this post is really horrific. i'm appalled.

the proclamation of 1763 was a british land claim that, for the first time, put large swaths of north america under direct colonial administration. it's primary purpose was not to acknowledge native ownership of the area but to state british claim to the area after the seven years war. it is true that a large swath of land was designated as "indian", but the purpose of this was to allow expansion under imperial terms, rather than the terms being developed in the colonies. the crown was looking to expand slowly and methodically, conquering one tribe at a time, while the colonies wanted to overrun the land as they pleased. this was a primary cause of the american revolution.

indigenous reaction to the proclamation was largely negative, as they rightfully viewed it as an unjust land claim. in response, a war erupted to drive the british out. many indigenous groups in the area were expecting the french (who claimed trade rights, but never land ownership) to come back and kept up small scale wars.

so, to claim it was the first time that the british acknowledged indigenous sovereignty? no. in fact, it was the first time a european power *rejected* indigenous sovereignty.

you're taking a document of colonial expansion that should be denounced and celebrating it for exactly the opposite thing that it was.

now, it's true that the courts have recently used the document to try and correct some of the theft that has happened, but the arguments they've used have been very creative and that doesn't excuse the historical revisionism in this post.

==

that ^ is going to get read.

it turns out the call-out on this is from some well-known activists. i'm not clear on what their goal in presenting this day in these terms would be. some kind of reclamation? but, this ought to be a day of deep mourning.

i want to clarify a few points that these organizers probably already know.

aboriginal title, as it existed in the proclamation, wasn't about indigenous sovereignty, it was about crown control of property. the proclamation is clear and explicit in asserting crown ownership of the land and the people that lived on it. the reason it was written is that the crown was concerned about things like settlers buying the land and selling it to france or spain. as there was no existing category of title for this land, and settlers would likely win a court battle as a result of that, they had to create a new class of land ownership to ensure crown control. this is aboriginal title.

the way the proclamation is written is to ensure two things:

(1) only the crown can purchase land under aboriginal title
(2) all land under aboriginal title will eventually be sold to the crown

regardless of how recent court cases have interpreted the proclamation, i don't understand what the aim is in rallying around historical inaccuracies, and i think that this tactic, whatever is underlying it, has the potential to make the action look foolish.

i mean, this is literally a celebration of the day that indigenous people in canada *lost* their sovereignty.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/daniel-wilson/2013/10/royal-proclamation-1763-heritage-moment#.UlCjSv0KlVc.facebook