it’s too often merely a form of lip service. A way to say the words of reconciliation without doing the hard work. And I agree that this criticism can be valid.

For me, however, this is not a reason not to adopt the practice but rather it’s a reason to make sure it is only the first step of decolonizing our institutions. This isn’t a choice between doing nothing and meaningless virtue signalling: We can use territorial acknowledgements as a launching point from which to begin conversations about our role in affirming the worth and dignity of all people.

Finally, there remains the unresolved tension for Humanists of indigenous elders delivering a welcome that might incorporate spiritual or religious themes.

As I understand it, this type of welcome is a traditional practice for many First Nations that is not intended to promote or proselytize an indigenous worldview but merely to welcome guests and affirm the connection with the land. This is in contrast to Christian or other Abrahamic prayers said at similar events that are far more often coercive in intent and nature. By this I mean they’re intended to show the dominance of the religion and pressure others to convert to that worldview.

It is clear from Canada’s history that the state has long taken an active role in not just prohibiting indigenous beliefs but actively suppressing them by force. These actions are described by the TRC and MMIWG as genocide.

Unsurprisingly then, many of the young indigenous activists that I’ve met are eager to preserve elements of their culture, whether those elements would be deemed secular or spiritual by you or me. And this holds true regardless of whether those activists believe in the spiritual elements in the way a Christian believes in God and the resurrection of Jesus.

It’s also the case that many of the elders who are invited to provide these acknowledgements are survivors of Residential Schools. During those formative years, many adopted some level of Christian beliefs and their contemporary invocations reflect that.

While I think this is all important context for these discussions, I don’t think any of this points us in a specific direction to solve our initial dilemma, however.

Additionally, Canadian courts and Human Rights Tribunals have been consistent that intent matters less than impact. Rather, we must consider whether it can reasonably be argued that an indigenous welcome with spiritual elements will discourage the participation of non-indigenous Canadians, regardless of the elder’s (and the state’s) intention.

I would argue the precedent in Saguenay pretty clearly sets out that a government-run event shouldn’t open with a Christian prayer, regardless of the source. However, it is less clear to me whether an indigenous elder’s use of the word “Creator” could be seen as equally detrimental to the participation of non-indigenous Canadians (whether they believe in any Creator or not).

A further complication is that dictating what an invited elder can or cannot say as part of their welcome could be seen to be part of a continuation of the subjugation of indigenous peoples by the state that borders on a suppression of their freedom of expression or religion.

Perhaps one way out of this dilemma is to apply the logic of subsection 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 guarantees the equality rights of every Canadian. Subsection 2 states that the section

This caveat allows the government to proactively combat discrimination. While contentious in some quarters, this approach allows us to recognize the privileged position that Christianity enjoys in Canadian society relative to other religious and non-religious worldviews. Under this analysis, there could be room for an indigenous elder to give a spiritual welcome before an official as a way of recognizing and attempting to right history’s wrongs.

Finally, if we take seriously the ramifications of the unjust colonization of much of these lands, then the answer ultimately shouldn’t come from what colonial institutions will “permit” but rather from actively engaging with indigenous leaders themselves. Through that dialogue Humanists can support territorial welcomes while also making the case for those invocations to adopt inclusive language.

I don’t pretend to have arrived at a conclusion as to how to reconcile these questions and nor has the BCHA itself. Undoubtedly any formal position one way or another will provoke disagreement from one subset of our membership or another. In any case, our goal should be to begin these conversations, to take seriously the competing values, to have compassion for all who engage with us and to respect one another where we may otherwise disagree.

I hope that this initial step can serve as a sign that the BCHA takes its role in working toward reconciliation seriously. Unpacking our history will be an important step in this process. It will require us to look critically at our own organizations and structures and how those can be decolonized.

Related posts:

Pregnancy is one of the most special gifts for both the Mom and Dad-to-be. It’s full of anxiety, worry, anticipation, and milestones. For the new parents the journey begins way before the baby is…