We have to remember that there was a big difference between the treaties themselves and the paper documents that European-Americans used to record those treaties. For many Native Americans, a treaty was an oral agreement between governments. It was methodically memorized and often sealed with an exchange of gifts. In the eastern part of North America, wampum belts (which were shells strung together to create images) served as official records of these treaties, and were draped over a speaker's body when the treaty was being recited later on, much as Europeans might read aloud the text of a written agreement between two European countries.
For Natives, the oral agreement, along with these wampum belts, WERE the treaty, and the paper document they signed was just some odd European habit that they often simply tolerated. Many of the Native leaders who signed these treaties could not read what they were signing, and even if they could they did not recognize the documents as being the official record of what was agreed on.
I think i honestly don't know if im correct... Sorry if im wrong, but I think its because they can not be trusted.. I hope this helped if it was correct
It would be "b. To search for more slaves" that was <span>not a reason for the Boers movement north, since this was not part of the conflict between the Boers in Africa and the British. </span>
