Offended by the concepts of the treaties, Cree chiefs resisted them. Big Bear refused to sign Treaty 6 until starvation among his people forced his hand in 1882.
From wiki.
Does that qualify it as unilateral, or only one party benefits?
A contract must show Intent to contract, or an offer to contract is extended, someone Accepts the Offer, without duress, without coercion or without being compelled AT ALL, the contract offers EQUAL consideration of both parties resources, meaning that both parties are to gain and both are putting something substantial to the other party's offer. Without these things it cannot be called an Agreement, only an Imposition, only an Order, only a dictatorship indeed.
The thin veneer that covers these contracts and glosses them as Lawful or Agreement peels off effortlessly, exposing that for example the Natives had no concept of land ownership yet the treaties are primarily centered on land ownership, which demonstrates that there wasn't any "accord" only the appearance of accord, in reality what was agreed to was to allow the Queen to use their lands, not to buy them or to own them and among others the promise to provide schools or teachers, not to make the native's culture and heritage illegal and force assimilation, a thoroughly failed experiment, and such actions display the disparaging chasm between what the two parties interpretations of the terms were, and that is not even touching on the fact that there was no Equal Consideration of both parties resources, it was very much One Sided and will always remain One Sided solely because the Dominating Winner, the Queen afforded nothing to the Natives that could replace their land or could be equal consideration.
we're not debating history here. It already happened and circumstances and feelings at that time would perhaps be different from today. Regardless, we are only observers, and also are not historians. I thought the point of this debate is on the existence of an agreement/treaty, whether it was breached by non-performance, violence, etc. to render it invalid. If so, how should it be remedied going forward. Are there any remedies available? Not here to re-hash feelings or circumstances of the people from ages ago when the treaty was formed. It's more important to deal with the present situation and find remedies to improve the relationship and/or uphold or renegotiate a settlement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If we cannot approach the foundation of the treaty then what is there to renegotiate or improve? Obviously the history and the circumstances are crucial, what do you think gives the Queen any leeway to renegotiate and why should the natives contract with their abuser?
The situation is that the treaties were unilateral, that the parties didn't agree to the same things and as such they wouldn't have entertained the terms and the meaning behind them that the Queen offered, and why should they, as no leader or individual knowing full well what they are doing would give away a fortune for a bowl of porridge. Agreement under unclear terms, and under duress or coercion renders the Agreement void.
What is born of fraud and deceit with time doesn't become ture and good, it always remains deceit and fraud. Apologies are meaningless gestures if the underlying issue is fraud. Clearly the international community needs to make the Queen pay, the end.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit