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.
RE: Debate Forum - Week 12 - Broken Treaties
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Debate Forum - Week 12 - Broken Treaties
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