4 comments

  • Tuesday, Sep 16

    It doesn't change the conclusion of the court, or our general understanding of this passage, but just FYI, I think the reference to "prevented, by circumstances beyond their control, from exercising a tradition for a given period of time" refers not (only) to the 1910 treaty, but also since the occupation of the territory by Russia in the late 1700s. It is quite possible that there were still elders in 1991 who could recall those practices before 1910. However, for sure, practices before the late 1700s would not be within "living" memory but nonetheless passed down through oral histories or other means. Traditions (likely over hundreds or thousands of years) that were commonly practices but disrupted by the circumstances of Russian occupation (for 200 years) should still be considered by common sense as "traditional".  (I work in this field). 

    0
  • Sunday, Aug 31

    #feedback In the video there was a couple instances where he said "seals" instead of sea otters. I found this confusing because I had to go back and reread the paragraph to make sure I hadn't missed a reference to seals.

    1
  • Monday, Feb 17

    this passage so boring im fighting for my life

    8

Confirm action

Are you sure?