Until Canada gives Indigenous people their land back, there can never be reconciliation

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

I think I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in law that protects owners of 'private' property if in fact it is stolen from the rightful owners.

I believe that for the most part those who run around talking about stolen land are expecting others to pay for it. I further believe that if someone came to them, and told them to pay up, their shouts of 'stolen land' would be lowered to a whisper.

Like those who have divided the population into 'settlers' and 'indigenous', they really haven't thought it through.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

I think I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in law that protects owners of 'private' property if in fact it is stolen from the rightful owners.

I believe that for the most part those who run around talking about stolen land are expecting others to pay for it. I further believe that if someone came to them, and told them to pay up, their shouts of 'stolen land' would be lowered to a whisper.

Like those who have divided the population into 'settlers' and 'indigenous', they really haven't thought it through

No one divided them into that. Factually indigenous peoples were here first and we signed treaties with them. When the Constitution was patriated we restated our legal responsibility to honour treaties. 

Canada, as a state, has a legal obligation to indigenous peoples to settle land claims. That does not mean people living on land that wasn't ceded have to give it up. They too have legal rights. This is not like someone selling a stolen car and the buyer having no recourse. 

Indigenous peoples know we are not going to vacate Ottawa and Montreal based on treaties. What needs to be negotiated is what they will get in exchange. They are motivated to negotiate reasonably because they do want the treaty claims settled. 

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

I believe that for the most part those who run around talking about stolen land are expecting others to pay for it. I further believe that if someone came to them, and told them to pay up, their shouts of 'stolen land' would be lowered to a whisper.

Nobody is whispering. And no one is saying we don't have to pay.

Of course this represents a cost for us, and for federal and provincial governments, but you are mistaken in assuming it involves private landowners. It doesn't. That hasn't been part of any land claims negotiation.

Here's what is on the table in the Algonquin Land Claim - the one which includes the City of Ottawa. There is a dispute about the proposal that some of the land will remain in municipal jurisdiction, but there is no transfer of privately-owned land being considered:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/algonquin-land-claim

Like it or not, we are divided into settlers and Indigenous people. Although some Indigenous people to not have their status recognized everyone in Canada is a party to the treaties.  The Office of the Treaty Commissioner says it clearly: We Are All Treaty People.

http://www.otc.ca/pages/history.html

How is it stolen land? Because we have not honoured our end of these treaties, many of them were signed under duress, and much of Canada remains unceded territory. 

And before claiming that people haven't thought things through, maybe acquaint yourself with what has been negotiated. No it is not all settled, but these are real processes that have had a lot of thought and work put into them,  and are quite different from how you imagine it.

 

6079_Smith_W

You might be interested in this case, Rev, in which the Crown tried to force Haida claimants (and another involving Cowichan) to serve notice to private landowners even though they were not part of the title claim:

https://www.haidagwaiiobserver.com/local-news/court-tosses-notice-reques...

There are a number of legal sites poring over the potential conflicts. The fact is though, every agreement, including one in greater Toronto, has been settled without throwing people out of their homes, because really it is not in anyone's interest to do so. In addition, the federal government still retains considerable power with what it can do on First Nations land if it has a compelling and substantial public objective.

http://www.casselsbrock.com/CBNewsletter/Uncertainty_in_Dealing_with_Pri...

http://www.millertiterle.com/what-we-say-article/aboriginal-title/

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Did you bother reading any of the follow up, and if so, why are you asking exactly the same thing over again?

I forgot, but re-read it now.  It's an interesting argument and interesting to see someone differentiate between private ownership of stolen land and government.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And I'll be really blunt and honest here.  I would far, far rather that the government deal fairly with Indigenous Canadians, and repatriate some of their lands, and treat them with the respect we show to other nations than to have to spend my whole life identifying as "Mr. Magoo, priveleged white colonial settler living on stolen land on Turtle Island".  

Maybe if we did the right thing we could lose the hair shirt.  But if Indigenous Canadians are still drinking beige water and living in clapboard pre-fabs, we really haven't done what we can.  There's just so much light in between doing nothing differently, and handing all of Canada back and living under Indigenous rule.

I used to not give two shits about this topic and was in the "just shut up already" crowd but after taking time reading and listening I've changed my views.  I probably tune out the colonial settler on stolen land mantra now more than ever  but the government definitely needs to repatriate some of their land back. I think the government owes it to FN people to fix the reserve system they put on them in the first place.  I've mentioned it before if the government gives X amount of land back that they should be responsible for doing it in such a way as to not make things even worse ie giving the land back to people as a whole and perhaps dividing it between everyone and not putting it in control of a council to horde.

I wonder if many of the problems plaguing indigenous people could be fixed by getting ride of the reserve system completely or getting rid of or revamping the indian act (in so far as keeping the beneficial parts but identifying and turfing the restrictive or negative aspects of it).

I think you hit the nail on the head about people drinking beige water.  Will  "givignback" a million acres of land help the mom who has to boil water for her kids today? It seems like a lot of people talk about helping.  I think in quite a few cases helping doesn't progress past posting on social media.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

No one divided them into that. Factually indigenous peoples were here first and we signed treaties with them. When the Constitution was patriated we restated our legal responsibility to honour treaties. 

Canada, as a state, has a legal obligation to indigenous peoples to settle land claims. That does not mean people living on land that wasn't ceded have to give it up. They too have legal rights. This is not like someone selling a stolen car and the buyer having no recourse. 

Okay, remind me again what constitutes an 'Indigenous' person. Two parents that are Indigenous? Two grandparents that are Indigenous? One grandparent that is 'Indigenous'? Where is the dividing line between 'Indigenous' and 'settler'.

About the legal rights of landowners on land that wasn't ceded. If the Crown was the seller of that land, then the Crown was dealing in stolen property. Buying that property in good faith (from the Crown) doesn't change the legal aspect of it.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

There are a number of legal sites poring over the potential conflicts. The fact is though, every agreement, including one in greater Toronto, has been settled without throwing people out of their homes, because really it is not in anyone's interest to do so. In addition, the federal government still retains considerable power with what it can do on First Nations land if it has a compelling and substantial public objective.

What is in people's 'interest' means nothing in law. And what happens if that interest changes? Who knows?

It's also interesting that the Canadian government can on the one hand retain the power to dispose of First Nations land at the same time as they are dealing with First Nations on a 'nation to nation' basis.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If the Crown was the seller of that land, then the Crown was dealing in stolen property. Buying that property in good faith (from the Crown) doesn't change the legal aspect of it.

Is that actually how the law works, though?  If someone sells me a (stolen) car for $1000, and I buy it in good faith before the original owner lays claim, do I get to keep it just because I thought I was making an honest purchase?

6079_Smith_W

Gee, it would sure be nice if there were more people hanging around here who had first hand experience with this realm and could explain it properly. Too bad not many come around anymore. That said, if there is anyone who is, feel free to correct me where I may get it wrong.

First Nations status is straightforward, Rev. Either you have it, or you do not. And most of these treaty negotiations and land claims are with First Nations. Again, they are done at the nation level, not the individual level. There are plenty of non-status Indigenous people, many of whom lost status unfairly (women in particular), but they can still be members of a First Nation. In the case of Metis the Supreme Court laid out in 2003 the criteria for determining who is and who is not Indigenous.

So while it is in some cases complicated, and there are differences of opinion, it isn't that unclear, and quite a lot of thought has gone into it. In fact, you have taken part in conversations already here where it was made clear that we don't have a percentage system in Canada, as they do in the U.S. Certainly you remember us talking about this.

And you seem to be wanting to make up a dispute where none exists. Private property is not on the table in the Algonquin claim, and it has not been in any Canadian land claim.

(edit)

As for the federal government holding that power, that is what the Supreme Court ruled. Thing is, the government has to have an important reason to do so. Similarly, First Nation's can't just take arbitrary measures when it comes to renters, as pointed out in that news story upthread. Canadian law still applies.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
First Nations status is straightforward, Rev. Either you have it, or you do not.

Seems to me there are already plenty of special cases based on Indigenous status, so whatever the exact, precise definition, we seem able to manage it. 

Perhaps this is exactly what you meant when you said "they are done at the nation level, not the individual level" but at any rate, the Government need only deal with (say) the Gaspé First Nation.  They can leave it to the Gaspé First Nation to decide whether one parent is enough, or they would need at least another great aunt.

Quote:
Private property is not on the table in the Algonquin claim, and it has not been in any Canadian land claim.

That's not what this old guy at Tim Horton's told me though.  He told me that if we give those Indians even an inch, we'll need to hand over Yonge and Bloor for them to demolish, and plant trees, and wait for the caribou to return.  And meanwhile, we'll all need to live in longhouses!!!

6079_Smith_W

Yup. I'd say you are right about that being how a lot of white guys think this is going to go down. If you read the pieces at #55, even the feds seem to want to push FNs into a corner and feed that paranoia.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yup. I'd say you are right about that being how a lot of white guys think this is going to go down.

I totally don't mind speaking up if I think some group's grievances are petty or silly or overblown.  That's just how I roll!

But honestly, after centuries of eating a shit sandwich on shit bread with a side of shit, the fact that Indigenous Canadians aren't even asking for all that much should be a bit humbling. 

6079_Smith_W

Yup. And the fact their first inclination isn't to take us to the cleaners, which is pretty much standard fare for our litigios culture.

The cynic in me would say that this might be because they know what would happen if they really pushed for what was fair. But really, I think that for the most part this is honest expression from people who want to make this work, and are trying to urge the rest of us to the table.

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

If someone sells me a (stolen) car for $1000, and I buy it in good faith before the original owner lays claim, do I get to keep it just because I thought I was making an honest purchase?

No.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

First Nations status is straightforward, Rev. Either you have it, or you do not.

This is a sophistry. When people posting on these threads speak of 'Indigenous' people, who are they referring to? 'First Nations' is not a term that is interchangeable with 'Indigenous'. First Nations are political organizations that are allowed to accept whomsoever they want as members.  They can make up their own minds about who is, and who ain't.

It's an entirely different thing when people posting here refer to 'Indigenous' versus 'settlers'. It seems to me that those who make that characterization have the onus on themselves to tell us what they mean by it.

So a very simple question, who qualifies as 'Indigenous'?

Well, maybe no so simple in that you can't answer it, or is it just that you won't?

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

That's not what this old guy at Tim Horton's told me though.  He told me that if we give those Indians even an inch, we'll need to hand over Yonge and Bloor for them to demolish, and plant trees, and wait for the caribou to return.  And meanwhile, we'll all need to live in longhouses!!!

Cute, but meaningless.

Was Oka really so long ago everyone has forgotten? Was Gustafsen Lake so long ago everyone has forgotten?

6079_Smith_W

Sophistry? Well you try applying for a status card and let me know how it turns out.

As for you demanding answers, I don't have to ask what you think Indigenous means because I can remember conversations I had four months ago, and I don't believe your memory is so bad that you can't.

http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/name-change-aborig...

What do you think happened at Oka and Gustafsen Lake ?

NDPP

The Long Reach of Frontier Justice: Canadian Land Claims 'Negotiation' Strategies As Human Rights Violations

"The Canadian land claims process is the production of a series of policies and laws directed at Indigenous peoples which both denies them consent over the relinquishing of their lands, and is characterised by a lack of attention to the rights vested in Indigenous peoples from colonial precedents.

It does not meet even rudimentary standards in regard to providing informed consent, requiring Indigenous peoples to extinguish their ownership of their lands, dividing Indigenous peoples into configurations that are artificial and diminishing their negotiating power, and creating invidiously asymmetric responsibilities between the state and the Indigenous party.

We conclude from our readings that expedients used in the past to obtain Indigenous peoples' lands and to circumvent the colonial laws governing relationships with indigenous peoples are still evident today in Canada. They survive as a kind of victor's justice worthy of the frontier."

http://academia.edu/3517410/The_long_reach_of_frontier_justice_Canadian_...

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Sophistry? Well you try applying for a status card and let me know how it turns out.

All I asked you for was a definition of 'indigenous'. You don't have one, apparently.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Private property owners do not own their land. They own the house on top of it, and use of the land, on a "freehold" basis. The government owns all land, and collects rent for it in the form of "property taxes". If you do not pay them, you are evicted. Therefore as a landowner, you are a tenant of the government.

I am almost certain that indigenous people do not want our houses and disgusting consumerist lifestyles.

The Crown stole the land from the indigenous people, and became the landlord over the freeholding settlers. If we are to return the land to the indigenous people, it is fair we should pay them rent for it, if we are using it and our decaying pile of building materials is sitting on top of it and stressing its structural integrity.

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

From 6079_Smith_W:

Sophistry? Well you try applying for a status card and let me know how it turns out.

All I asked you for was a definition of 'indigenous'. You don't have one, apparently.

How about this instead.

Given that we have had this entire conversation before, and I just pointed you back there to "refresh your memory", you are just trolling at this point.

Let me cut to the chase. Just because you think anyone born here is indigenous doesn't make it true.

And again, what do you think happened at Oka and Gustafsen Lake? Anyone have their land seized by court order or made to pay for it twice?

 

NorthReport

Pesky

Your comments are bordering on racism

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Let me cut to the chase. Just because you think anyone born here is indigenous doesn't make it true.

If you had read what I've written you'd know that I cling to a standard definition of 'indigenous'. According to my handy etymological dictionary idigenous is:

indigenous(adj.) -  "born or originating in a particular place," 1640's, from late Latin indigenus "born in a country, native," from Latin indigena"sprung from the land, native," as a noun "a native," literally "in born".

According to my Funk & Wagnall's 

​indigenous adj. Originating or occurring naturally in the place or country specified; native; not exotic; autochthonous.

Now, if we take 'born here' to mean literally born here, I certainly qualify. If we can't agree on that, then we're stuck with the other definition, which is that the group, not the indvidual, was 'born' here.

The problem with that is that all the humans that occupy what we now call  the Americas, came from somewhere else. There are no humans in the Americas that 'sprang for the soil' here.

But perhaps you have some different definition of 'indigenous'. But be careful with that definition, because there really are indigenous humans on planet earth. Humans are indigenous to Africa, from whence they spread to the rest of the world. To try to expand the definition of indigenous takes that position away from them.

Rev Pesky

From North Report:

Pesky

Your comments are bordering on racism

I reject that absolutely for the simple reason that I do not believe in 'races'. 'Races' are a human construct, not a scientific one. There is, after all, a reason humans are referred to as 'homo sapiens'. The designation 'homo' means we are all the same, we are all equal, we are all alike.

The story of human DNA is that the average difference between humans is 1/10 of 1 percent. It's also true that there's more difference between individuals than between so-called 'races'. That is my position.

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

The story of human DNA is that the average difference between humans is 1/10 of 1 percent. It's also true that there's more difference between individuals than between so-called 'races'. That is my position.

I've read DNA wise we have more in common with monkeys (or was it apes?) than we do neanderthals (which there's only .12% difference from us)  And lets not forget  Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Habilis, Homo Floresiensis, my favorite the Denisovan's.

 

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Private property owners do not own their land. They own the house on top of it, and use of the land, on a "freehold" basis. The government owns all land, and collects rent for it in the form of "property taxes". If you do not pay them, you are evicted. Therefore as a landowner, you are a tenant of the government.

I am almost certain that indigenous people do not want our houses and disgusting consumerist lifestyles.

The Crown stole the land from the indigenous people, and became the landlord over the freeholding settlers. If we are to return the land to the indigenous people, it is fair we should pay them rent for it, if we are using it and our decaying pile of building materials is sitting on top of it and stressing its structural integrity.

I think this is a pretty spot on summary of the situation. There is a lot of pressure on First Nation communities to adopt our type of superficial ownership including great debt through mortgages with banks. But as you say, between government's power to reposses the ground your home may sit on,  add the debt owed to banks, it's not the greatest model to adopt. So far, there is overcrowding in homes, many substandard, but no Member is left out on the road homeless when on reserve.

 

6079_Smith_W

You don't believe in race. Well isn't that precious.

http://aptnnews.ca/2017/10/31/number-of-indigenous-people-in-prison-now-...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but so far as it relates to title of the land we live on, Indigenous and settler people who live here, and the legal agreements between us,  it is a real thing. It has been recognized by the highest court in the land. So whatever you think it means, it has no relation to Canadian reality.

Funny how white guys suddenly decide to get colour blind when it is time for us to hold up our end of things.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Funny how white guys suddenly decide to get colour blind when it is time for us to hold up our end of things.

This.

White men don't have a right to make statements about who's racist and who's not because any statement white men make is from a position of white privilage.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Sorry to burst your bubble

So, you do believe there are different races?

Rev Pesky

From progressive17:

Private property owners do not own their land. They own the house on top of it, and use of the land, on a "freehold" basis. The government owns all land, and collects rent for it in the form of "property taxes". If you do not pay them, you are evicted. Therefore as a landowner, you are a tenant of the government.

This is just plain not true. If you were just a tenant of the government, you wouldn't be able to sell the property. But you can sell the property, or dispose of it in more or less any way you wish. No tenant has that right, which is why there's a difference between a 'leaseholder' and a 'freeholder'. There is also another large difference between a freeholder and a leaseholder. Any increase in the value of a property belongs to the freeholder. Not so for the leaseholder.

Yes, your property can be confiscated by the government for upaid taxes; it can also be confiscated by the bank for unpaid mortgage payments. Mostly what happens is the mortgage holder pays the taxes, and includes the amount in the mortgagees monthly payments. That would happen in pretty much every residential mortgage in BC.

But if that is not the case, in BC it takes three years of unpaid taxes to have the property sold at a tax sale auction. However, the lucky high-bidder doesn't get possession of the property, The original owner has another year to come up with the cash, which means an actual transfer of a property for tax purposes almost never happens. Who wants to put up the cash at the auction, then wait for a year to find out the owner plunked down the tax money on the last available day? Nobody, that's who.

6079_Smith_W

Did you not read what I just wrote?

I suppose it should be no surprise that "race isn't real" gets used as a foil to pretend that our treatment of Indigenous people isn't racist at all. We steal their land and culture, commit genocide against them, break our agreements with them, and continue to systematically oppress and hate them and force them into third-world conditions. 

Then when called on to recognize this fact the answer is that we're all supposedly the same, those promises have no meaning and we have every right to everything we stole. Typical racist white argument.

The difference is that unlike 50 years ago it is on the wrong side of a growing amount of our law and our society at this point. There is no shortage of racism - systemic and personal - in Canada. But at this point it is dinosaur thinking.

 

6079_Smith_W

And progressive17 may not have the terms right, but he has the concept mostly right. The federal government holds definitive authority over proprietorship, the provinces have the authority to make laws around land, and each private landhold is considered a grant from the Crown. Property taxes are levied by municipalities under provincial jurisdiction. Provinces and the federal government can expropriate land if they need, and in much of Canada provinces own everything under the soil outright. Our title just means we own our space on the surface. In no way do we have absolute authority over it.

An exception to this is our governments recognizing Aboriginal title, which was not extinguished by our arrival. That was established in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

I suppose it should be no surprise that "race isn't real" gets used as a foil to pretend that our treatment of Indigenous people isn't racist at all. We steal their land and culture, commit genocide against them, break our agreements with them, and continue to systematically oppress and hate them and force them into third-world conditions. 

Then when called on to recognize this fact the answer is that we're all supposedly the same, those promises have no meaning and we have every right to everything we stole.

You know, one of the things I like to do is replace the royal 'we'  with 'I' in statements as the above. When you use the royal 'we' you are speaking on other peoples behalf, not giving them the opportunity of stating their own opinion.

So I suggest in the future you take all the group pronouns out of your posts, and replace them with first person singular.

You could, too, if you find time, answer my question, but don't strain yourself. I realize how difficult it is to decide whether you agree there are such a thing as 'races' or not (not because there is any evidence that races exist, but because to answer the question would be to cut off the branch you're sitting on).  

6079_Smith_W

Well if you want to get technical it is the Crown, which makes it "We" in the regal sense.

But those treaties (signed and yet to be negotiated) with Indigenous nations are on behalf of all of us who have settled since, so in the more practical sense it means "we" as in you and me and all of us. We are all party to those treaties. And unceded land is unfinished business for all of us.

If you don't want to recognize that, too bad. You don't really have a choice in the matter so long as you are a resident of this country, and the process is going on whether you like it or not.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Well if you want to get technical it is the Crown, which makes it "We" in the regal sense.

There's nothing technical about it. So, are you speaking then on behalf of the Crown?

Further from above:

You don't really have a choice in the matter

Well, there's something we can agree on. I don't believe I have a choice in these matters either. In fact, I don't remember anyone ever coming to me to ask my opinion of what should be done.

 

6079_Smith_W

Canada needs a treaty watchdog akin to the federal environment commissioner, say First Nations and Inuit who have signed modern land claim agreements.

The Land Claims Agreement Coalition (LCAC) is made up of 24 First Nations and two Inuit peoples who have modern land claim agreements, whose territories stretch from the Labrador coast on the North Atlantic to the most northern tip of Canada in the Arctic to the B.C.-Washington border south of Vancouver.

Canada has a tendency to treat modern land claims as done deals once the ink is dry, putting them on the shelf within the bureaucracy and at the bottom of the priority list in Ottawa. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the group that represents the Inuit of Nunavut in that land claim, had to take Canada to court over the past decade due to implementation issues.

https://ipolitics.ca/article/time-treaty-watchdog-say-modern-land-claims...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well if you want to get technical it is the Crown, which makes it "We" in the regal sense.

Whew!

If you're saying it's just "we" in the regal sense, and not "we" in the "all of us" sense then that's good to know.

That damn Crown tho, eh?

6079_Smith_W

That's not what I said, Magoo.

 

Rev Pesky

So far as I know, the only person who can use the royal we is either the specific 'royal', or their spokesperson. 

All others can use the word government if they mean the government.

6079_Smith_W

Maybe you should read up on this a bit, Rev.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_Treaties

The numbered treaties, like Treaty Six, where I live, actually were with the British Crown. Again, if we want to get technical about who the signators were.

But if you read #85 I said quite clearly I meant you, me, and the rest of us settlers. It is we and our governments which bear the responsibility for keeping our end of the agreement.

 

 

NDPP

Open Letter To Prime Minister Trudeau re: Land Theft in 'OKA'...  -  by Ellen Gabriel

https://sovereignvoices1.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/open-letter-to-pm-trud...

"...I write to you today to bring to your attention the longstanding historical land dispute in Kanehsatake Kanienkehaka Territory. Twenty-eight years ago our community began a blockade on a small secondary dirt road to stop the expansion of a 9 hole golf course and condominium development. Today while the golf course remains a 9 hole course, condominiums and land theft continues on Kanienkehaka Traditional Homelands in what you call 'OKA.'

Rotinonhseshaka of Kaianerakowa of Kanehsatake have written to you several letters in the past year, to ask you to put a halt to the land theft in Kanehsatake traditional homelands. Your response is to pass it along to Minister Carolyn Bennett who is part of the problem as she has been stonewalling our requests that INAC put a halt, a moratorium on the development in the part of our homelands called OKA. But she had refused to help in any way...

I hear you speak of equality, of reconciliation, of nation to nation relationships, but given your lack of response to the new land theft in Kanehsatake and in regards to the Kinder Morgan Pipeline, what I interpret that to mean is that it does not apply to Indigenous peoples...

Please honor your pledge to honor and respect the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples and put an end to colonial oppression that continues to oppress and perpetuate land and cultural heritage dispossesion of the Indigenous peoples."

Pages