Thank you for this perspective. You’ve put your finger on the deep clash of worldviews: one sees land, water, and air as sacred gifts to be cared for, while the other treats them as property to be claimed, divided, and controlled. The history of treaties in Canada shows how these views collided, agreements to share were reinterpreted as cessions of ownership. In my own work, I describe sovereignty as the state’s claim to order land and people through symbols, laws, and institutions. But I also see the persistence of parasovereign orders—like kinship, indigeneity, language, and spiritual responsibility—that resist being reduced to property or ownership. Your comment reminds me that these alternate conceptions of order still carry a truth that empire never erased.