Oilsands Quest Inc BQI

RE: Treaty backgrounder

[northern-eh]

Radioguy: While your post is well written , you do put a "liberal" bias or spin on much of what you say. Near the beginning of your post, for example, you state "First Nations could continue their traditional lives, and gain access to the Crown’s expanded commercial and educational base … forever." In saying that, you are not following the letter or possibly the intent of the treaties; instead, you are interpreting them. The treaties do not use that wording. What they do say is that the Indian bands could use the land until the crown needed it. And many of the numbered treaties do not deal with specific issues that you mention. The treaties also do not use the term "First Nations." That, your claims about country to country negotiations, and the connotations that come with that point of view are recent additions to the controversy. You probably know the sources that contradict your claims. I could raise similar points about your other statements; you get the drift. The point is that these matters are not nearly as clearcut as you suggest. You sound as if you might be a lawyer with "First Nations" clients who might be contemplating similar actions. I'll bet I'm not far off the mark.