The Q-BAM Improvement and Core Thread

BCALSKMB.png
Quebec Minor Border Changes.png

Patch for some of Canada's provinces. The patches for Quebec and the Southern tip of Yukon were just some minor changes to the provincial borders. I also did some minor patches for the internals for Manitoba. The main patches I did were for Saskatchewan and Southern British Columbia, as well as lakes here and there. I deleted a lake in the North of Alberta/Saskatchewan but I will add it back when I deal with Alberta. Everything else in Canada should be good to stay as it is, although I think we should be getting rid of the Indian reserves in Canada though. Most are microscopically tiny but also the way its set up is very different then America or Brazil
 
View attachment 820666View attachment 820667
Patch for some of Canada's provinces. The patches for Quebec and the Southern tip of Yukon were just some minor changes to the provincial borders. I also did some minor patches for the internals for Manitoba. The main patches I did were for Saskatchewan and Southern British Columbia, as well as lakes here and there. I deleted a lake in the North of Alberta/Saskatchewan but I will add it back when I deal with Alberta. Everything else in Canada should be good to stay as it is, although I think we should be getting rid of the Indian reserves in Canada though. Most are microscopically tiny but also the way its set up is very different then America or Brazil
Can you give details about the differences between Canada and US, Brazil reserves? I'm really interested.
 
Can you give details about the differences between Canada and US, Brazil reserves? I'm really interested.
So there is not too much difference in terms of fundamentals. The reserve and reservation are purposely made to be exclusive to the firstnations/indians. But the difference between them is in the understanding of how they actually operate. In America and Brazil, these are territories specifically designed for them to inhabit and own, and are under a different jurisdiction distinct from other tribes. In Canada however, the reserve system actually has a Tribal Council, which governs specific tribal reservation settlements. In addition, many of the reserves don't have a resident population, as less then half (49.5%) of all Indians actually live on this land. The land could be used seasonally, or not really at all, and apparently things like water quality are a problem on several (but not all) reserves. The most important part is that the Canadian government is partially governed by the British crown (or was) and so that is the origin of its law concerning Indians. In the government of Canada's law in the Indian's act they say:
"Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band."
The way the law works in Canada comes from a similar stance of setting aside land, but for Canada the land is still mostly under federal jurisdiction, as are any and all basic services. The law sees the land not as their own, but more as what we would consider federal land. That's why many are nearly as small as the vatican. Not even all the reservations in Canada combined are as big as the Navajo nation's reservation.
 
Just an extra explanation about the Brazilian indigenous lands, the Amerindians of these lands do not own them, the property is in the hands of the Union (federal government) and the natives only have the exclusive right to usufruct. It is a relatively precarious legal situation and different from the quasi-independent territories in America where they do have property.
But anyway, taking advantage of the subject, territories with rights reserved for indigenous communities are not the best documented thing in QBAM... There is the LandMark site that I believe has the best documentation on these lands, it shows huge reserves in Canada and Australia (of different right types), in addition to Mexican and Peruvian bordergore... Anyway it's a lot to think about (the day I manage to get these shapefiles to use on R-QBAM will be a glorious day), some examples on the spoiler bellow:

1679841926258.png

1679842010534.png

1679842203889.png

1679842370589.png

1679842509242.png

1679842570883.png

1679842862468.png

1679843120039.png
 
Just an extra explanation about the Brazilian indigenous lands, the Amerindians of these lands do not own them, the property is in the hands of the Union (federal government) and the natives only have the exclusive right to usufruct. It is a relatively precarious legal situation and different from the quasi-independent territories in America where they do have property.
But anyway, taking advantage of the subject, territories with rights reserved for indigenous communities are not the best documented thing in QBAM... There is the LandMark site that I believe has the best documentation on these lands, it shows huge reserves in Canada and Australia (of different right types), in addition to Mexican and Peruvian bordergore... Anyway it's a lot to think about (the day I manage to get these shapefiles to use on R-QBAM will be a glorious day)
Oh I did not realize that. There was another map on this Canadian government site: https://geo.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/cippn-fnpim/index-eng.html, that only showed them as small plots if you zoomed in far enough, but that's probably just for the councils.
What does it mean by community lands though?
 
Oh I did not realize that. There was another map on this Canadian government site: https://geo.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/cippn-fnpim/index-eng.html, that only showed them as small plots if you zoomed in far enough, but that's probably just for the councils.
What does it mean by community lands though?
Well these community lands seem to be refering to some form of communal farming territory, not always linked to an ethinicity like the indigenous lands.
 
That appears to be showing the Apartheid era Bantustans in South Africa and Namibia, the pre-1980 tribal lands in Zimbabwe and I'm genuinely not sure what it's meant to be referring to in Botswana considering that's been a majority rule republic since independence.

Either way, that source seems a bit... iffy as a contemporary document.
 
That appears to be showing the Apartheid era Bantustans in South Africa and Namibia, the pre-1980 tribal lands in Zimbabwe and I'm genuinely not sure what it's meant to be referring to in Botswana considering that's been a majority rule republic since independence.

Either way, that source seems a bit... iffy as a contemporary document.
The do provide where they got their data for each land, in the case of the South Africa here's one of the info boxes:
1679872697897.png
1679872729412.png
1679872756051.png

And in Namibia:
1679872923317.png
1679872949846.png

Idk, I guess these held on having some legal relevance? And in Botswana the data is from 2002 and came Botswana PC Atlas, Dept. of Surveys and Mapping and the Zimbabwe ones is credited to Govt. of Zimbabwe as data source?
 
The do provide where they got their data for each land, in the case of the South Africa here's one of the info boxes:
View attachment 821036View attachment 821037View attachment 821038
And in Namibia:
View attachment 821039View attachment 821040
Idk, I guess these held on having some legal relevance? And in Botswana the data is from 2002 and came Botswana PC Atlas, Dept. of Surveys and Mapping and the Zimbabwe ones is credited to Govt. of Zimbabwe as data source?

OK, so the South African ones are literally just 'former area of a 'Homeland'' which was the official term for the Bantustans. So the 1990 date is effectively the point where they became former homelands and were reintegrated into the country.

Botswana looks like it might be 'areas which are not nature reserves, major commercial farms or under wildlife management areas' but it's not an exact fit to this map, and is a bit meaningless in this context.

So yeah, I'd really not use that as a contemporary source.

Especially as half the links to the sources are dead 404 errors.
 
OK, so the South African ones are literally just 'former area of a 'Homeland'' which was the official term for the Bantustans. So the 1990 date is effectively the point where they became former homelands and were reintegrated into the country.
Weren't the Bantustans wound up in '94, rather than '90? The Apartheid regime was in place until then.
 
Top