From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching
as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

(1) Sufficient Occupation

(2) Continuity

(3) Exclusivity

Effect on Private Property:

This was the first Canadian court decision to declare aboriginal title over lands including fee simple (private) ownership. The court ruled that Crown grants and vestings were issued without statutory or constitutional authority (violating Article 13 of BC's Terms of Union and reserve policies), constituting unjustifiable infringements on aboriginal title under the Sparrow and Tsilhqot'in frameworks.

These grants did not extinguish title, as provinces lack jurisdiction to do
so; instead, aboriginal title coexists as a prior, senior right that burdens fee simple interests.

[In other words, good luck ever selling your house.]

For developed and private lands (about 125 privately held properties in the claim area): Fee simple titles held by third parties (private owners) remain valid and indefeasible under the Land Title Act until reconciled through negotiation or further litigation.

Owners can continue using their property but aboriginal title constrains incompatible uses (e.g., no new developments without consent or justification).\

[Gee, thanks, judge for your permission to continue to live in my own house.]

Legal defenses such as limitations periods, laches, and bona fide purchaser status were rejected by the court, despite being both relevant and legitimate defenses, in order to "prioritize reconciliation".

[In other words, appeasing the Indians is what's important here so if we have to ignore the law to keep you white people from prevailing here, that's what we're going to do.]

Effect on Public Property:

Titles held by Canada (mostly industrial) and the City of Richmond (mostly undeveloped) were declared defective and invalid, with the ruling suspended
for 18 months to allow transfer back to the Cowichan Tribes (except a 12-acre airport fuel depot). All lands belonging to the Vancouver Fraser Port
Authority were ceded back to the tribe.

The ruling creates uncertainty for private landowners in Richmond, who may
face clouded titles but not immediate eviction from their homes or loss of deeds.

Affected homeowners were not formally notified during the trial (a 2017 ruling by the judge deemed it necessary to avoid hostility), leading to surprise when the verdict was handed down and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging malfeasance by the government.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >(Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and >Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Land title was a fiction from English law. There was no native title to extinguish because they had no land tenure system.

(1) Sufficient Occupation

(2) Continuity

(3) Exclusivity

How many centuries of taxes did they forget to pay? That's the duty of
the land owner. Fork it over.

Effect on Private Property:

This was the first Canadian court decision to declare aboriginal title over >lands including fee simple (private) ownership. The court ruled that Crown >grants and vestings were issued without statutory or constitutional authority >(violating Article 13 of BC's Terms of Union and reserve policies), >constituting unjustifiable infringements on aboriginal title under the Sparrow >and Tsilhqot'in frameworks.

These grants did not extinguish title, as provinces lack jurisdiction to do >so; instead, aboriginal title coexists as a prior, senior right that burdens >fee simple interests.

[In other words, good luck ever selling your house.]

I've never heard of a senior right burden on fee simple. The banks will
have to foreclose on the Indians.

For developed and private lands (about 125 privately held properties in the >claim area): Fee simple titles held by third parties (private owners) remain >valid and indefeasible under the Land Title Act until reconciled through >negotiation or further litigation.

Ah. There is no justice, just endless work for lawyers.

Can the Indians now be sued for land and water pollution and other
nuisances?

Owners can continue using their property but aboriginal title constrains >incompatible uses (e.g., no new developments without consent or >justification).\

[Gee, thanks, judge for your permission to continue to live in my own house.]

Legal defenses such as limitations periods, laches, and bona fide purchaser >status were rejected by the court, despite being both relevant and legitimate >defenses, in order to "prioritize reconciliation".

It's moviePig law!

[In other words, appeasing the Indians is what's important here so if we have >to ignore the law to keep you white people from prevailing here, that's what >we're going to do.]

Effect on Public Property:

Titles held by Canada (mostly industrial) and the City of Richmond (mostly >undeveloped) were declared defective and invalid, with the ruling suspended >for 18 months to allow transfer back to the Cowichan Tribes (except a 12-acre >airport fuel depot). All lands belonging to the Vancouver Fraser Port >Authority were ceded back to the tribe.

Wow. The artificial land too that the Indians had the technology to
build?

The ruling creates uncertainty for private landowners in Richmond, who may >face clouded titles but not immediate eviction from their homes or loss of >deeds.

Affected homeowners were not formally notified during the trial (a 2017 ruling >by the judge deemed it necessary to avoid hostility), leading to surprise when >the verdict was handed down and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging >malfeasance by the government.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Jan 6, 2026 at 9:29:05 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >> as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved
aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) >> and
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Well, I don't know what they expected to happen with all these ridiculous
'land acknowledgements' they insist on doing. One of these days the Indians were going to take it seriously and say, okay, then give it all back.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jan 6, 2026 at 9:29:05 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >>>as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------

The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >>>(Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >>>aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia >>>(1997) and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Well, I don't know what they expected to happen with all these ridiculous >'land acknowledgements' they insist on doing. One of these days the Indians >were going to take it seriously and say, okay, then give it all back.

It's odd that those uttering the land acknowledgments are not the same
people as those facing loss of land.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-01-07 12:36 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jan 6, 2026 at 9:29:05 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching
as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------

The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >>>> (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >>>> aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia
(1997) and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Well, I don't know what they expected to happen with all these ridiculous
'land acknowledgements' they insist on doing. One of these days the Indians >> were going to take it seriously and say, okay, then give it all back.

It's odd that those uttering the land acknowledgments are not the same
people as those facing loss of land.

"Odd"? I would have said "inevitable": the Marxists are all about taking
other people's property and "giving it to the people" (usually meaning themselves).
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-01-06 11:01 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

Goat has a much bigger problem then I do. The tribes there have so many
claims in BC that literally well over 100% of BC is contested! Yes, I
said "literally" and I meant it. The tribes have OVERLAPPING land claims
so the amount of claimed land exceeds 100%.

It is my understanding (i.e. not verified with a lawyer) that my area
WAS legally purchased from the local tribes so I should be fine.

-------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

(1) Sufficient Occupation

(2) Continuity

(3) Exclusivity

Effect on Private Property:

This was the first Canadian court decision to declare aboriginal title over lands including fee simple (private) ownership. The court ruled that Crown grants and vestings were issued without statutory or constitutional authority (violating Article 13 of BC's Terms of Union and reserve policies), constituting unjustifiable infringements on aboriginal title under the Sparrow
and Tsilhqot'in frameworks.

These grants did not extinguish title, as provinces lack jurisdiction to do so; instead, aboriginal title coexists as a prior, senior right that burdens fee simple interests.

[In other words, good luck ever selling your house.]

For developed and private lands (about 125 privately held properties in the claim area): Fee simple titles held by third parties (private owners) remain valid and indefeasible under the Land Title Act until reconciled through negotiation or further litigation.

Owners can continue using their property but aboriginal title constrains incompatible uses (e.g., no new developments without consent or justification).\

[Gee, thanks, judge for your permission to continue to live in my own house.]

Legal defenses such as limitations periods, laches, and bona fide purchaser status were rejected by the court, despite being both relevant and legitimate defenses, in order to "prioritize reconciliation".

[In other words, appeasing the Indians is what's important here so if we have to ignore the law to keep you white people from prevailing here, that's what we're going to do.]

Effect on Public Property:

Titles held by Canada (mostly industrial) and the City of Richmond (mostly undeveloped) were declared defective and invalid, with the ruling suspended for 18 months to allow transfer back to the Cowichan Tribes (except a 12-acre airport fuel depot). All lands belonging to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority were ceded back to the tribe.

The ruling creates uncertainty for private landowners in Richmond, who may face clouded titles but not immediate eviction from their homes or loss of deeds.

Affected homeowners were not formally notified during the trial (a 2017 ruling
by the judge deemed it necessary to avoid hostility), leading to surprise when
the verdict was handed down and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging malfeasance by the government.

This is what comes of living in a province with "progressive" leaders
and activist judges who legislate from the bench. BC is presently a very
blue state in American terms but the premier only hung on by a thread at
the last election so I'm hopeful he will be gone next time around. Goat
will have a far better idea than me on whether that's realistic but BC
has long swung like a pendulum between the socialists and the small 'c' conservatives. I think they're due to swing back very soon now. Whether
a change in leadership can reverse this decision is a much different
question though.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-01-07 12:29 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >> as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved
aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The
problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.

Land title was a fiction from English law. There was no native title to extinguish because they had no land tenure system.

(1) Sufficient Occupation

(2) Continuity

(3) Exclusivity

How many centuries of taxes did they forget to pay? That's the duty of
the land owner. Fork it over.

Effect on Private Property:

This was the first Canadian court decision to declare aboriginal title over >> lands including fee simple (private) ownership. The court ruled that Crown >> grants and vestings were issued without statutory or constitutional authority
(violating Article 13 of BC's Terms of Union and reserve policies),
constituting unjustifiable infringements on aboriginal title under the Sparrow
and Tsilhqot'in frameworks.

These grants did not extinguish title, as provinces lack jurisdiction to do >> so; instead, aboriginal title coexists as a prior, senior right that burdens >> fee simple interests.

[In other words, good luck ever selling your house.]

I've never heard of a senior right burden on fee simple. The banks will
have to foreclose on the Indians.

For developed and private lands (about 125 privately held properties in the >> claim area): Fee simple titles held by third parties (private owners) remain >> valid and indefeasible under the Land Title Act until reconciled through
negotiation or further litigation.

Ah. There is no justice, just endless work for lawyers.

Can the Indians now be sued for land and water pollution and other
nuisances?

Owners can continue using their property but aboriginal title constrains
incompatible uses (e.g., no new developments without consent or
justification).\

[Gee, thanks, judge for your permission to continue to live in my own house.]

Legal defenses such as limitations periods, laches, and bona fide purchaser >> status were rejected by the court, despite being both relevant and legitimate
defenses, in order to "prioritize reconciliation".

It's moviePig law!

[In other words, appeasing the Indians is what's important here so if we have
to ignore the law to keep you white people from prevailing here, that's what >> we're going to do.]

Effect on Public Property:

Titles held by Canada (mostly industrial) and the City of Richmond (mostly >> undeveloped) were declared defective and invalid, with the ruling suspended >> for 18 months to allow transfer back to the Cowichan Tribes (except a 12-acre
airport fuel depot). All lands belonging to the Vancouver Fraser Port
Authority were ceded back to the tribe.

Wow. The artificial land too that the Indians had the technology to
build?

The ruling creates uncertainty for private landowners in Richmond, who may >> face clouded titles but not immediate eviction from their homes or loss of >> deeds.

Affected homeowners were not formally notified during the trial (a 2017 ruling
by the judge deemed it necessary to avoid hostility), leading to surprise when
the verdict was handed down and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging
malfeasance by the government.

--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-01-07 12:29 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >>>as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------

The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >>>(Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >>>aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia >>>(1997) and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The
problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.

I thought the Britons were earlier than the Celts, and the Saxons came
later. Were there Neanderthals? I thought they weren't Europe-wide but in Germany.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Jan 7, 2026 at 9:53:11 AM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-01-07 12:29 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching
as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >>> (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >>> aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) >>> and
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The
problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.

It's not really all that hard a problem: You go back just far enough to
justify special treatment for 'marginalized peoples' and then you stop before you start scooping up white people into your social justice scheme.

For example, all the African-American nonsense. I mean, we're *all* African-Americans if you go back far enough. The trick is to only go back so far that you include black people in the category but not so far that white people are included also.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-01-07 1:04 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-01-07 12:29 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching
as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

-------------------------

The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >>>> (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >>>> aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia
(1997) and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The
problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.

I thought the Britons were earlier than the Celts, and the Saxons came
later. Were there Neanderthals? I thought they weren't Europe-wide but in Germany.

My interest in history is focused on the 20th century and I don't know
that much about early Britain so you may be right. As for Neanderthals,
I vaguely recall that term is an anglicization reflecting the fact that
the first bones deemed "Neanderthal" were found in the valley
surrounding the Neander river ("thal" means "valley) which is indeed in
modern Germany.

But we're venturing into pedantry here. The point I was trying to make
is that as soon as we try to "undo" some part of history to reverse some
bad thing, we have to ask ourselves how far back we want to go because injustices have happened throughout history. For instance, Kalingrad
used to be the German city of Konigsberg until 1945 when the Red Army conquered it and annexed it to the Soviet Union. With the liberation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that coincided with the end of the Soviet
Union, it suddenly found itself an exclave of Russia with no land
connection. During the German Reunification talks in 1990, there was discussion about restoring it to Germany but Germany declined and
neither Lithuania nor Poland particularly wanted it so it was left a
Russian exclave. But as Russia weakens ever further, various analysts
wonder if Kalingrad (which was completely Russified when the Germans
within it were murdered or driven out) should go back to Germany or
merge with Lithuania or Poland. But this would effectively undo at least
some of what emerged from WWII. If you're going to undo part of the
result of WWII, why not go further and undo other parts? Stalin kept the
part of Poland that he seized when he and Hitler each attacked it in
1939 after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was sign and split it between
Belarus and Ukraine; he "compensated" Poland by giving them a big slice
of Germany that had never been German. It could be argued that this
slice should be given back to Germany and that former Polish territory
should be given back to Poland. This would likely not go down well in
Belarus or Ukraine, let alone Russia. But why stop there? Why not
restore the Austro-Hungarian Empire to its borders before WWI? That
would change Europe quite a bit but answer long-standing complaints from several countries about pieces that they lost in the settlement of WWI.
And if we accept the principle of undoing history to reverse injustices,
why not restore the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Holy Roman
Empire? Or indeed, the Roman Empire?

It seems to me that the ONLY rational thing is to accept the history
that has happened. We can't undo any aspect of it without causing
massive harm to people in the here and now. The best we can do is to
learn from our mistakes and try to avoid making them again in the
future. That means leaving the borders of Europe alone and also leaving property ownership were it is too. Otherwise, every call to undo past
wrongs is just going to lead to calls to undo earlier wrongs WITHOUT LIMIT.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 04:01:43 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

Given there are roughly 50000 people between me and the nearest
reserve that would be doubtful.

On the other hand, the location of the family business is about 6
blocks from a reserve so could potentially be in play. Given it's a
long term lease, even if they gained ownership of the land that
wouldn't abrogate the lease only who the rent had to be paid to. Which
given it's a 5 year lease...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 17:18:39 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada >>> (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved >>> aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) >>> and
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):

Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.

Well, I don't know what they expected to happen with all these ridiculous >'land acknowledgements' they insist on doing. One of these days the Indians >were going to take it seriously and say, okay, then give it all back.

Given the area in question is about 20 miles from my home you can
reasonably assume the case has gotten a LOT of press coverage. It's
complicated by the fact that the Cowichan "nation" is across the
Straits of Georgia on Vancouver Island which is roughly 25 miles of
salt water away. As with most of Vancouver and its suburbs there are 3
other 'nations' claiming the same territory on this side of the water.
These 3 have overlapping claims and have a joint company for
redevelopment of their properties - they're currently building a
complex (a former military base now decommissioned) which will be
5000+ apartment units when completed - but are demanding the City of
Vancouver build them access roads which is problematic since the said
routes go through the middle of city parks.

Let's just say a lot of Vancouver people consider "Delgamuukw" (the
plaintiff in the landmark road) a dirty word.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 17:36:44 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Well, I don't know what they expected to happen with all these ridiculous >>'land acknowledgements' they insist on doing. One of these days the Indians >>were going to take it seriously and say, okay, then give it all back.

It's odd that those uttering the land acknowledgments are not the same
people as those facing loss of land.

As individuals no - but CERTAINLY these land acknowledgments are now
routinely made by municipal governments
(You can see an example on the cover page or page 1 of any of the City
Council agendas at https://www.dnv.org/government-administration/meeting-agendas-and-minutes) (which happens to be the page for the Council meeting I'm watching via
Zoom as I read this)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 18:04:17 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The >>problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.

I thought the Britons were earlier than the Celts, and the Saxons came
later. Were there Neanderthals? I thought they weren't Europe-wide but in >Germany.

Bear in mind that from the end of the last ice age to about 6000-8000
BC there was a land bridge between what is now eastern England and
Belgium / The Netherlands which made human settlement rather easier...

(No such land bridge existed between England/Scotland and Ireland)

And habitation on continental Europe by Homo Sapiens is known to have
existed more than 20000-25000 years before present.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 15:00:28 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

But we're venturing into pedantry here. The point I was trying to make
is that as soon as we try to "undo" some part of history to reverse some
bad thing, we have to ask ourselves how far back we want to go because >injustices have happened throughout history. For instance, Kalingrad
used to be the German city of Konigsberg until 1945 when the Red Army >conquered it and annexed it to the Soviet Union. With the liberation of >Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that coincided with the end of the Soviet >Union, it suddenly found itself an exclave of Russia with no land >connection. During the German Reunification talks in 1990, there was

It's actually Kaliningrad (Kalinin being a Russian Communist in the Lenin/Stalin era) and was known when it was owned by Germany as
"Koenigsberg". There is a famous mathematical theorem (it forms the
basis of topology) called "the Seven Bridges of Koenigsberg.

The problem was whether the seven bridges could be crossed from one
part of Koenigsberg without crossing any bridge twice - Euler proved
that it could not.

The Red Army in 1945 "solved" the problem by destroying one of the
bridge in an artillery barrage as part of their seizure of the city.

https://www.google.com/search?q=seven+bridges+of+k%C3%B6nigsberg&oq=SEVEN+BRIDGES+OF+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDQ4OTVqMGo5qAIFsAIB8QVH55cwoMeUuQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:50:17 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-01-06 11:01 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching >> as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...

Goat has a much bigger problem then I do. The tribes there have so many >claims in BC that literally well over 100% of BC is contested! Yes, I
said "literally" and I meant it. The tribes have OVERLAPPING land claims
so the amount of claimed land exceeds 100%.

It is my understanding (i.e. not verified with a lawyer) that my area
WAS legally purchased from the local tribes so I should be fine.

That is true - most of southern Ontario is the subject of one Native
treaty or another well before the 20th century. (I learned all about
that when I was at McMaster in the 1980s - the chief known as Joseph
Brant was a major 'player' and took part in the War of 1812)

British Columbia (which is marginally larger than Ontario in land
area) had less than a dozen treaties before 1900 (mostly on Vancouver
Island) and many areas are claimed by multiple tribes which is the
overlapping Rhino is talking about. Most of Greater Vancouver is
claimed by the Squamish, T'sleil-wa-Tuth and Musqueum tribes which I
think is what Rhino was talking about.

Most of the Indian reserves around here are close to the shoreline,
whereas I live in the mountain foothills further from the shoreline.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2