 What's interesting, I guess, from an indigenous perspective is the way in which liberalism has been used to dispossess people of the land. And so what's interesting for me, again, this question of how did this happen, this idea of the Enlightenment, right? And we know about the history of nation development in Europe, the dynamics that went into place with that. And by the way, I would emphasize that colonialism had a huge impact on all of that, right? All this information coming back, the need to make sense of all that, right? The need to somehow ameliorate that with what's going on in Europe. You know, there's lots of evidence to show that guys like Rousseau, Montesquieu, studied the reports that were coming from North America and other places in the world about what was going on, especially for the Iroquois, right? We know that Benjamin Franklin actually studied the Iroquois and that that has an impact on the American Constitution, right? But what interests me is this idea of liberalism as it develops and some of the central tenets that come out of there and how some of the main theorists of liberal democratic theory and also economic theory found a way to dispossess indigenous people, right, and a philosophical way to justify that, right? And so this, you know, all of these things come together, but this idea of private property and universalism and this idea that all people who are reasonable, all people who are rational, will reach the same conclusions as us, right? And again, I can't help but refer to Barack Obama last night and this, you know, the American nation is the best nation in the world. Everybody wants to be like us. This is the universal model for how you should live. Okay, it's continuing. Right, but in the two treaties of government that John Locke wrote, right, which is hugely influential, we can trace all of this, right, this dispossession, because he said that Aboriginal people are in a pre-political state, right? So in evolution, they're back there. They're back there. Okay. So therefore, because there's this absence of stuff, it's justified for us to give it to them, right? And he also said that because they don't use the land, in the ways that we recognize, they can only claim the fruits of their labor, right? The berries or the animals they kill. They have no claim on the land, right? Because they don't define law and government, they don't organize it in the same way. Therefore, we're justified to do what we do, right? This is very clear in what he said, right? So how does this play out? Well, in terms of property, because we're talking about land, right? And the enlightenment, as we know in this whole liberal thrust, was also a very, very important part, was the economic part, the idea of private ownership, right? And we know because of history of Europe, we know why that was so important. Not just for accumulation, but as a way to withstand the power of government. It's a natural way. Asserted through use. How you use the land is your way to assert your private property. The use of things is the hallmark, as I say there. Use is central because a man's sovereignty is embodied in his free actions to use the labor in his own interests, right? So I got laissez-faire there. You can see the foundations of that. Locke argued that one's labor increased the value of a thing. It converted that which was wild and unusable to its usable form. Lassez-faire economics, liberal democracy, natural rights, private property, and colonialism. They all conflate into this big river which floods over this land. So I guess what I'm trying to say is from an indigenous perspective, the foundations of the Canadian nation and nationality, well those, it actually is connected to that dream that the settler has, right? About this open land. Nobody's here. Nobody's using this, right? And I would say the United States, our neighbor, was built on free labor in the form of slavery and open land. What's different from us is that the idea of open land, we didn't have the free labor in the same way. We had the open land, but the exclusion part. In order for that dream to happen, certain people had to be dispossessed. Okay, so that's one thrust of it, I would say, that I think most of you are pretty familiar with. The other part that you might not be as familiar with has to do with the Royal Proclamation Act of 1763. And this is the part, I think, that's really critical. Because so we have this liberal thrust, we have, you know, Locke saying all this stuff, but what happened in 1763, I would say, is that the British got into a very awkward situation, right? They defeated the French. Suddenly they took over all this land. But the problem was is that the Indians around the Great Lakes area there didn't want the British. Right, guys like Pontiac led an uprising. They attacked the forts. Right, so the British said, hold on, this is causing us a lot of trouble. If we're going to remain in control here, we've got to work with the First Nations people that are there. So that's why this yellow area here was declared Indian territory, right? And they said settlers cannot go into that territory. That's Indian territory and there are three conditions that they made as part of this Royal Proclamation Act. They said negotiations will always occur between the crown, here's Craig's point, and the chiefs on a nation-to-nation basis. That's what they said. And they said negotiations will always occur in a public place and negotiations on the initiative of the crown will never be sort of in a pressure situation where that the First Nations people feel like they have to conform. This framework, this context is created or was the basis for over 500 treaties that were signed by the British crown between 1763 and more recently. That nation-to-nation idea.