🚀 go-pugleaf

"James Bandow" <ae722@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:at05v3$6lk$1@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> Wade Wofford (kenuchelover@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> : > So, about those North American land claims, and that apartheid
> : > document that Canadians have enshrined in the constitution.
> : > (The Indian Act)
> : >
> : > I find it null and void, and move that all anscestral land claims
> : > be shelved, until all the facts are in, in the case.
>
> : The facts ARE in.  Ancestral land claims cases derive primarily from
> : treaty rights, which are NOT dependant on anything other than the fact
> : that the treaty was ratified by both parties.  But in any case, the
> : facts DO show that modern Native Americans ARE descended from the
> : PaleoIndian first settlers of the Americas.
>
> Right on Wade. It only matters WHO was here at the time of contact: when
> Indian nations ratified land agreements with the British and French
> Governments! It is irrelevant as to WHO was here prior to these contracts.
>
{SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In this
case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
conclusion).

Cheers!