Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi

[Accountability Now]

So if you do not disagree with the premise that a group of people can own land based on where their ancestors are from, can you please indicate a group of people that owns land based on where their ancestors are from and indicate the land that they own?

I don't need to prove your premise. That's your job.

Are you saying that a group of people has 'rights to use land' based on where their ancestors are from? If so, how does one determine which land someone has 'rights to use' based on their ancestry?

No. The rights to use land or landownership comes from sovereignty....the supremacy of authority as excercised by an independant state. Essentially I believe that soverignty is the ability to protect your borders. A good example of Canada's soverignty came to light in the Artic when US and Russian subs were sailing in our waters and we knew nothing about it. As such if we can't protect that area then is it really ours?

Of course in the past it was simply about a country waging war on another country and taking their lands. In modern times we have global alliances such as NATO and the UN that serve to protect the sovereignty of smaller countries. So its now a lot more difficult to just take it.

Getting back to the native issue, when they signed the treaties they agreed to accept Canadian/British law and to be dependent to the Canadian/British government....as such they relinquished their sovereignty and therefore their rights to the land. That's why I find it funny (ha ha funny...not strange) when I hear of native groups wanted to talk nation to nation.

See I can believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but it doesn't mean it exists. Even if natives from hundreds of years ago believed that they had 'rights to land' does not actually mean these 'rights to land' actually exist. You need to prove that they exist. So please prove that these rights exist.

You can believe what ever you want which appears to be the case becasue even after me saying that I don't believe their rights to the lands exist you still persist on asking me to prove they do exist. Wow.

If you want to know why natives think their rights to land still exist then I can't tell you that either. Again...I think they believe they never relinquished their rights which I believe to be false.

And stating that my justification is flawed doesn't make it flawed. I responded to your so called 'counter argument', but if you wish to ignore that and just claim that you have disprove my justification then what can I do?

I didn't just state it was flawed, I gave you examples to show you that it was flawed. Now...where is this so called response to my counter arguement? All I see you doing is babbling on about the difference between a claim, postition and justification. I see nothing in terms of a response that adds something new. I even asked "If you have another justification for your baseless claim then present it, otherwise put your tail between your legs and run off."

So what can you do? You can present some other justification that you haven't pushed forward yet or walk away. Your choice.

And i'm not saying that the treaties shouldn't be honored. I'm saying that the treaties shouldn't be honored BECAUSE they have some sort of indisputable legal authority. They should be honored BECAUSE if a government doesn't honor them you will have riots, protests, blocking of resource developments, and most likely violence and deaths. They should be honored for practical reasons, not because they have some indisputable legal authority that we should never question.

So you agree with me that the treaties should be honored. Good. That wasn't so hard now....was it?

And for the umpteenth time, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a law/treaty and the legal authority of that law/treaty.

Umm...no...you just haven't been able to keep up. Go back and see what I said about our current law makers upholding these laws. Lawmakers that are elected. Law makers that can change these laws if we desire it. Laws that can be questioned and changed if necessary.

Perhaps you should take a day or two to review and then get back to me.

Geez, I am sorry for taking what people mean literally. In such discussions/debates where people often misinterpret each other or perform strawman arguments it is important to avoid ambiguous language and take what people say literally rather than what you think they mean.

The reality is that you clearly have something you want to say and are just looking for an audience to say it to. As such you pick out the teeny tinyest spot in people' statements and then go off on that tangent when the whole time you gloss over the important bulk of what has been said.

But apparently it's my fault that you choose to use ambiguous language. Why did you not just use strange if you meant strange?

I didn't think you would struggle that much with English. Most people on here wouldn't have this issue.

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't need to prove your premise. That's your job.

It's not my premise because I don't agree with it. If you do not disagree that a group of people can own land based on where their ancestors come from, then you agree with it. Which means that burden of proof is on you.

No. The rights to use land or landownership comes from sovereignty....the supremacy of authority as excercised by an independant state.

Getting back to the native issue, when they signed the treaties they agreed to accept Canadian/British law and to be dependent to the Canadian/British government....as such they relinquished their sovereignty and therefore their rights to the land.

But here is the thing. If a group of people relinquished their sovereignty and rights to the land, that means that had that sovereignty and rights to the land in the first place. In which case how did the natives obtain the rights to the land to begin with?

You can believe what ever you want which appears to be the case becasue even after me saying that I don't believe their rights to the lands exist you still persist on asking me to prove they do exist. Wow.

I thought that you position was that the natives do not have 'rights to the land' now, but they had then in the past. In which case I ask why did those rights to the land exist in the first place hundreds of years ago (before they were ceded).

I didn't just state it was flawed, I gave you examples to show you that it was flawed. Now...where is this so called response to my counter arguement? All I see you doing is babbling on about the difference between a claim, postition and justification. I see nothing in terms of a response that adds something new. I even asked "If you have another justification for your baseless claim then present it, otherwise put your tail between your legs and run off."

1. you are still strawmaning my position even after I said countless times that I have never used the fact that the treaties were made during a time at which other immoral laws were past to justify my claim that I was skeptical about the authority of those that made the laws to make those laws. My justification was always that authority that made that law was unelected, did not earn the position by merit, the idea that someone can make racist laws that affect people hundreds of years in the future is very questionable, and the legal framework that gave this authority any power is based on the winners of the Normal Invasion of 1066 imposing their will.

So you agree with me that the treaties should be honored. Good. That wasn't so hard now....was it?

Yes but the justification I use is different from the justification that you use.

Umm...no...you just haven't been able to keep up. Go back and see what I said about our current law makers upholding these laws. Lawmakers that are elected. Law makers that can change these laws if we desire it. Laws that can be questioned and changed if necessary.

Your the one who keeps quoting me and mixing up between when I say laws and when I say legal authority.

[jacee]

Getting back to the native issue, when they signed the treaties they agreed to accept Canadian/British law and to be dependent to the Canadian/British government....as such they relinquished their sovereignty and therefore their rights to the land.

Where is that written?

.

Edited February 6, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

It's not my premise because I don't agree with it. If you do not disagree that a group of people can own land based on where their ancestors come from, then you agree with it. Which means that burden of proof is on you.

So your premise is that you don't agree with it. Prove why you don't agree with it....if you want. I don't really care either way.

I have yet to say if I agree or disagee so I have to do nothing. Just another fine example of how you fly off on tangents just so you can have something to talk about.

It's not my premise because I don't agree with it. If you do not disagree that a group of people can own land based on where their ancestors come from, then you agree with it. Which means that burden of proof is on you.

But here is the thing. If a group of people relinquished their sovereignty and rights to the land, that means that had that sovereignty and rights to the land in the first place. In which case how did the natives obtain the rights to the land to begin with?

I thought that you position was that the natives do not have 'rights to the land' now, but they had then in the past. In which case I ask why did those rights to the land exist in the first place hundreds of years ago (before they were ceded).

They had rights to the land or sovereignty because there was no one there to challenge it. With that being said, I am referring to 'they' as the collective First Nations or natives. The reality is that individual tribes most likely reliquished rights to given areas all the times as they would wage war on each other.

As a group however, they started to reliquish their sovereignty with each treaty they signed.

1. you are still strawmaning my position even after I said countless times that I have never used the fact that the treaties were made during a time at which other immoral laws were past to justify my claim that I was skeptical about the authority of those that made the laws to make those laws. My justification was always that authority that made that law was unelected, did not earn the position by merit, the idea that someone can make racist laws that affect people hundreds of years in the future is very questionable, and the legal framework that gave this authority any power is based on the winners of the Normal Invasion of 1066 imposing their will.

Ok....I said you attempted to justify it in two ways but according to you all that babbling about immoral laws in immoral times really had nothing to do with anything.Thats fine. Your real justification as bolded in red font above was also addressed as the second of your two justfications. As shown here

Are you serious here? Your claim was just that...baseless. I hardly approached it when you first said as I just commented that I don't really question their authority. No attack or misrepresentation at all. BUT THEN....you go off defending your baseless claim using these two justification points.

1. Illustrating that these people created and lived in an era with other immoral laws

2. Illustrating these people were not elected and properly entitled based on merit.

Thank you for admitting that your first point was nonsense. However your second point has been attended to a number of times with the my arguement that the people who make and uphold laws today have continued to uphold these laws. So you can no longer go back to the people who wrote this law and blame them as its been 32 years since our last consitiution where elected officials continually endorse these laws. And of course thats being generous in assuming we only had elected control since 1982.

This is just like the US ammendment with the right to bear arms. That ammendment was drafted in a time where US was at war with Britain and it was put in place to allow its residents to protect themselves from any invaders. I think its fair to say that time has passed but the law makers in the US continue to back this ammendment. They can no longer blame their forefathers for this....they own this one now. Just like current day Canada owns the treaties. If we don't want them, then we have to change them or get rid of them. Doing nothing is acceptance.

Yes but the justification I use is different from the justification that you use.

Not really. You realize that cutting them off cold turkey would only cause riots which is why I would suggest taking the more literal meanings of the treaties as this would create a phase out program rather than a cold turkey one. In then end both of us agree the treaties should be honored to prevent riots.

Your the one who keeps quoting me and mixing up between when I say laws and when I say legal authority.

Show me where I have done this. I think its quite fair to say that you have shown the tendancies to mixing things up and misinterpreting not just sentences but actual words. Perhaps you are still confused?

[Accountability Now]

Where is that written?

.

Practically in every treaty they signed. I've only quoted this to you about five times. Would you like me to quote it again?

[-1=e^ipi]

I have yet to say if I agree or disagee so I have to do nothing. Just another fine example of how you fly off on tangents just so you can have something to talk about.

So you want to neither agree or disagree with the premise that people can own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from?

Do you not see the relevance of such a premise when it comes to the discussion of native issues?

Also, my statement was conditional, which means I did not assume if you agreed or disagreed with the premise (which is why I kept asking).

They had rights to the land or sovereignty because there was no one there to challenge it. With that being said, I am referring to 'they' as the collective First Nations or natives. The reality is that individual tribes most likely reliquished rights to given areas all the times as they would wage war on each other.

Could do you please define what you mean by rights in this context?

Also, could you be more specific in how much land around these tribes these rights encompass (i.e. what is the radius of 'land rights')? For example, did any group of native people in Canada ever have 'land rights' over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Island_(Northwest_Territories_and_Nunavut)?

[Accountability Now]

So you want to neither agree or disagree with the premise that people can own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from?

Thats right. I care more about current issues that debating on theoretical stuff from the past.

Could do you please define what you mean by rights in this context?

Also, could you be more specific in how much land around these tribes these rights encompass (i.e. what is the radius of 'land rights')? For example, did any group of native people in Canada ever have 'land rights' over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Island_(Northwest_Territories_and_Nunavut)?

Rights....as in it was theirs. Europeans would say ownership....First Nations might say territory.

I don't know all of the tribes that historically roamed every part of Canada. I'm sure they had large territorties but still some area were probably untouched as there wasn't a ton of natives (even with 30 million people today we don't really inhabit all the land)

I would assume the Inuit would have inhabited the NWT.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ok....I said you attempted to justify it in two ways but according to you all that babbling about immoral laws in immoral times really had nothing to do with anything.Thats fine. Your real justification as bolded in red font above was also addressed as the second of your two justfications. As shown here

No.. the fact that the laws were made during an immoral time was used as a counter argument against a claim/counter argument that you made: "They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority"

Thank you for admitting that your first point was nonsense.

Strawman argument. I never had that 'first point'.

However your second point has been attended to a number of times with the my arguement that the people who make and uphold laws today have continued to uphold these laws. So you can no longer go back to the people who wrote this law and blame them as its been 32 years since our last consitiution where elected officials continually endorse these laws. And of course thats being generous in assuming we only had elected control since 1982.

Sigh, I've explained why your argument is nonsense countless times; I'm not sure why I even bother to give such a nonsense argument a response. The validity of a law ultimately depends on the validity of the legal framework in which it was made since it was that legal framework that allowed any future people.

But you don't seem to understand that and somehow think that just because some people at a future date do not change a law and uphold the law that the law's legitimacy no longer depends on the initial conditions under which it was created. Here, I'll give you an analogy to help you understand:

- My great grandfather 'owned' a house 100 years ago

- When my great grandfather died he gave the house to my grandfather

- When my grandfather died he gave the house to my father

- When my father died he gave the house to me

- I am currently living in the house

- One day it is discovered that my great grandfather did not own the house but infact stole the deed from a guy called Mr. Smith and murdered Mr. Smith 100 years ago.

- John Smith, who is the great grandson of Mr. Smith and is the sole descendant of Mr. Smith claims ownership to the house.

Who owns the house? Me or John Smith? I would argue John Smith but by Accountability Now's weird interpretation of the legitimacy of laws, I would own that house because for the past 100 years people thought that I and my descendants owned the house.

This is just like the US ammendment with the right to bear arms. That ammendment was drafted in a time where US was at war with Britain and it was put in place to allow its residents to protect themselves from any invaders. I think its fair to say that time has passed but the law makers in the US continue to back this ammendment. They can no longer blame their forefathers for this....they own this one now. Just like current day Canada owns the treaties. If we don't want them, then we have to change them or get rid of them. Doing nothing is acceptance.

It is nothing like the US amendment to bear arms. That law is still in effect because it didn't have an expiry date, the legal framework under which that law was changed hasn't been challenged, the law was introduced legally through that legal framework and no one has bothered to modify the law since. Now if for example it was found that the people that introduced that law in the first place did so illegally (by not getting approval from both houses for example) and no one noticed until today, despite the fact that the right to bear arms has been enforced for a very long time, it would no longer be law since it wasn't introduced legally in the first place.

Not really. You realize that cutting them off cold turkey would only cause riots which is why I would suggest taking the more literal meanings of the treaties as this would create a phase out program rather than a cold turkey one. In then end both of us agree the treaties should be honored to prevent riots.

Strawman argument again??? (not sure...) I have never claimed to support a position of 'cutting them off cold turkey'. And I don't understand how this is a good response to my comment that our justifications are different. Justification != what should be done.

Show me where I have done this. I think its quite fair to say that you have shown the tendancies to mixing things up and misinterpreting not just sentences but actual words. Perhaps you are still confused?

Seriously? Every time you have mixed up 'laws' and 'legal authority' I have responded and quoted what you said and said that laws != legal authority. Are you seriously going to pretend that you have not done this? Do you not read my posts?

[-1=e^ipi]

Thats right. I care more about current issues that debating on theoretical stuff from the past.

It's all relevant to current issues...

Rights....as in it was theirs. Europeans would say ownership....First Nations might say territory.

So now you are saying that the First Nations had ownership over land based on where their ancestors are from? Or do you mean 'territory' or 'rights to land'? It seems that you will keep changing your wording to avoid admitting that you agree with the idea that people can own land based on where their ancestors are from.

But at the same time you want to neither agree or disagree with the premise that people can own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from?

I'm sorry that doesn't logically make sense. If you think that first nations can own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from THEN you think that people CAN own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from. First Nations are a subset of people/humans.

I don't know all of the tribes that historically roamed every part of Canada. I'm sure they had large territorties but still some area were probably untouched as there wasn't a ton of natives (even with 30 million people today we don't really inhabit all the land)

See this is a big problem. Most people in Canada don't know the history of migrations to Canada and how humans spread to the Americans. They don't understand how over the past 100,000 years humans started to leave Africa and spread across the globe (some mixing with Neanderthals).

They don't understand that history was filled with migration after migration after migration. With some populations displacing or killing the original populations. They don't know that most of the First Nations do not descend from the original inhabitants of the Americas. They do not understand that the Chinese were not the original inhabitants of China, that the Japanese were not the original inhabitants of Japan or that the English were not the original inhabitants of England.

Accountability Now, why are you so afraid to admit that the whole concept of people owning and/or having rights to land based upon where their ancestors are from is nonsense?

I would assume the Inuit would have inhabited the NWT.

And you would be wrong in your baseless assumption.

The Inuit descended from the Thule, who came to Canada & Greenland from Alaska between the 11th and 13th centuries. They displaced (i.e. killed off) the Dorset people who descended from the first inhabitants of the Arctic Archipelago & Northern Greenland. Note that both the Thule and Dorset people descend from the Paleo-Eskimo people who came to North America 3,000 years ago by crossing the Bering Strait. Note that the Thule actually arrived in Canada and Greenland AFTER the vikings did (the vikings were also the first inhabitants of southern Greenland). The inuit call these Dorset people Sivullirmiut and "according to legend, the First Inhabitants were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off.".

Maybe this will help you. From page 5:

* Native people owned North America in the first place

This is very dubious and I would like you to explain how do we determine what are and are not the native lands of an individual.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of native people descend purely from Siberians that crossed the Berring straight when it was a land bridge during the Clovis immigration 13,000 years ago. Yet you had a pre-Clovis immigration 15,000 years ago of Australoid peoples and the Solutreans existed in North America 19,000 years ago. Yet these pre-Clovis populations were pretty much entirely replaced by the Clovis peoples, so really most natives should be considered 'Third Nations' not 'First Nations' (admittedly the Ogibwe population and a few dispersed tribes along the pacific coast of the Americas, all the way down to Patagonia, could make a claim based on genetic evidence that a small portion of their DNA comes from pre-Clovis populations).

Then you have the fact that the Paleo-Eskimo people only came to North America 3,000 years ago, so are quite genetically different than so-called natives further south. And the Inuit only left Alaska for Canada & Greenland in the 11th - 13th centuries (after the vikings tried to colonize Greenland and Labrador), replacing the Dorset people in the process (as in the Dorset population completely died out due to conflict). This makes the Inuit 'Fifth Nations'. Yet many people claim that the Inuit should have 'indigenous rights' based on where their Ancestors are from. So if people whose ancestors arrived from Alaska to Canada 800 years ago can be considered indigenous, then why not people whose ancestors arrived from France to Canada 400 years ago?

Anyway, ignoring the whole issue of the Clovis people not actually being the first people of North America, how do we define the native lands of someone's ancestors? Surely not every single square inch of Canada was occupied by First Nations. So how close must an ancestor have lived to a location for that location to be considered one's ancestral land? 100 km? 200 km?

Melville Island (http://en.wikipedia....es_and_Nunavut)) was never inhabited by Inuit people or First Nations and was first visited by William Parry in 1819 of Britain. So does that mean that the native population of Melville Island is British? If so then descendants of British people should be considered indigenous to Canada, no?

If not then how close must an ancestor have to have lived for them to be considered descendants of first nations of a land? If we were to say that the distance is on the order of continental scales (i.e. if the 'first nations' were the first in North America then they somehow own North America), then would that also mean that the Koreans are native to China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, etc.? That seems ridiculous and absurd to me. Maybe it would be easier to say that all humans are native to Earth, therefore the Earth belongs to humans.

And then you have the fact that the ancestors of some 'First Nations' in Canada are not actually from Canada but from the United States and moved to Canada after the revolutionary wars and even later than that since Canada was a more 'native-friendly' place.

Then you have the issue of why do we not apply the same standards of 'indigenous people somehow own land that their ancestors lived near' to other populations. If my ancestry involves people from England, does that mean that I have indigenous rights to England and that Pakistani immigrants in England should give me money for living on my ancestral land? Should a person with Ainu ancestry have the option to live on a tax-free native reserve in Japan, where they are not allowed property rights and various services are provided to them from the Japanese government?

Then there is the issue of how do you deal with mixed race people. Does a half native person have half the indigenous rights of a full native person, or the full rights? If it is the full rights, then doesn't a 1% native person also have full native rights? If it is half the indigenous rights, then shouldn't we DNA sequence every single Canadian to determine how much tax exempt status, fishing rights, hunting rights, etc. they should get? Or does this not seem ridiculous to you yet?

Lastly you have the issue of what time-frame to take when determining whose ancestors are native to where? In history there have been countless migrations. If we go back 100,000 years, all humans are in East or Central Africa, so using 100,000 years ago means that all humans have indigenous rights to Africa but no indigenous rights to anywhere else. If we use 40,000 years ago, humans have spread to Eurasia and Australia but the Eurasian population has yet to significantly diversify into different races. This means that the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, the 'First Nations' etc. can all claim to be indigenous to most of Eurasia and no one can claim to be indigenous to the Americas during this time period. If we use 10,000 years ago, the Clovis migration has occurred so most of the descendants of 'First Nations' are now in the Americas, but the Paleo-Eskimo people have yet to cross the Berring Strait, so does that mean we can consider Non-Eskimo Amer-Indians to be indigenous to the Americas but not the Inuit? Or maybe we use 400 years ago as the base, in which case we the Quebecois are indigenous to Quebec.

And how does the fact that most people of Non-African decent have about 5% of their DNA from neanderthals. Where do neanderthals fit into all of this? They are an entirely different species!

Anyway, in order for the treaties and all these racist laws to have validity, the natives had to own the land in the first place in order to give the land to the crown under treaties. But this premise is seriously questionable and the only solution I can see to deal with all these questions is to forget the whole idea of people owning land based on where their ancestors are from and instead treat people equally under the law.

[Accountability Now]

No.. the fact that the laws were made during an immoral time was used as a counter argument against a claim/counter argument that you made: "They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority"

So you failed at a counter arguement and a justification. Great. Glad we got through this.

Strawman argument. I never had that 'first point'.

Really?....you went on two long winded posts on that 'point'.

Sigh, I've explained why your argument is nonsense countless times; I'm not sure why I even bother to give such a nonsense argument a response. The validity of a law ultimately depends on the validity of the legal framework in which it was made since it was that legal framework that allowed any future people.

But you don't seem to understand that and somehow think that just because some people at a future date do not change a law and uphold the law that the law's legitimacy no longer depends on the initial conditions under which it was created. Here, I'll give you an analogy to help you understand:

- My great grandfather 'owned' a house 100 years ago

- When my great grandfather died he gave the house to my grandfather

- When my grandfather died he gave the house to my father

- When my father died he gave the house to me

- I am currently living in the house

- One day it is discovered that my great grandfather did not own the house but infact stole the deed from a guy called Mr. Smith and murdered Mr. Smith 100 years ago.

- John Smith, who is the great grandson of Mr. Smith and is the sole descendant of Mr. Smith claims ownership to the house.

Who owns the house? Me or John Smith? I would argue John Smith but by Accountability Now's weird interpretation of the legitimacy of laws, I would own that house because for the past 100 years people thought that I and my descendants owned the house.

Oh sigh...is this getting too tough for you? Reading is tough when you don't understand the words.

Nice try on the analogy but again the complexity of these situations evade you. Mr Smith and your great grandfather both live under the same set of laws and are forced to abide by those laws. As such, murder and stealing (which ironically are the two examples of laws that I originally used previously) are recongized under the agreements they both live by. So in this case Mr Smith should be either compensated for the loss by having the property returned or financially.

Now...when to countries go to war, there is no common set of laws that exist. Hence the saying...all is fair in love and war. So in past cases where countries have warred then property is taken by the winning side and its accepted. Luckily today war isn't that brutal (or at least I hope it stays that way) as we have the larger alliances like NATO and the UN protecting the soverignty of smaller groups.

Now...one important note....I noticed that you addressed me in the third person (Accountability Now) rather that the first (you). You do realize that no one really cares about our discussion other than you (and barely me). You are not preaching to an audience so your grandstanding can stop anytime now. Instead, I would spend your time focusing on reading comprehension.

It is nothing like the US amendment to bear arms. That law is still in effect because it didn't have an expiry date, the legal framework under which that law was changed hasn't been challenged, the law was introduced legally through that legal framework and no one has bothered to modify the law since. Now if for example it was found that the people that introduced that law in the first place did so illegally (by not getting approval from both houses for example) and no one noticed until today, despite the fact that the right to bear arms has been enforced for a very long time, it would no longer be law since it wasn't introduced legally in the first place.

Nothing?

- The treaties don't have an expiry date

- the legal framework under which the treaties hasn't been challenged

- the treaties were introduced legally though that legal framework and one has bothered to modify the law since

Your ability to debate things like this really struggle. Maybe you should copy and paste some more Wikepedia stuff. That might help.

Strawman argument again??? (not sure...) I have never claimed to support a position of 'cutting them off cold turkey'. And I don't understand how this is a good response to my comment that our justifications are different. Justification != what should be done.

ROTFL!!!!!! I want you to go back and read what I said. I clearly stated that "YOU REALIZE CUTTING THEM OFF WILL CAUSE RIOTS" . I acknowledged that you DON'T want to cut them off cold turkey. And yet here again is one of your comprehension failures that sets you off on a wild tangent.

Please....for your sake. Read the post....go do something else....come back and read it again....take a nap....and then read it for a third time. Perhaps then you will be able to converse properly.

Seriously? Every time you have mixed up 'laws' and 'legal authority' I have responded and quoted what you said and said that laws != legal authority. Are you seriously going to pretend that you have not done this? Do you not read my posts?

If its that obvious then you should have no problems with citing an example.Of course, I fully expect you to properly cite with the full exchange....not just a one liner which you would take out of context.

[Accountability Now]

So now you are saying that the First Nations had ownership over land based on where their ancestors are from? Or do you mean 'territory' or 'rights to land'? It seems that you will keep changing your wording to avoid admitting that you agree with the idea that people can own land based on where their ancestors are from.

But at the same time you want to neither agree or disagree with the premise that people can own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from?

I'm sorry that doesn't logically make sense. If you think that first nations can own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from THEN you think that people CAN own and/or have rights to land based upon where their ancestors come from. First Nations are a subset of people/humans.

I have never picked a side because its not one or the other. There are times when people do own land based on where there ancestors come from and there are times where they don't. The fact that you try and make it cut and dry shows your simplicity. Land ownership/rights can change hands by war, treaties or willingly giving them up. In some cases people do have rights to land or ownership because they were the first there and no one has ever disputed it or asked them to give it up.

The First Nations had rights/ownership/soverignty because no one was there to challenge it. This gradually changed as the Europeans came and started to settle the lands taking some by force and taken other areas without force. Ultiamtely, the First Nations ceded the lands to avoid future wars and a legal act was created. The people who had rights to the land handed them off to the people who didn't.

Now getting back to getting back to the First Nations owning land. My point is that the First Nations people never believed they owned the land. So you can't approach this in legal framework attempting to take over ownership. However, they did believe they had rights to the land which were surrendered in the treaties. Word it however you want....Canada now legally has the rights to all treatied lands.

See this is a big problem. Most people in Canada don't know the history of migrations to Canada and how humans spread to the Americans. They don't understand how over the past 100,000 years humans started to leave Africa and spread across the globe (some mixing with Neanderthals).

They don't understand that history was filled with migration after migration after migration. With some populations displacing or killing the original populations. They don't know that most of the First Nations do not descend from the original inhabitants of the Americas. They do not understand that the Chinese were not the original inhabitants of China, that the Japanese were not the original inhabitants of Japan or that the English were not the original inhabitants of England.

Accountability Now, why are you so afraid to admit that the whole concept of people owning and/or having rights to land based upon where their ancestors are from is nonsense?

Of course you are trying to show that other groups were in North America first and therefore the Natives didn't have rights to begin with. However these people relinquised their rights when they left so the rights were up for grabs. No war or treaties were needed. If I own a house and then vacate the house, the city I live in will retake possession and sell it off eventually and I will lose rights to the house. Remember...possession is 9/10ths of the law.

And you would be wrong in your baseless assumption.

The Inuit descended from the Thule, who came to Canada & Greenland from Alaska between the 11th and 13th centuries. They displaced (i.e. killed off) the Dorset people who descended from the first inhabitants of the Arctic Archipelago & Northern Greenland. Note that both the Thule and Dorset people descend from the Paleo-Eskimo people who came to North America 3,000 years ago by crossing the Bering Strait. Note that the Thule actually arrived in Canada and Greenland AFTER the vikings did (the vikings were also the first inhabitants of southern Greenland). The inuit call these Dorset people Sivullirmiut and "according to legend, the First Inhabitants were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off.".

See...your question was "Did any group ever have land rights over that area?". Even in your blurb above you show that the Inuit took defeated the Dorset and therefore took over rights to lands for a period of time.

So...the Inuits did have rights over that area.

I'm guessing your response will be more wikipedia posts. Yawn...you are making this so boring.

[-1=e^ipi]

Nice try on the analogy but again the complexity of these situations evade you. Mr Smith and your great grandfather both live under the same set of laws and are forced to abide by those laws. As such, murder and stealing (which ironically are the two examples of laws that I originally used previously) are recongized under the agreements they both live by. So in this case Mr Smith should be either compensated for the loss by having the property returned or financially.

Now...when to countries go to war, there is no common set of laws that exist. Hence the saying...all is fair in love and war. So in past cases where countries have warred then property is taken by the winning side and its accepted. Luckily today war isn't that brutal (or at least I hope it stays that way) as we have the larger alliances like NATO and the UN protecting the soverignty of smaller groups.

You really like changing the context in which I make my comments in, don't you? The context was that you were saying how the fact that laws/treaties related to Indian issues that were created 100's of years ago have been upheld up until the present somehow gives more legal legitimacy to those laws/treaties. This is of course nonsense as is the example I gave with the house.

In the context of treaties and First Nation issues, we aren't talking about 2 states that went to war or 2 different legal systems/frameworks. All of these agreements were made under the legal framework that today give us Canada and ultimately depend on the legitimacy of the British crown to make them.

Now...one important note....I noticed that you addressed me in the third person (Accountability Now) rather that the first (you). You do realize that no one really cares about our discussion other than you (and barely me). You are not preaching to an audience so your grandstanding can stop anytime now. Instead, I would spend your time focusing on reading comprehension.

I do not understand the purpose of these character attacks (as well as earlier ones). I used the 3rd person in that case for the sake of clarity. You are trying to read into some hidden intent from my wording where no hidden intent exists.

Nothing?

- The treaties don't have an expiry date

- the legal framework under which the treaties hasn't been challenged

- the treaties were introduced legally though that legal framework and one has bothered to modify the law since

Your ability to debate things like this really struggle. Maybe you should copy and paste some more Wikepedia stuff. That might help.

I think we have a misunderstanding over the context under which I was responding to your claim about 'this being just like the US right to bear arms'. I was under the impression that we were talking about how all laws ultimately depend on the legal authority under which they were created and that laws being followed from then until present does not change this. But if you wish to change the context and interpret what I wrote to me saying that the treaties are nothing like the right to bear arms, then obviously my comments will be out of place.

ROTFL!!!!!! I want you to go back and read what I said. I clearly stated that "YOU REALIZE CUTTING THEM OFF WILL CAUSE RIOTS" . I acknowledged that you DON'T want to cut them off cold turkey. And yet here again is one of your comprehension failures that sets you off on a wild tangent.

Did you not see that I had 3 question marks, followed by a '(not sure...)', followed by a statement that merely restated my position and did not claim that you claimed that I wanted to 'cut them off cold turkey'? My apologies but the punctuation in your sentence ' You realize that cutting them off cold turkey would only cause riots which is why I would suggest taking the more literal meanings of the treaties as this would create a phase out program rather than a cold turkey one. ' was extremely poor / non-existent so I was unclear one your meaning (hence the question marks and not-sure). Could you please use correct punctuation and good grammar in the future?

Please....for your sake. Read the post....go do something else....come back and read it again....take a nap....and then read it for a third time. Perhaps then you will be able to converse properly.

Please refrain from unnecessary character attacks.

[jacee]

-1=e^ipi said:

All of these agreements were made under the legal framework that today give us Canada and ultimately depend on the legitimacy of the British crown to make them.

Are you suggesting that the British Crown had no legal authority to make the treaties that allow us to live here?

If so, by what 'authority' do you live here?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

If its that obvious then you should have no problems with citing an example.Of course, I fully expect you to properly cite with the full exchange....not just a one liner which you would take out of context.

Post #90.

I have never picked a side because its not one or the other.

Look, i'm not creating a false dichotomy here. If there are two positions (A & B ) and B is (not A) then it logically follows that one of the two is true and the other is false.

There are times when people do own land based on where there ancestors come from and there are times where they don't.

Good, you stated it. This statement implies that people CAN own land based upon where their ancestors are from (notice how I had the can in there and never stated always). So you agree with the premise that people can own land based upon where their ancestors are from (where as I disagree with it).

The fact that you try and make it cut and dry shows your simplicity.

I'm trying to simplify everything? I'm the one trying to bring the complexity of human migrations into the discussion to challenge the concept of first nations owning land in the past based on where their ancestors are from.

In some cases people do have rights to land or ownership because they were the first there and no one has ever disputed it or asked them to give it up.

Yeah, except in this case most of the 'First Nations' descend from people who were not in the Americas first.

Also, I dispute the idea that people own land based upon where their ancestors are from. So premise that 'no one has ever disputed it' is false.

And again it gets very complex with different populations displacing other populations as I have explained in earlier posts. Melville island was first visited by British people for example.

Do the Americans own the moon because they were the first people to visit the moon?

The people who had rights to the land handed them off to the people who didn't.

See, this is still all dependent on the concept of 'First Nations' owning land based upon where their ancestors are from in the first place. Because one cannot cede rights and ownership of land to another group of people unless that first group had the rights and ownership in the first place.

This is one of the reasons why trying to morally derive property rights is problematic. This is why I take the position that property rights exist because they are useful (they incentivize productive behaviour) and they should be determined pragmatically not morally.

Now getting back to getting back to the First Nations owning land. My point is that the First Nations people never believed they owned the land.

Really? Do I need to find you videos of someone like Manitoba Grand Chief Jack Dysart or Pam Palmater stating otherwise? Many first nations and non-first nations people in Canada think that the First Nations used to own the land based upon where their ancestors are from and that it was 'stolen' from them by the Europeans.

However, they did believe they had rights to the land which were surrendered in the treaties. Word it however you want....Canada now legally has the rights to all treatied lands.

Ownership, rights to land. Call it what you want. It is still based on the racist notion of where one's ancestors are from and ignores the complexities of human migrations thousands of years ago.

Of course you are trying to show that other groups were in North America first and therefore the Natives didn't have rights to begin with. However these people relinquised their rights when they left so the rights were up for grabs. No war or treaties were needed. If I own a house and then vacate the house, the city I live in will retake possession and sell it off eventually and I will lose rights to the house. Remember...possession is 9/10ths of the law.

'Trying to show'? It is fact.

And they relinquished their rights 'when they left'? Where did these people leave to? They didn't leave, their populations were completely replaced (i.e. in many cases the people were killed off through genocide). A lot of human history has cases of new populations coming in and completely replacing older populations. Having different tribes or races of humans living peacefully side-by-side is only a relatively recent phenomenon and for most of human history was not true, especially for hunter-gatherer societies. The Australoid peoples were the first inhabitants of Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, South East Asia, China, most of the Americas and many other parts of the world, but now they are limited only to Australia and the island of New Guinea; what happened to the other Australoids? They were replaced by genocide.

See...your question was "Did any group ever have land rights over that area?". Even in your blurb above you show that the Inuit took defeated the Dorset and therefore took over rights to lands for a period of time.

No, I don't agree with the concept of people owning land based upon where their ancestors are from period. So I do not think that the Dorset people originally had 'ownership' or 'rights to land' or whatever you want to call it in the first place. Things like 'ownership' and 'rights to land' should only exist because they are beneficial to society because they incentivize productive behaviour, help avoid situations like the tragedy of the commons, etc. They shouldn't exist because 'someone's ancestors lived in this area a few thousand years ago'.

So...the Inuits did have rights over that area.

So you are saying that if another group of people, say the Japanese, come along and perform genocide on all of the Inuit until their are no Inuit left, then the Japanese now are the rightful owners of say Nunavut? Yeah, somehow I'm not convinced by the concept that those that perform genocide become the rightful owners of the land of the group of people that were genocided.

Edited February 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you suggesting that the British Crown had no legal authority to make the treaties that allow us to live here?

All legal authorities are questionable.

If we took the legal authority of the British Crown to be absolute, then wouldn't that make the USA and all laws passed by the USA illegal?

If so, by what 'authority' do you live here?

Your question does not make much sense to me. Why does one need an authority to live by? I live in Canada because I was born here (of course no one chooses where they are born, not that I am complaining or anything).

[jacee]

All legal authorities are questionable.

If we took the legal authority of the British Crown to be absolute, then wouldn't that make the USA and all laws passed by the USA illegal?

Nobody said absolute. We were talking about here and now, Canada and treaties with Indigenous Nations.

Your question does not make much sense to me. Why does one need an authority to live by?

Then why question the 'legal authority' to make treaties if one needs no 'authority'?

I live in Canada because I was born here (of course no one chooses where they are born, not that I am complaining or anything).

So you claim the right to live here because your ancestors lived here?

And by what 'authority' could they, or you, 'own' land here?

[bush_cheney2004]

....And by what 'authority' could they, or you, 'own' land here?

That's pretty obvious isn't it ? Through economic and military force...it has always been thus. Nobody has the right to land, just the right to defend what is ultimately a temporary possession.

[-1=e^ipi]

Nobody said absolute. We were talking about here and now, Canada and treaties with Indigenous Nations.

I never claimed that the British crown has no legal authority. Just that the authority is questionable and not absolute.

Who am I (or anyone else) to say that the British Crown, the American Constitution, the Pope, or the crazy homeless guy across the street who claims that he was abducted by aliens and is in fact the lord-emperor of this quadrant of the galaxy, has no legal authority?

Then why question the 'legal authority' to make treaties if one needs no 'authority'?

Again, your question does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could more clearly define what you mean by 'live by'. The only laws I need to live are the physical laws of nature (Newtonian laws of gravity and motion, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, Einstein's general relativity, Schrodinger's equation, etc.). By 'live by' do you mean how someone lives by the Bible or lives by Islam? Or do you mean an authority that allows me to live because it has a gun to my head and it is kind enough to not shoot? Or do you mean what protects my property rights?

So you claim the right to live here because your ancestors lived here?

I never claimed the right to live anywhere. I live in Canada because I was born in Canada and have not moved or died yet.

And by what 'authority' could they, or you, 'own' land here?

Who is 'they'?

Edited February 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[jacee]

And I never claimed that the British crown has no legal authority. Just that the authority is questionable and not absolute.

Who am I (or anyone else) to say that the British Crown, the American Constitution, the Pope, or the crazy homeless guy across the street who claims that he was abducted by aliens and is in fact the lord-emperor of this quadrant of the galaxy, has no legal authority?

Again, your question does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could more clearly define what you mean by 'live by'. The only laws I need to live are the physical laws of nature (Newtonian laws of gravity and motion, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, Einstein's general relativity, Schrodinger's equation, etc.). By 'live by' do you mean how someone lives by the Bible or lives by Islam? Or do you mean an authority that allows me to live because it has a gun to my head and it is kind enough to not shoot? Or do you mean what protects my property rights?

I never claimed the right to live anywhere. I live in Canada because I was born in Canada and have not moved or died yet.

Who is 'they'?

never mind.

[Accountability Now]

You really like changing the context in which I make my comments in, don't you? The context was that you were saying how the fact that laws/treaties related to Indian issues that were created 100's of years ago have been upheld up until the present somehow gives more legal legitimacy to those laws/treaties. This is of course nonsense as is the example I gave with the house.

No not more...they give the same legal legitmacy as they continue to be upheld. This is true in your house example as person who had the deed was legally entitled to the property as they had the deed....until of course they found out how they came up with the deed. The laws didn't change, they just got enforced. Back to the native issue, there has never been anything against the law with the treaties. Not then nor now. So the only thing nonsense here is your analogy.

In the context of treaties and First Nation issues, we aren't talking about 2 states that went to war or 2 different legal systems/frameworks. All of these agreements were made under the legal framework that today give us Canada and ultimately depend on the legitimacy of the British crown to make them.

I would like you to read this again. You're saying with the First Nations treaites issues which of course is treaties between Britain (Canada) and the First Nations that there is NOT 2 states that went to war OR 2 different legal systems. Let me count...First Nations legal system...that's 1.....British legal system.....that's 2. Hmmmm.

Just because they were signed under the British legal framework does not negate the legitmacy of the First Nations entering into that agreement. DId Japan not have its own system before signing their treaty?

I think we have a misunderstanding over the context under which I was responding to your claim about 'this being just like the US right to bear arms'. I was under the impression that we were talking about how all laws ultimately depend on the legal authority under which they were created and that laws being followed from then until present does not change this. But if you wish to change the context and interpret what I wrote to me saying that the treaties are nothing like the right to bear arms, then obviously my comments will be out of place.

This whole thing IS about the treaties....so how have I changed anything?

Even in your BS response in this post pertaining to laws depending on legal authority, the example of the US right to bear arms holds true as it was first put into place by people hundreds of years ago that have nothing to do with current day people NOR due they have authority on how how the US governs itself today. YET....the current law makers continue to uphold it for what ever reason.

One day the US may change the ammendment. Maybe Canada might negate or change how we deal with natives. But this will result from doing what's right for us currently....not because these past people had or didn't have so called authority.

Did you not see that I had 3 question marks, followed by a '(not sure...)', followed by a statement that merely restated my position and did not claim that you claimed that I wanted to 'cut them off cold turkey'? My apologies but the punctuation in your sentence ' You realize that cutting them off cold turkey would only cause riots which is why I would suggest taking the more literal meanings of the treaties as this would create a phase out program rather than a cold turkey one. ' was extremely poor / non-existent so I was unclear one your meaning (hence the question marks and not-sure). Could you please use correct punctuation and good grammar in the future?

That is your response? Questioning my grammar? LOL. From the guy who didn't know the definition of 'funny'? Do you honestly want me to go back through your posts and find the gramatical errors? This is rich. Just concede that you messed up and move on.

I do not understand the purpose of these character attacks (as well as earlier ones). I used the 3rd person in that case for the sake of clarity. You are trying to read into some hidden intent from my wording where no hidden intent exists.

Please refrain from unnecessary character attacks.

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your posts and the manner of how you do so....moreso I am attacking the multitude of errors in your posts, which is why it seems not stop.

[Accountability Now]

Post #90.

What part?

Look, i'm not creating a false dichotomy here. If there are two positions (A & B ) and B is (not A) then it logically follows that one of the two is true and the other is false.

Good, you stated it. This statement implies that people CAN own land based upon where their ancestors are from (notice how I had the can in there and never stated always). So you agree with the premise that people can own land based upon where their ancestors are from (where as I disagree with it).

I'm not saying people are entitled to their land because their ancestors are from there. I'm saying there are situations where people have never been challenged for that land therefore these people CAN and DO own land based on this.

My premise is that sovereignty is what dicates the ability to own land with soverignty being the ability to control, maintain or defend your borders.

I'm trying to simplify everything? I'm the one trying to bring the complexity of human migrations into the discussion to challenge the concept of first nations owning land in the past based on where their ancestors are from.

Their ancestors did own it...right up until they made the treaties. If they didn't own the land then who did?

Yeah, except in this case most of the 'First Nations' descend from people who were not in the Americas first.

Also, I dispute the idea that people own land based upon where their ancestors are from. So premise that 'no one has ever disputed it' is false.

And again it gets very complex with different populations displacing other populations as I have explained in earlier posts. Melville island was first visited by British people for example.

Do the Americans own the moon because they were the first people to visit the moon?

Again...please reference my point about sovereignty as being the ability to control, maintain and defend your borders. When it comes to land ownership, it doesn't matter who was there first. Like you said, if the US went to the moom, stayed there and continued to maintain those borders then YES they would claim ownership over the moon. The fact is they didn't....so no they don't own the moon.

The Vikings came to Canada...and left. Others may have been in Canda first and were later defeated by the First Nations tribes. None of this affects our position as Canads in reference to the treaties as we signed treaties with the resepective nations who had sovereignty over that specific area....hence more than one treaty. The bottomline is that the First Nations did have soverignty at the time of treaties becasue they took it from past nations or had it evolve.

See, this is still all dependent on the concept of 'First Nations' owning land based upon where their ancestors are from in the first place. Because one cannot cede rights and ownership of land to another group of people unless that first group had the rights and ownership in the first place.

They did have the rights. They fought off other tribes for those rights. They stayed on these lands to maintain those rights. They also fought with the British and French to maintain those rights. Ultimately they realized they couldn't defend these land rights any more and signed the treaties. What part of this don't you get?

Really? Do I need to find you videos of someone like Manitoba Grand Chief Jack Dysart or Pam Palmater stating otherwise? Many first nations and non-first nations people in Canada think that the First Nations used to own the land based upon where their ancestors are from and that it was 'stolen' from them by the Europeans.

Show all the videos you like. I agree that they USED to own the land. I disagree that it was stolen in any way. Treaties were signed for the obvious reasons that I have pointed out and therefore the rights or sovereingty to the land was transferred. The fact that their ancestors used to own the land has no bearing on whether they own the land today or not. ZERO. I used to own a house and sold it. Doesn't mean I have any rights to that house now.

Just out of curiosity....who is Dysart? I thought Neepenak was the Manitoba Grand Cheif. DId Dysart precede him?

'Trying to show'? It is fact.

And they relinquished their rights 'when they left'? Where did these people leave to? They didn't leave, their populations were completely replaced (i.e. in many cases the people were killed off through genocide). A lot of human history has cases of new populations coming in and completely replacing older populations. Having different tribes or races of humans living peacefully side-by-side is only a relatively recent phenomenon and for most of human history was not true, especially for hunter-gatherer societies. The Australoid peoples were the first inhabitants of Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, South East Asia, China, most of the Americas and many other parts of the world, but now they are limited only to Australia and the island of New Guinea; what happened to the other Australoids? They were replaced by genocide.

The Vikings left.

The others were killed off and therefore soverignty was transferred. Its the way it is....or at least the way it was. Again...thanks to our global alliances we don't view genocide in the same way. Bottom line is that Britain signed treaties with the governing body at that time.....the current soverign group that held title to the lands.

No, I don't agree with the concept of people owning land based upon where their ancestors are from period. So I do not think that the Dorset people originally had 'ownership' or 'rights to land' or whatever you want to call it in the first place. Things like 'ownership' and 'rights to land' should only exist because they are beneficial to society because they incentivize productive behaviour, help avoid situations like the tragedy of the commons, etc. They shouldn't exist because 'someone's ancestors lived in this area a few thousand years ago'.

Again...the natives didn't have the land because of where their ancestors are from.....they had the land because they fought for it and defended it and then went on to maintain it.

More importantly....the evolution of society as we know it did not evolve based on your utopian view of how ownership should exist. It evolved based the idea of having to defend your land. So don't superimpose your current altruistic beliefs back on people hundreds of years ago and expect it to apply. It doesn't work that way.

So you are saying that if another group of people, say the Japanese, come along and perform genocide on all of the Inuit until their are no Inuit left, then the Japanese now are the rightful owners of say Nunavut?

Back in the day....YES....the Japanese would be the owners of the land becasue the Nunavut couldn't defend their borders. That is the way it was. Of course, that wouldn't fly today. Different sense of right and wrong.

Yeah, somehow I'm not convinced by the concept that those that perform genocide become the rightful owners of the land of the group of people that were genocided.

I like your hypocrisy.....you're saying "i'm not convinced that those that perform the genocide become the rightful owners". So who are the rightful owners? The Inuit because their ancestors were from there?

[Accountability Now]

That's pretty obvious isn't it ? Through economic and military force...it has always been thus. Nobody has the right to land, just the right to defend what is ultimately a temporary possession.

Exactly. Which is what I've been tyring to explain about how soverignty works. If you can't defend it then its not yours.

[jacee]

I agree that they USED to own the land. I disagree that it was stolen in any way. Treaties were signed for the obvious reasons that I have pointed out and therefore the rights or sovereingty to the land was transferred.

I agree with much of what you're saying AN, though I think you're beating your head against the wall with mister 'ya-but-says-who?'

Some rights were transferred, IF our governments lived up to the terms of the treaty agreement. In many cases they didn't: Failed to make agreed upon payments, made use of land that wasn't in the treaty, etc. Those cases - and there are many - are what we now know as 'Land claims'.

And by "some rights" I mean ...

- Treaties with Indigenous Peoples allowed us to live on and make use of certain lands "to a plough's depth",

- Indigenous Peoples retained the right to sustain themselves from those lands ... now known as Section 35 Aboriginal rights.

There was never and is not now any 'absolute' transfer of 'ownership'. The Indigenous concept of 'ownership' is the responsibility to take care of the land that sustains human life.

We share the land ... by treaties intended to maintain peace and friendship, and take care of the land.

.

Edited February 11, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

I agree with much of what you're saying AN, though I think you're beating your head against the wall with mister 'ya-but-says-who?'

No kidding. I got a good chuckle with your "Never mind" comment after he went on another wild tangent.

Some rights were transferred, IF our governments lived up to the terms of the treaty agreement. In many cases they didn't: Failed to make agreed upon payments, made use of land that wasn't in the treaty, etc. Those cases - and there are many - are what we now know as 'Land claims'.

I agree that mistakes were made and some land was taken or used erroenously. The Government of Canada also agrees as they have $10B set aside for future land claims. If lands were taken in error then these bands should be compensated. However, it seems like everyone has a land claim...like the Papaschase in Edmonton or the ACFN in Fort Mac. Even once the Supreme Court says they are not entitled to a claim, they still gripe out their land claim. In my opinion this takes away from the legitimite land claims out there.

And by "some rights" I mean ...

- Treaties with Indigenous Peoples allowed us to live on and make use of certain lands "to a plough's depth",

I have often seen this phrase quoted but yet I see it no where in the treaties. What I do see quoted in the treaties is the following:

And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

This quote explicitly states that mining will be part of the British/Canadians land use which of course goes much further than the plough's depth. Where do you see 'plough's depth' in the historical agreements?

- Indigenous Peoples retained the right to sustain themselves from those lands ... now known as Section 35 Aboriginal rights.

Again...as shown in the quote above....Indigenous people retained the right to hunting and fishing SUBJECT to settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

Furthermore, let's look at Section 35 in its entirety and see where it says they have the right to sustain themselves of the land.

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA Marginal note:Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights

• 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

• Definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada”

  (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

• Marginal note:Land claims agreements

  (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

• Marginal note:Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes

  (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. (96)

Marginal note:Commitment to participation in constitutional conference

35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the “Constitution Act, 1867”, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

• (a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

• (b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item. (97)

I see nothing about the right to sustain themselves of the land except the highlighted red part stating they will uphold treaty rights...which bring us back to my quoted statement. Perhaps I'm not seeing it or its pointed out in other documentation that is only referenced here?

There was never and is not now any 'absolute' transfer of 'ownership'. The Indigenous concept of 'ownership' is the responsibility to take care of the land that sustains human life.

It doesn't matter what the Indigenous concept of ownership is. The British did and Canada does believe in ownership and the treaties were signed under British law. The original treaties even state that the Indians must adhere to British law. The BNA of 1967 section 91 Part 24 states that Indians are under the control of British law. Even the reserves they live on are owned by the government. Referring back to the Indian ways is a non-starter because it doesn't matter.

It was absolute when the natives agreed to sign these British treaties which stated "CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands". That's as absolute as it gets.

[g_bambino]

They are not subjects of the Crown as we are.

Bound by the Queen's laws, you bet they're subjects of the Crown.

The Constitution "recognized and affirmed existing" rights.

So? Those existing rights being referred to are those "given" by the treaties, not some nebulous concept of pre-colonial, pan-continental, divinely originating aboriginal rights.