I believe that the Douglas and Numbered Treaties were not fairly negotiated. These treaties were used as a way for Douglas and the Canadian government to get the Natives to give over their land willingly, even if they weren’t entirely aware of what they were agreeing to. Thus, these were not fair negotiations.
First, the unfair parts of these treaty signings. The exact ramifications were not made clear to the Natives, as many individuals thought both treaties were annual things like a rental or alliance, not that they were “signing their lives away” forever. The bargains were typically unfair and swung hard in the favour of the white party involved. They were giving away their homeland in exchange for blankets, some British currency or lessons in farming. Yes, these were all things that the Natives could indeed use, but it still appears to be a massively lopsided bargain. In the case of the Numbered Treaties, the HBC simply felt it had the right to sell Rupert’s land only because they had the sole privilege to trade there. As one scholar put it, it was as if “Pepsi Cola or another such company gaining title to the lands of another country merely by engaging in trading.” The Natives were constantly blindsided and…show more content… The text for these treaties was kept short, which hopefully made it easier on the interpreters to accurately express the communication to both parties. In the Douglas Treaties, the Natives were provided with the right to keep their village sites and enclosed field and to continue hunting and fishing where the land wasn’t occupied. Later, when hunting wasn’t working out so well (due to declining Bison population), the Numbered Treaties used the offer of farming knowledge as leverage. What was offered in exchange for the land helped the Natives in that moment. The treaties clearly state what they are agreeing to, so any confusion the Natives may have had wasn’t due to the written
