Ironically, there is now an up-side to this from the point of view of aboriginal interests in that their rights have thus not been 'extinguished' in law and can still be pursued. This has happened, e.g. in northern British Columbia.

Elsewhere, Canada has ignored the rule of law - since treaties are laws - with results such as are ongoing around Caledonia, Ontario, mentioned by Mr Hall in his article.

Regarding US treatment of Amerindians, though, there is no basis for the happy picture Mr Hall paints. Subsequent to outright slaughter, a crucial part of the suppression of 'Indians' in the US was forced privatization of land under the 1887 Dawes Act. This very rapidly reduced the Amerindian landbase.

Naturally, the land lost was generally the best. 'Indian' land -- loss by this means continues right into the present. There is also tremendous bureaucratic confusion, indeed scandal, over 'heirship' land. This has provoked an ongoing legal battle between 'Indian' claimants and the Dept. of the Interior.

Interestingly, it is a key piece of Canadian neo-Con 'Indian' policy to privatize reserve land so as to affect the kind of dispossession achieved by the US Dawes Act during the early 20th century.

However bad many 'Indian reserves' are, they have allowed indigenous peoples to keep their land. For example, in Waitukubuli (called by Columbus 'Dominica'), the Kalinago (Carib) people have their reserve today largely thanks to it being held in common.

To conclude, Canadians have no basis for self-satisfaction. We have much work still to do.

S. Campbell