A couple thoughts on framing Mi'gmaw resurgence:

The Mi'gmaq nation is a nation first and foremost and this controversy is about the relationship between two nations - or, rather, between our nation and the successor state which has inherited treaty responsibilities from one of the original signatories.

Still. We're "Nations."

A series of peace and friendship treaties signed between Mi'gmaq and the British speak to this relationship. There is a reciprocal recognition of nationhood inherent in treaties. After all, nations only sign treaties with other nations.

Nations. Not races. Nations.

When NS fishermen say this is a matter to be decided before the Supreme Court, by the Provinces, or by the DFO, they are pre-emptively denying any recognition of our nationhood and asserting, however obliquely, that Canada has authority and jurisdiction over us.

This is why the NS fishermen have been so keen to accuse Mi'gmaq of "making this about race."

By claiming that the rights we're asserting have their origin in the arbitrary racial designations that the settler state has created for NDNs, they can make it about "equality."

The kind of equality they're talking about is one that denies our treaties and normalizes the injustice of their unilateral abrogation by their party.

Their notion of equality does not extend towards us as treaty partners. They would never tell the US to abide by SCC decisions.

This is why the NS fishermen are the ones "making it about race." The host of assumptions they bring to the exchange exclusively disadvantage "Indians." They would never dream of employing the same arguments when dealing with other nations.

Only "Indians." Only "the Natives."

Mi'gmaq are asserting treaty rights. Not "race-based" rights as racialized minorities.

We're asserting treaty rights. As a nation would.

Until Canadians begin to see these things in these terms, they're going to be confused as we continue to assert our nationhood.