I fail to see any reason for outrage here. I mean, there absolutely isn’t any doubt that a considerable amount of the land in Canada and the United States was stolen, illegally and by force, from the Indian tribes that were recognized as the legal residents there.
Homeowners in a Canadian city have received letters warning that their properties will be seized and returned to the “First Nations People of Canada.”
The letters, signed by the city’s mayor, claim the property titles may be “defective and invalid.”
This follows a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling granting the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title to about 800 acres of land within the city.
Just to be clear, I’m not talking about the original pre-European-arrival state of the land. I’m talking about the post-arrival period when a land title system had already been established and the various tribal claims to specific areas of land were legally established according to treaties between various parties, including the federal government in the United States, and the relevant Indian tribes.
One thing that is profoundly dishonest about the popular pro-settler position is that it customarily requires a bait-and-switch between the two very different legal scenarios. And eminent domain clearly can’t be applied to sovereign Indian tribes.
Don’t think this matters because it’s all in the past? Perhaps you should take a look at the Middle East and revisit your assumptions.