First people to claim this land??

[grassfarmer]

The land wasn't taken, they surrendered the land via treaties.

Natives Americans should be glad it was the English, French and Spanish that came to settle the Americans, rather than the Mongolians, Romans or Ottomans.

You'll probably all agree with Lynn Beyak that the residential schools were a great thing too.

[blackpowder]

Well frick, watching the movie Braveheart doesnt make me an expert on Scottish history either Buckshot. Tell you what. You start packing for home and GIVING it all back to whomever as apologetically as you can. I'll watch.....

[farmaholic]

You can only speculate what their fate would have been had Europeans not been here before some others....or how they'd be living today if no one ever showed up....it's only really been about 150-200 years......a nano second in time. Question might be would they want to go back to pre European influence time?..... not that their life has been "easy" post European arrival either. Huge cultural gap and their adaptation is anything but successful.... assuming they "needed" adapt. There was such a large insurrgence.....

[Klause]

Not sure where y'all are going with this but if you're hoping to claim back all the money your ancestors paid the Indians for the land you might be waiting a while - A) because they don't have any, and B) the land was taken from them not bought. Seems like a good excuse for entitled white people to kick the downtrodden native population a bit more though. Well done folks - you've maligned Africans, Haitians and now you're onto Native Americans all in one day.

Actually go read Treaty 6.

Or 3. Or 4.


Maybe an actually education may help you.


Ignorance is no excuse for ineptitude

[burnt]

You'll probably all agree with Lynn Beyak that the residential schools were a great thing too.

Your vacuous position is clearly shown by your need to lie.

Lynn Beyak never made that claim.

So wear your badge proudly there, liar. You have destroyed any credibility you hope to portray.

This is typical of the leftist radicals.

[grassfarmer]

Bad enough that your boy Scheer had to fire her for not meeting the low standards of the CPC.

[burnt]

Bad enough that your boy Scheer had to fire her for not meeting the low standards of the CPC.

Keep digging, grassant. Why don't you throw "Harper's fault" in there yet too, LOL!?

[SASKFARMER3]

Grass your a totally typical Liberal. Yea you probably will blame Harper for it.

Your so predictable.

But here is a funny thought , your boy JT is a Idiot and the world is slow but guess what most are starting to realize that. You can only pump up a sock selfie king for so long till its time to tear it down.

The liberals thought they had a king like the elder and got the Dunce.

Enjoy as he is destroying this country that even you might some day want to go home to Scotland because its a better place.

[blueversi]

Your vacuous position is clearly shown by your need to lie.

Lynn Beyak never made that claim.

So wear your badge proudly there, liar. You have destroyed any credibility you hope to portray.

This is typical of the leftist radicals.

Did he ever have credibility? He is full of himself , full of white guilt, and full of crap, but he is a good speller, isn't he y'all?

[chuckChuck]

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032291/1100100032292
The Government of Canada and the courts understand treaties between the Crown and Aboriginal people to be solemn agreements that set out promises, obligations and benefits for both parties.

Starting in 1701, in what was to eventually become Canada, the British Crown entered into solemn treaties to encourage peaceful relations between First Nations and non-Aboriginal people. Over the next several centuries, treaties were signed to define, among other things, the respective rights of Aboriginal people and governments to use and enjoy lands that Aboriginal people traditionally occupied.

Treaties include historic treaties made between 1701 and 1923 and modern-day treaties known as comprehensive land claim settlements.

Treaty rights already in existence in 1982 (the year the Constitution Act was passed), and those that came afterwards, are recognized and affirmed by Canada's Constitution.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Pre-Confederation treaties

In the 18th century, the French and British were competing for control of lands in North America. The two colonial powers formed strategic alliances with First Nations to help them advance their respective colonial interests in the continent. For example, in what are now New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the British made a series of “Peace and Friendship” treaties with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet tribes between 1725 and 1779.

By the early 1760s, the British had established themselves as the dominant colonial power in North America. The British Royal Proclamation of 1763 prohibited the purchase of First Nation lands by any party other than the Crown. The Crown could purchase land from a First Nation group that had agreed to the sale at a public meeting of the group.

Several treaties were signed after the Royal Proclamation and before Confederation in 1867. These include the Upper Canada Treaties (1764 to 1862) and the Vancouver Island Treaties (1850 to 1854). Under these treaties, the First Nations surrendered interests in lands in areas of what are now Ontario and British Columbia. They surrendered their interest in lands in exchange for certain other benefits that could include reserves, annual payments or other types of payment and certain rights to hunt and fish.
Historic treaties after Confederation

Between 1871 and 1921, the Crown entered into treaties with various First Nations that enabled the Canadian government to actively pursue agriculture, settlement and resource development of the Canadian West and the North. Because they are numbered 1 to 11, the treaties are often referred to as the “Numbered Treaties.” The Numbered Treaties cover Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and parts of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.

Under these treaties, the First Nations who occupied these territories gave up large areas of land to the Crown. In exchange, the treaties provided for such things as reserve lands and other benefits like farm equipment and animals, annual payments, ammunition, clothing and certain rights to hunt and fish. The Crown also made some promises such as maintaining schools on reserves or providing teachers or educational help to the First Nation named in the treaties. Treaty No. 6 included the promise of a medicine chest.
Modern treaties—comprehensive claims

Comprehensive land claim settlements deal with areas of Canada where Aboriginal people's claims to Aboriginal rights have not been addressed by treaties, or other legal means. The first of these modern-day treaties was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. To date, the federal government has settled 15 comprehensive claims with Aboriginal people in Canada.
Specific claims

Specific claims arise when there is an outstanding historical grievance between a First Nation and the Crown that relates to an unfulfilled obligation of a treaty or another agreement, or a breach of statutory responsibilities by the Crown. Canada is committed to honouring its lawful obligations to First Nations. By addressing historic injustices which have undermined trust and co-operation, strong partnerships among Aboriginal people, governments and the private sector are emerging. In addition to building these partnerships, settling specific claims helps economic development on Aboriginal lands and in surrounding communities.

Canada's Specific Claims Policy was established to allow First Nations to have their claims appropriately addressed through negotiations by the government without having to go to court. Claims are accepted when it is determined that Canada has breached its lawful obligation to a First Nation.
The contemporary significance of treaties

In Gathering Strength — Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, announced January 7, 1998, the Government of Canada affirmed that both historic and modern-day treaties will continue to be key elements in the future relationship between Aboriginal people and the Crown. The federal government believes that the treaties, and the relationship they represent, can guide the way to a shared future. The continuing treaty relationship provides a context of mutual rights and responsibilities that will ensure Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people can together enjoy Canada's benefits.
Exploratory discussions with First Nations

The federal government is seeking the views of groups of Treaty First Nations on how the historic treaties and treaty issues can be understood in contemporary terms. These discussions allow the parties to develop a common understanding of the issues and consider ways to move into a relationship oriented to the future. Since many important treaty provisions are of direct interest to them, provincial governments will also have an important role in this process.
Bridging to self-government

The Government of Canada is negotiating agreements with treaty First Nations to put self-government in place. These agreements will build on the relationship already established by their treaties.
The role of impartial commissions

Impartial commissions help discussions about treaties. In Saskatchewan, for example, the Office of the Treaty Commissioner helps these discussions. This office was established in agreement with the federal government and treaty First Nations in Saskatchewan, and with the support of the Saskatchewan government.

[furrowtickler]

This whole narrative may change as we learn more about history that was unknown in the early days of those agreements.
Thanks for the usual history lesson chucky ..... lol.

[chuckChuck]

So for 20 years actually it has been claimed that Europeans actually settled this land of ours prior to the natives that crossed over from Asia.

Why is this important? Well because you can't make a deal for your land if you don't own it in the first place.

Sure as hell worth investigating further.

"Native American ancestors reached the new world in a single, initial migration from Siberia at most 23,000 years ago, only later differentiating into today’s distinct groups, DNA research revealed Tuesday.

Most scientists agree the Americas were peopled by forefathers who crossed the Bering land and ice bridge which connected modern-day Russia and Alaska in Earth’s last glacial period.

And it is known through archaeological finds that humans were already present in the Americas 15,000 years ago. But there was a long list of outstanding questions." https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/22/one-wave-of-migration-from-siberia-populated-the-americas-dna-shows

If settlement or explorers from Europe prior to 23000 years ago existed, it is irrelevant except for historical and scientific reasons.

1. Europeans did not populate the americas untill colonization much later.

2. If Europeans had populated Canada prior to the siberians (which they did not) why did the Crown and Government of Canada sign treaties with first nations people who did populate North America? Where were all the Europeans who you think may have had a claim?

Treaty rights already in existence in 1982 (the year the Constitution Act was passed), and those that came afterwards, are recognized and affirmed by Canada's Constitution.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Pre-Confederation treaties

Big Wheel I am wondering why you brought this up in any way other than from a scientific historical interest?

Because First Nations, who are descendants of siberian migration 23000 years, were legally recognized as occupants and owners of the lands under the various treaties.

Any suggestion otherwise is just crap and would never stand up in Canadian Courts or ever be taken seriously.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The land wasn't taken, they surrendered the land via treaties.

Natives Americans should be glad it was the English, French and Spanish that came to settle the Americans, rather than the Mongolians, Romans or Ottomans.

I was thinking the same thing, had colonization of North America occurred a few centuries earlier, or by different cultures, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Since there would be no indigenous people remaining. As much as the British did some terrible things, they pale in comparison to what previous cultures did when subjugating another culture. IN fact, even the English look generous compared to the Spanish, their track record in Central/South America and the Carribean is horrific. The worked the native populations to death, then did the same with imported slaves for centuries.

[Horse]

Interesting thought if natives didn't own land who did ? supposedly HBC where did they get it ,from the king, Where did king get it, some sailor said I claim this for the king and the rest is history. That's no different that if I claim that q/4 you have that you only use once in a while, the only difference is you have a piece of paper saying its yours.I don't believe there was a whole lot of paper in them days.
He'll you can but a star now and have it recorded, or a piece of the moon, really makes you wonder how smart people are.
The natives were treated very poorly back then, but I guess that was the way then, but for all of you that go on trying to justify your needs and greeds I don't suppose any logic will change your minds.

[Klause]

"Native American ancestors reached the new world in a single, initial migration from Siberia at most 23,000 years ago, only later differentiating into today’s distinct groups, DNA research revealed Tuesday.

Most scientists agree the Americas were peopled by forefathers who crossed the Bering land and ice bridge which connected modern-day Russia and Alaska in Earth’s last glacial period.

And it is known through archaeological finds that humans were already present in the Americas 15,000 years ago. But there was a long list of outstanding questions." https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/22/one-wave-of-migration-from-siberia-populated-the-americas-dna-shows

If settlement or explorers from Europe prior to 23000 years ago existed, it is irrelevant except for historical and scientific reasons.

1. Europeans did not populate the americas untill colonization much later.

2. If Europeans had populated Canada prior to the siberians (which they did not) why did the Crown and Government of Canada sign treaties with first nations people who did populate North America? Where were all the Europeans who you think may have had a claim?

Treaty rights already in existence in 1982 (the year the Constitution Act was passed), and those that came afterwards, are recognized and affirmed by Canada's Constitution.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Pre-Confederation treaties

Big Wheel I am wondering why you brought this up in any way other than from a scientific historical interest?

Because First Nations, who are descendants of siberian migration 23000 years, were legally recognized as occupants and owners of the lands under the various treaties.

Any suggestion otherwise is just crap and would never stand up in Canadian Courts or ever be taken seriously.

Um....

Because the treaties were done with the understanding that the Aboriginals were here first. If however, that was a false pretense (I.E. science can prove European analogues were here first) then the contracts / treaties become void because they were signed under false conditions.