U.S. Government

Nav what treaties

because they're traitorous scum bags?

It seems the next generation of political leaders are ignorant of past policy making. Since they aren't required to have degrees in political history you'll get new policies that conflict with old ones.

History is hard it means you have to care.

To get to the other side?

so they could build a wall to keep the chickens from crossing?

I'm going to take a guess and suppose you mean the treaties between the American settlers and the Native Americans. And the reason for that is partly that they knew they could get away with breaking the treaties, population and military force were on their side.

The second reason is that back then, the settlers didn't really consider non-whites fully human, or at least not of the human stature of a Westerner. Breaking your word to them is not like you've broken your word to a white man. While China and Japan might be worth keeping your word to, because the evidence of a great civilization is all around you, nonwhites without that evidence didn't qualify as anyone you had to deal with fairly at that time.

Still, Anglos had the concept that a chief had the authority to commit an entire tribe to an agreement. Most tribes didn't even have the concept of 'chief', so when some tribal members didn't follow agreements made by the persons we were dealing with, Anglos felt the treaties had been broken.

Anglo is a local term in NW New Mexico only meaning northern European ancestry. My town, for example, is about equal parts Native American (Navajo mostly), Anglo, and Latino.

treaties between the American settlers and the Native Americans.

Thank you Rih, and I'll think about it; tho I'm not near as smart as the guys above