Vancouver declares itself founded on unceded territory

[rubecube]

Pretty big news. City council unanimously passed a motion that acknowledges the city was founded on unceded territory.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1416321/ci...nal-territory/

“Underlying all other truths spoken during the Year of Reconciliation is the truth that the modern city of Vancouver was founded on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations and that these territories were never ceded through treaty, war or surrender,” reads part of the motion from the city.

The city says it will now work with representatives from the Aboriginal community to determine “appropriate protocols” for conducting city business.

[burn_this_city]

Squatters rights.

[nik-]

Vancouver declares it now wants everything it does development wise to be more expensive.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Most of BC can say the same thing, as could most of the modern nation states in the West. I can't see the Canadian government or any international court deciding that the City of Vancouver make sense to arbitrarily draw a line.

During the age of colonialism, conquest was considered legitimate. If we go back to make reparations to all people harmed in history based on the morals and ethics of today, it would never end.

[19Yzerman19]

This on the same day that the Supreme Court recognized the existence of Aboriginal title to more than 1700 square kilometres of land in northern BC... That's about 1/4 the size of Banff National Park.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Most of BC can say the same thing, as could most of the modern nation states in the West. I can't see the Canadian government or any international court deciding that the City of Vancouver make sense to arbitrarily draw a line.

During the age of colonialism, conquest was considered legitimate. If we go back to make reparations to all people harmed in history based on the morals and ethics of today, it would never end.

The ol' "can't fix one thing unless we fix everything" gem of an argument. Considering what the Supreme Court just came down with this morning, I think it makes a huge difference as some groups may be able to start making title claims.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The ol' "can't fix one thing unless we fix everything" gem of an argument. Considering what the Supreme Court just came down with this morning, I think it makes a huge difference as some groups may be able to start making title claims.

I've only read the headnote of the SCC decision but from what they ruled it doesn't look like anything has changed significantly in the law.

The basis for their ruling was essentially, "look, the trial judge found that aboriginal title existed here based on a set of facts that he was convinced by. Since there was evidence to support his view that those facts were the right ones, he did not commit a palpable and overriding error, which is the standard of review to overturn a finding of fact by a lower court judge. So we're not going to mess with his decision."

I would not characterize this as a huge change in the law of aboriginal title, though it does clarify some things and will allow the trial level decision to be relied on in advancing claims. I guess what I'm saying is it's a boon to those seeking to advance new claims but it is not a revolutionary, landscape-altering decision I don't think (again, having only read the headnote).

[polak]

Or we could declare war and take it the good ol' fashion way.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by polak

Or we could declare war and take it the good ol' fashion way.

With smallpox blankets?

[northcrunk]

Vancouver is no good.

[polak]

Originally Posted by nik-

With smallpox blankets?

I'm not going to touch this.

I'm curious though, what would happen if they made a title claim on land that is already developed and won? Could they evict people already living on the land?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The ol' "can't fix one thing unless we fix everything" gem of an argument. Considering what the Supreme Court just came down with this morning, I think it makes a huge difference as some groups may be able to start making title claims.

Well you know, you don't need to wait for the government to enforce reparations or land transfers. if your convictions are that strong, you can offer up your own property to First Nations. Is a formal title claim the only difference between right and wrong to you?

It only took 12 years after the Nisga'a treaty for them to start privatizing and selling the land off. I imagine any land claims in Vancouver would be settled with money trumping heritage every time.

[SebC]

Given that what's there now is Vancouver, I'd say that the territory was de facto ceded somehow.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

vancouver is no good.

this!!!!!

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Most of BC can say the same thing, as could most of the modern nation states in the West. I can't see the Canadian government or any international court deciding that the City of Vancouver make sense to arbitrarily draw a line.

During the age of colonialism, conquest was considered legitimate. If we go back to make reparations to all people harmed in history based on the morals and ethics of today, it would never end.

That's competently false in that these territories [i]were[i] held in treaty and were not taken by conquest. They were squatted on.

That's much different than taken by force

[terminator]

So the Canucks are not a real NHL team?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by terminator

So the Canucks are not a real NHL team?

Moving to Seattle.

[Keselke]

In after terrible Vancouver/Canucks jokes/puns

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's competently false in that these territories [i]were[i] held in treaty and were not taken by conquest. They were squatted on.

That's much different than taken by force

They were definitely conquered. If not by gunpoint, than by policy and subjugation. Conquest doesn't need to be by gun point, only by force.

It's been the plight of nomadic people around the world that eventually, a civilization establishes itself. With a few exceptions, First Nations in Canada were largely nomadic and few in numbers. Much of Canada at the time was unoccupied and undiscovered to First Nations and white people alike.

[polak]

I'd love to see the physical title that these first nations people claim superscedes the one belonging to the City of Vancouver...