We received this question from Globe and Mail reporter Rod Mickleburgh, who wrote, "Doesn’t everything take place on unceded native land? including the writing of this email... " I sent him the following reply.

Hi Rod,

Sorry it took a couple days to get back to you. For one thing, I had a little bit of trouble deciding whether you were asking a genuine question or making a sarcastic comment, or maybe a little bit of both. That said, it is a good question, and i wanted to put some actual thought into to it so I could provide a good answer.

The answer to the question, "doesn't everything take place on unceded native land?", is no.

While on the West Coast, most land is unceded, in most of the country, treaties were signed between Indigenous Nations and European Settlers representing either the British or some other Crown, and then those treaties have been consolidated, or renegotiated by the British. In Treaty covered lands, it is terms of treaties and illegitimate post-treaty surrenders of reservation lands that First Nations are contesting--only the latter is a claim that the land in "unceded."

For example, one community of activists we work with, from Grassy Narrows First Nation, are not arguing that all of Treaty 3 lands or even their traditional territory, are still sovereign Anishnabe land. Instead, what they are fighting for is for the government to live up to its end of the Treaty.

Treaty 3, like most of the treaties signed by the British Crown, guarantees the people of the signing First Nations, in perpetuity, the right to continue traditional cultural and economic means, which explicitly includes the right to hunt and fish on traditional territory now considered legally Crown land. I believe these lands are best described contemporarily under international law and the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as shared land. However, the provincial government has leased those lands to logging corporations that have decimated the territory with clearcutting and poisoned the rivers with mercury dumping. The contestation is that the treaty was signed with the crown, and now the federal government is allowing the provincial government to collude with transnational corporations to destroy the traditional territory of Grassy Narrows, a violation of the treaty which is the sole source Canadian land rights legitimacy.

Another example in Ontario, which is a case of unceded land (and might help to clarify the difference), is that of the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. The Grand River Territory, which initially corresponded to most of the Grand River Watershed and expansive lands on the Canadian side of Lake Erie, was granted to the Six Nations Confederacy by the British Crown after the American Revolution. Prior to the Revolution, the Six Nations Confederacy was housed in what is now upstate New York. After the British lost the war, the Confederacy moved its home onto British territory, after signing an agreement with the Crown. However, since that move, many lands on the Grand River Territory have been surrendered under illegal terms, coercively, or even fictitiously. The Haldimand Tract (6 miles on either side of the Grand River) is one of these territories that (eventually) either the Canadian land claims process or International Law will recognize as properly unceded land; still Six Nations Sovereign territory. [Lucky for us, the Confederacy doesn't want to kick us all out of out homes or even to collect taxes from us. Primarily, what they want is the right to say no to land development upstream that affects their immediate community, and the right to expand that immediate community to lands that are on the outskirts of the federally recognized reservation, but are still technically and properly Six Nations' land.

So, in short, all formal land claims, both comprehensive and specific, are examples of assertions that a territory is unceded. Examples of legal and direct action struggles directed against the Province or corporations, are usually cases where First Nations are fighting for Treaty terms and rights to be upheld. Kitchenumaykoosib Inninewug (KI) First Nation, for example, is fighting to kick Platinex out of their territory, as their treaty does not grant the federal or provincial governments the right to extract subsurface mineral or other resources. However, the federal and provincial governments play a game of passing the buck while Platinex is insisting that their lease is legally valid under Provincial law and NAFTA. However, this kind of resource extraction on Treaty lands, while conforming to NAFTA and provincial law, is usually in contradiction with older treaties and international law.

As previously stated, land in BC is a very differently complicated question, as there are no early treaties there, and the province is more akin to conquered than incorporated land--all of BC is stolen land. In the rest of the country, only packets are technically "stolen" or "unceded."

Hope this is somewhat useful. I'd be happy to continue this discussion in whatever ways you might be interested.

Thaks for your time,
Sincerely,

Alex Hundert
Indigenous Solidarity Committee, AW@L
Indigenous.solidarity@peaceculture.org,
alex@peaceculture.org