Across Canada, a growing number of public gatherings now commence with formal land acknowledgements or scripted references to historical injustices like colonialism and slavery. What originated as a sincere gesture of respect has, according to commentator Bryan Brulotte, solidified into a ritual of ideological obligation.
The Shift from Sincerity to Obligation
In his piece published on November 24, 2025, Brulotte contends that these statements are often delivered reflexively, detached from their original context and increasingly met with quiet discomfort. He argues it is time to end this practice, not because history is unimportant, but because these formulaic declarations, imposed by institutional policy rather than personal conscience, no longer serve their stated purpose.
Brulotte asserts that in many cases, these mandatory acknowledgements actively undermine the goals of reconciliation, civic unity, and informed understanding. He believes that Canada's past, like that of every nation, contains both achievements and failures, and confronting it is essential. However, meaningful engagement requires honesty and substance, not a script read from a podium.
The Problem with Performative Guilt
A land acknowledgement delivered by someone who neither wrote it nor genuinely believes in it does little to repair relationships, Brulotte suggests. Instead, it reduces complex histories to a performative duty, repeated so often that it becomes hollow. The author points out that many Canadians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, privately admit that these statements feel rote and disconnected from genuine reconciliation efforts.
Furthermore, Brulotte challenges the concept of inherited guilt. He states that Canada is a pluralistic society built on shared citizenship, not collective moral responsibility for past wrongs. These acknowledgements, he warns, can imply that individuals today, including new Canadians with no link to historical injustices, must begin events by acknowledging sins they did not commit.
A Call for Substance Over Symbolism
Brulotte advocates for a mature approach where a society can acknowledge its history without imposing recurring declarations of moral debt. He emphasizes that true reconciliation involves partnership, not performance. It requires shared projects that move people forward, not ritualistic reminders that pull people apart.
The author clarifies that he does not object to voluntary acknowledgements offered sincerely in appropriate contexts. The core of his criticism is aimed at the shift toward institutional compulsion, which he believes drains these gestures of their purpose and intellectual value. When universities, government departments, and schools require them, their moral force collapses, becoming just another box to tick.
Ultimately, Brulotte's argument, as presented in the National Post, is a plea to teach history responsibly without turning public meetings into ceremonies of self-reproach, fostering a path to reconciliation built on genuine engagement rather than empty ritual.
