🚀 go-pugleaf

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<XGOI9.123065$ea.2291603@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> "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 

Dear Stephen Eggleston,

The thread was focusing on the United States, simply because Kennewick
Man had been found in the U.S., and because racist fools in the U.S.
started spinning fantasies as a consequence.

> 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.  

This applies to most of Mexico, Central & South America, and even to
parts of the U.S. as well.  Canada is not unique in this respect.

> 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!

So far as I know, there aren't any.

If rights were not specifically ceded, they were retained.

Sincerely,

Wade Wofford.