The French and Indian war was a nine-year battle between France and England. The war sparked when both Britain and France claimed territories in the New World. This territory was the area between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River. At the time, the Native Americans inhabited the land. The Indians eventually allied with France. Because this war is known in the United States as the French and Indian war, many assume the title refers to an ongoing battle between the French and Indians. Quite the contrary, the war's title refers to the alliance between the two groups.The French and Indian War began over the specific issue of whether the upper Ohio River valley was a part of the British Empire, and therefore open for trade and settlement by Virginians and Pennsylvanians, or part of the French Empire
Answer:
Most of the settled lands of Canada, in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, were transferred from First Nations to the Crown (the Government) through treaties.
Today both sides agree that the so-called Indian Treaties are agreements between the Crown (the Government) and First Nations, in which the First Nations exchanged some of their interests in specific areas of their ancestral lands in return for various kinds of payments and promises from Crown officials. However, each side has a different interpretation of what was intended by the agreements.
The Canadians (British) and the First Nations were at the same meetings, listened to the same speeches (translated) and signed the same pieces of paper. Yet they had (and still have) two totally different concepts of what the treaties were about, and what each side was promising. The differences in understanding are rooted in two totally different world views, and two totally different concepts of land ownership, and two colliding purposes.
The concept of private ownership of land by an individual, who could build a fence and keep others out forever, was totally foreign to First Nations people.
First Nations had an oral tradition. They passed down important information by the spoken word during important ceremonies and at celebrations. What was said was what was important to them, not what was written on paper. Though they did not have a written tradition, in the European sense, they recorded important events by sewing beaded wampum belts. Wampum belts signifying treaties became sacred objects that were brought out at certain times, Then elders recited the terms and understandings of the agreement commemorated by that ceremonial wampum belt.
The Government View of Treaties The First Nations View of Treaties
The British and Canadian governments saw treaties as a way to legalize the ceding of Indian lands to clear the way for European settlement, mining, and railways. Treaties were intended to extinguish all First Nations claims and rights to their land forever, except in those lands set apart as Reserves of land for the bands to live on.
In return, the government would make a one-time payment to the bands, plus a specified annual sum.
As well, treaties had terms dealing with hunting and fishing rights, as well as education and health care. Treaties were also intended to offer the Indians some protection from the consequences of new settlement, and some assistance in adapting to new ways of living as the old ways became less feasible.
Treaties were also expected to be the first step towards assimilation.
Government expected First Nations people to give up their culture, including their customs, their language, their religious beliefs, their ceremonies, and everything else that differentiated them from Canadians of British origin.
also Nations saw treaties in a different light. To them, treaties were solemn pacts establishing the future basis of relations between their people, for whom Canada is an ancient homeland, and the new Government of Canada and its people and Nations representatives signed the treaties to ensure that they would receive some government assistance in the future to ensure the survival of their people. They believed (because all the Treaty Commissioners told them so) that they would be cherished and protected by the Crown with whom they had a special relationship.
Explanation:
Hope this helps :)
Answer: MUST not steal the drug. Maybe...
Explanation:
Post-conventional moral reasoning is the highest state of moral reasoning according to Lawrence Kohlberg that occurs when a person has interiorized their own personal set of ethics and morals in their own behavior.
<u>If Heinz consider that stealing is inmoral no matter the situation, and he has postconventional moral reasoning, then no matter which opportunity to steal the hypothetical drug, he won't steal it. </u>
In this particular case, because we don't know how Heinz concieve the act of stealing, we cannot really stablish Heinz conclution.
However, most of the time the ethics and morals of those with post-conventional reasoning agree with social practices and laws.
The answer is Punishment.
They believed that someone that displayed any form of psychological disorders were displeasing the God and the God took their sanity as a form of punishment.
This belief led to many inhumane treatment (such as caging them in public or even throwing them off the cliffs)
Land masses fit together like a puzzle when moved together.
