06/09/2026
I often hear people say, "The land holds memory" The 'the' part kind of annoys me, from an animistic standpoint, although a lot of English annoys me from an animistic standpoint, really. As soon as we articularize (no, I didn't just make that up) a word, we isolate it. We intellectualize the act by expressing articles as means to distinguish one among a collective, to express specificity. Such is the difference between that tree--it, this other tree, those trees, and the forest. If we start looking at lanaugage this way, we risk poor grammar in order to be respectful of personhood (heavens!), while also risking social judgement for honoring the personhood of All Things. That, to me, weird.
To say nothing of capitalization. For a long while after college I quit using all puncuation and capitalization in personal communication. It drove other people nuts. As a lifelong writer and Language, Writing, and Editing major, I never felt more sympatico with English than when disavowing all the rules of grammar. In the absence of language constrictions I felt closer to what I wanted to say.
Naming, period, destroys meaning and personhood. A million years ago one of my mentors told me that when we began speaking, we began lying. I knew that she meant when we diverted (or were diverted) from awareness of collective consciousness, we learned we can hide things from the collective. When we see ourSelves as distinct, we can reinvent ourSelves to be whomever we want, even if it's 100% a façade. I realize now she wasn't just talking about cultivating the ability to deceive each other. She also meant that when we stopped base functioning as a collective, we forgot who we are, and in doing so began perpetuating the lie that we are individuals.
Grammar or not, when we articularize, gender language, designate animate and inanimate to determine pronouns... all of that is problematic when we shift the focus to personhood. This comes up a lot in conversation, and I wrote about it in my book, From Elder to Ancestor: the conversation of animism often stalls at "So you're saying my toaster is alive?" The fear of that possiblity isn't even in suggesting that a machine has consciousness It's in the suggestion of equality of being, which means they never get to the real delineation, which is the variance in the reach of agency.
Which is why what really bothers me about the phrase "The land has memories" is that it posits space as a container in which experience plays out. Place is just a backdrop upon which important things happen. That phrasing--thus viewpoint-- doesn't see space as actively participating in the creation of those memories. It doesn't see place with personhood, cultivating their own memories. It sees land as "it," stripped of agency and impact, let alone consciousness.
Land doesn't just hold memory, land has memories.
What about that suggestion bothers you? What about it comforts you?
