> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada.
Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada?
Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?
I dunno there's a lot of layers to "sovereignty" some of which FNs have deemed to test and others they have declined to do so.
It's not just land issues. For example in other areas some FNs have wrestled back control over their child services from the Federal government.
But regarding land, it used to be that you could "pre-empt" "Crown Land" and get permission to build a cabin on it and take ownership of it, but that hasn't been a thing for quite a while, likely because the Crown realized that their foundational arguments for owning "Crown land" was pretty shakey.
At the moment FNs in BC largely seem interested in regaining title over their land and regaining a fair degree of power over how it is used.
It's entirely possible for a jurisdiction to have ownership and control over land and to still be within the context and laws of the State called Canada.
Summary from the Ballotpedia page: "The court reversed the OCCA's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court.[1] Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas each filed dissenting opinions."
If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island.
Israel wasn't founded by Britain. The UN is effectively what created Israel.
Britain acquired the region ("Mandatory Palestine") after WWI as a temporary measure to govern it until it was self-sustaining; that never happened, and in the wake of WWII, they mostly just wanted out of the situation and left the UN responsible. The UN voted on a partition plan - and the UK actually abstained from that vote.
Israel certainly wasn't founded by Britain, whose forces had simply abandoned the region after the Mandate expired in 1948, but the UN partition only set the stage for the eventual territorial bounds of Israel, as the partition plan was never actually implemented.
What cemented Israel's official modern territorial bounds were the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel controlling 60% of the land that was not originally defined for the Jewish State in the partition plan. According to the 1947 partition plan, Israel was not going to extend to Jerusalem, but the captured territory did extend to this point by the time of the 1949 armistice, as well as extending to most of the land border with Egypt which minimized the Gaza region's border with Egypt, and extending along Lebanon, which prevented the West Bank from sharing a border with Lebanon, as was intended in the partition plan.
The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event.
If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
> If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did,
I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today.
But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
The only reason Israel was founded were it was, can only be justfied by its first nations like connection to the chosen territory. It was not like Britain was lacking other
colonies, protectorates, and mandates to choose from for the Jewish people at the given time.
Indeed several other locations such as Uganda were considered and were leading candidates beforehand. It originated as a colonial project, not a "land-back" initiative.
> Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was "the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion." According to him, "the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.38 In 1902 Herzl approached Cecil Rhodes, who had recently colonized the territory of the Shona people as Rho- desia. "You are being invited to help make history," he said in a letter to Rhodes. "It doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen, but Jews. How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.
> Ronald Stort, The Memoirs of Sir Ronald Storr (New York: G.P. Putnams, 1937), 364. Stort, the first Briitish military Governor of Jerusalem Sir Ronald Storr described Zionist ambitions for Palestine as the creation of "a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
This comment makes it sound like the formation of Israel in the chosen territory was more or less random. Uganda was not chosen for a reason, don’t you think? Are you trying to say that the millenial history of the Jews has nothing to do with the chosen territory?
The history is why jews wanted that specific land for Isreal but the US and Britain didn't enter WW2 to help jews so it's not that much of a stretch for them to support territory for jews that isn't their first choice. It's not like the rest of europe liked jews either, there's a reason jews disproportionately died from _poland_; the other european countries already killed many of the jews within their borders. Even some of the Allied countries exported jews to the Axis when hitler asked them to.
Britain even wanted to avoid Isreal's current location [1] namely because jews and palestines have never gotten along.
As well as US and Britain both but an embargo of arms to isreal prior/during the 1948 war to appease the Arab states. Quite a different response than the current UA one where US/Britain have a vested interest in UA winning so they're a lot of support while in 1948 they'd prefer the Arabs winning.
It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic:
>If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island.
Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory.
The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story:
> Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
It is possible to have two thoughts in the head at the same time.
The Palestinians living in this geographical area have a connection based on the history of their families living in the area. The Jewish people have a connection to the area based on the fact that most of their culture was founded in the area, but were later driven out as consequence of Roman and Byzantine actions – wars, enslavement, expulsions etc.
This of course is the root of the whole conflict (with the additional pressure from surrounding hostile nations).
From what you have written it sounds like you mean that the Jewish people have no connection to this area. You also put words in my mouth that I have not said: "You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land"
This is a difficult conflict to solve because both sides have valid arguments. It doesn't help to pretend one side doesn't have any valid arguments at all.
I don't think the root of the problem is that. There are currently 10-12 million people with nowhere else to go. That's the root of the conflict. Most people don't care enough about "where" to get shot over it. They just want to raise their families in peace and Israel happens to be where politics landed them. Historically as refugees, and today as having been born there or escaping persecution or discrimination, or in seeking opportunity. Just like everywhere else in the world. The conflict is that a handful of assholes are set on war as a way of corporate profiteering on one side, or as an attack on Western ideology on the other. Everyone else just wants ANYWHERE to go live in peace. And no other country is going to let them move to there so they are staying put, and fighting, because they have to.
The one you’re commenting on will say things like they aren’t refugees, they democratically chose their current predicament, the civilian population is filled with terrotists and collaborators, they already turned down good deals for ending the conflict, and more questionable ancient oral tradition histories etc. Just useless to debate
If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada?
I don't know to what degree indigenous people have integrated their laws with Canada but it seems utterly obvious that any degree to which Canadian law and customs aren't applying is the degree to which indigenous laws and customs do apply so whatever else, "no, this doesn't mean a rando can do what they want".
> If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada?
There are 43 first nations communities in Canada that are entirely self-governing. The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself.
So, yes, First Nations people in those communities break "Canadian" laws every single day and nothing "Canada" does nothing about it (and legally can't).
I don't know if that applies to you if you are not a first nations person of that community. I doubt it.
There are 25 self-government agreements across Canada involving 43 Indigenous communities
To quote: "However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply"
Well, for that to work, you’d have to get a court to rule that the land you committed your crime on was indeed indigenous land and not part of canada. Good luck with that.
"Unceded land" means that because 100+ years ago the British settled as they wanted without asking for permission, the land actually still belongs to indigenous people, and not to Canadians, not to the people who currently live on it.
"Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the threat of that over our heads to get more special treatment based on race.
Legally, Canada does have title to the land, BUT that title is also encumbered by "aboriginal title" – a limited set of extra rights of indigenous people. For example, Canada can't prevent indigenous people from hunting, needs to meaningfully consult with them before approving resource extraction projects, etc.
All of this is very poorly defined – in one paragraph of the constitution, and a couple more in ancient royal proclamations – the rest is being interpreted and re-interpreted by the courts as they wish, largely following the general popculture trends.
Was this land openly sold | gifted to Canada or staked and claimed despite prior occupation?
I recognise the current state of affairs, etc. but this "Legally Canada owns the land" is at root just a way of saying "might makes right, we took it, it's ours now, and we will shoot or imprison anyone who says otherwise".
That's how it works, sadly. Everywhere, not just here. The part you're missing is that "we" – the people living in Canada today – did not steal anyone's land. Certainly neither myself nor my ancestors. The original British settlers who stole the land are not us, they are long dead.
You can always look into the past to find injustices to use as an excuse to perpetuate horrible things in the present. Look at just about any conflict, modern or historical, the aggression today is always justified by something in the past. That doesn't mean that this is the right thing to do.
The right thing to do, is to lift up the people disadvantaged by past injustices, without resorting to race based division, e.g. target support by economic status instead of race. Sadly that's the opposite of what we're seeing in Canada nowadays.
Wasn't pretty much every country in the world established as a result of war, or one group taking it from another at some point in the past if you go back far enough?
Might makes right is how all land is owned. Always has been, always will be.
We've stacked lots of layers of paper and convention on top of that fact to reduce the amount of war we make, but people ignore this basic fact of the world at their peril.
Not always, eg: in Austraia the British declared Terra Nullus across the continent ( 'land belonging to nobody' ) and were later forced by their own legal system to return ownership to places still occupied.
"by their own legal system". The Australian government can come to whatever conclusion it wants about how it deals with its land.
That is, it was the Australian legal system which made that decision and further that decision was not countermanded by the Government of Australia. It wasn't the legal system of, say, Jamaica forcing the Australian Government to do that. Or even the legal system of the peoples who were occupying the territory when the British arrived.
> "Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the threat of that over our heads to get more special treatment based on race.
This is a terrible misrepresentation of how “unceeded land” is used.
To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobody means that. Even “land back” movement people aren’t talking about that. And even if some land is returned to indigenous nations, that would not be privatization.
And to call it special treatment based on race is ignoring the reality that indigenous people were for decades, and still are to some degree, systemically disenfranchised and devalued in society. A call for reparations, yes. A call for “special treatment” - nope.
> Legally, Canada does have title to the land
In much the same way that legally I have title to your house if i write “I own that house” on a piece of paper.
> To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobody means that.
And who are you, to make that claim so confidently on behalf of First Nations, to put limits on them?
We used to have a treaty process to make such claims formally. The First Nation and the Canadian government would sign a treaty that would outline the extent of First Nation's claims, and the same treaty would FINALIZE those claims – the First Nation would get some of its land back, but would not be able to make future claims on more land.
As of 2019, this process has been officially abandoned by the BC NDP. Any treaties or agreements signed nowadays do not include finalization, so the First Nations are always free to demand more land, as they do.
Pretty much every First Nation consistently denies Canada's ownership of their lands, saying that their lands were stolen, that the colonialism continues today, that Canada has no right to govern their lands, that they should be the ones deciding what happens on their lands, etc. – you can take those as empty feel-good slogans, which would be disrespectful I think, or you can take them seriously, and look at the consequences of those claims, should the government or the courts grant them legitimacy (as they increasingly do).
As just one of many, many examples, from the same Squamish First Nation, from an article about a land parcel near Murrin park being returned to them [1]:
> "The history of land confiscation from the Squamish Nation going back to Confederation has always been one where our people and our leaders, going back to the founding of the nation, have articulated that we never surrendered our lands. It's all ours," said Khelsilem, also known as Dustin Rivers, a spokesperson for the [Squamish] Nation.
> "The Crown, through the province or the feds, claim jurisdiction over our lands. We contest that jurisdictional claim. And we continue to fight for the return of our lands back to our community. And we've been successful at that in a number of areas. And we'll continue to press that fight."
Again, you can disrespect him, and assume that he means something else than what he says, but I don't think that's wise.
> 90% of the land
Is it perhaps this high number that's unbelievable to you? Well, the Tsilqhot Supreme Court decision [2] awarded that First Nation 45% of their claimed traditional territory into aboriginal title. 45% isn't 100%, and aboriginal title isn't literally private property, but that Nation now makes the rules for who and how is allowed to access all that land, both for commercial activities and non-commercial recreational visitors, unbound by any equality or freedom of movement provisions in the Canadian law that normally bind Canadian governments.
And that decision is from nine years ago – an eternity when it comes to the development of indigenous rights in Canada and BC. If a similar case reached the court today, you bet it would be even stronger. Also, as I mentioned, the scope of aboriginal title is continually expanded by the courts, so eventually it will likely become indistinguishable from private property for all practical purposes.
> And even if some land is returned to indigenous nations, that would not be privatization.
You can use whatever PC words for this you want, if it makes you feel better. The essence remains the same – previously publicly owned land with public access is transferred into ownership with restricted access. There are many ways in which it is accomplished, from transferring land parcels into private property – sometimes in exchange for approving resource extraction projects, sometimes without any exchange, to signing various "joint management" agreements that enable First Nations to exclude non-indigenous people from large swaths of lands, give them veto rights on any commercial activity, etc.
> In much the same way that legally I have title to your house if i write “I own that house” on a piece of paper.
No, because nobody will honor your piece of paper, whereas pretty much everyone in Canada and in the world honors Canada's title to its land, whether they like it or not. See the other subthread for why that is.
> And who are you, to make that claim so confidently on behalf of First Nations, to put limits on them?
This is a transparently cynical "gotcha" argument, so I'm going to ignore it.
> As of 2019, this process has been officially abandoned by the BC NDP. Any treaties or agreements signed nowadays do not include finalization, so the First Nations are always free to demand more land, as they do.
There have been no treaties signed in BC since 2016, so I don't know what you're basing your "treaties or agreements signed nowadays" or "as they do" comments on. Certainly not things that have actually come to pass.
> Pretty much every First Nation consistently denies Canada's ownership of their lands, saying that their lands were stolen, that the colonialism continues today, that Canada has no right to govern their lands, that they should be the ones deciding what happens on their lands, etc.
Their lands were stolen. Colonialism does continue today. The right of a democratic nation to govern is dependent on the consent of the people - so it is well within their rights to challenge that right.
> Is it perhaps this high number that's unbelievable to you? Well, the Tsilqhot Supreme Court decision [2] awarded that First Nation 45% of their claimed traditional territory into aboriginal title. 45% isn't 100%
You're doing some fancy math there. If I claim 100% of my house, and am granted 45% of it... I wasn't granted 45% of all houses. Afaik land claims come with a high burden of proof, I would be shocked if their original claim was for 50% of their actual traditional land.
> previously publicly owned land with public access is transferred into ownership with restricted access
This is nonsense. Previously access to the land was restricted by the canadian government. If you wanted to use it, you had to a) be canadian, or b) get permission from canada. If that land now belongs to another nation guess what the new rules are? If you want to use it you have to a) belong to that nation, or b) get permission from that nation. You're just describing being on the wrong side of a border.
> No, because nobody will honor your piece of paper, whereas pretty much everyone in Canada and in the world honors Canada's title to its land, whether they like it or not.
You've just described colonialism. Odd, because it seemed like you were implying earlier you didn't believe the idea that colonialism was happening today.
Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada?
Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?