Quote:
Originally Posted by 81MC
This is an impotent point, one I feel is often overlooked. The notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.
I’m also intrigued by the thought of treaties vs. conquest. I have no idea about the particulars of the treaty, but an agreement in perpetuity is a bad idea. If conquest were in fact the only way to change this...
|
The treaties were made with absolute no forethought or consideration of the long term future. It was all about doing what had immediate benefits to win against other colonial nations at the time. They never conceived of a world where the treaties would be forever binding and that conquest wasn't the eventual solution. Treaties were considered a stop-gap solution until they could get the upper hand.
When the UN adopted the Indigenous Rights declaration, only 4 nations of 159 voted against it (Canada, U.S.A., New Zealand, and Australia). All of which used similar treaty systems that recognize indigenous groups as "nations" under treaties. Eventually, all 4 adopted it (Canada in 2016). Countries like Mexico for example, never had that system. They have recognized indigenous people, but none of them are legally classified as "nations". While it sounds like semantics, the UN definition of a "nation" gives aboriginal groups more power.
In Mexico, being one nation, most things will have a "yes/no" solution. Aboriginal groups have similar rights when is comes to protecting their culture and using their resources, but they don't have a separate legal basis for negotiating anything. In Canada, everything has to be negotiated on a nation-by-nation basis under the UN declaration.