>> that the map of North America should be dotted with microstates So who gets which microstate? Which point in history should be selected as the point whereb

>> that the map of North America should be dotted with microstates So who gets which microstate? Which point in history should be selected as the point whereby the name of the resident people is attached to a particular patch of land? These peoples moved around, they migrated and conquered one another for millennia. Does the arrival of Europeans suddenly lock them into whatever territory they had at the moment of first contact? Making the groups smaller risks dividing communities and cutting off people from the most lucrative claims processes. I'm sure the people of northern BC don't want to be cut off from the claims in the south, the claims involving the most valuable lands. BC, and Canada more widely, is struggling to determine who should even be at the table to negotiate. Traditional territories overlap. Blood claims are often based on shaky evidence. Something as slim as a single forged letter can expand or contract a community by thousands. If treaties or settlements are going to be signed, by who? Are the people in charge of various groups today in any better position to sign permanent deals than their ancestors were a few hundred years ago? We are generations away from any real conclusion to these issues.