Reading this and the talk about how “surprising” it is reminds me of how I’ve been researching British Columbia’s relationship with First Nations people, and this research extended to other people in the Pacific Northwest under the US system.

My takeaway is that everything about this is heavily misunderstood.

As CPG Grey also concluded, the entire concept is overinclusive, to its detriment. As we squabble between terms like indigenous, First Nations, native American, Indian, we are missing that these are all distinct cultures and there is no overarching grouping really possible. Each distinct group has its own name, own customs, own case law and enjoyed its own sovereignty at one point, and should be addressed by the name of their people, at the same standard we distinguish people by country or religion.

British Columbia is uniquely addressing this, with rights conveyances group by group. But it is a very long way from being closer to accurate. I think accelerating this relies on non First Nations people understanding that there is no overarching term possible (I dare say, including “First Nations”) and that the map of North America should be dotted with microstates just like Europe is