[TSiege]

This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation

[InitialLastName]

> that would cover the entirety of canada

This is very much not what we do in the United States.

Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".

[Auracle]

I would like to point out that’s way better than what most people did over the course of human history, certainly including a lot of those Native Americans themselves.

[TSiege]

This is not what I'm arguing at all. We have been making (and largely breaking) treaties with indigenous peoples since before either country existed. But to say they didn't matter and that we still don't recognize them at all is completely ahistorical and out of touch with reality. Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada have worked hard to restore sovereignty. Your claim is completely ignoring that and recent precedents we've taken to right those wrongs. While it's not perfect (nor enough imo), it doesn't account to nothing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...