Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
It's not manifest destiny, it's a discussion of appropriate considerations regarding when land can be considering owned. (Also manifest destiny was more of an American thing.)
Your premise is that sparse nomadic people had MORE of a right to exist on the land than anyone else. I disagree with that premise.
|
The biggest flaw in your position, it seems to me, is that the British Crown clearly didn't even agree with you back when it entered into those treaties. The very act of entering into the treaties acknowledged the need for the treaty due to some form of Aboriginal title over the lands. As anyone with even a passing familiarity with such issues in Canada knows, the Supreme Court of Canada continues to recognize that Aboriginal title exists and that indigineous peoples may establish Aboriginal title of unceded land through evidence of traditional occupation and use.