In the past 30 years, two “Rebellions” have taken place between the Métis and the Government of Canada. I strongly believe that the terminology used to describe the Red River “Rebellion” and North West “Rebellion” is misused and should be modified to correctly represent these events. Due to the nature of these events, the more accurate term to use would be “resistance” as the Métis were strictly defending their rights as human beings. A rebellion is defined as an effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country through the use of violence. A resistance however, is the refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument. The Métis were not in pursuit of changing the government; they simply wanted a voice in Confederation. The use of the term “rebellion” delivers the wrong impressions of the Métis. Their use of violence was not an act of destruction but of defense. It is for the following reasons that I believe the term “”rebellion” should be corrected to “resistance”. The Red River Resistance was the result of the Canadian Government’s selfish desires for land. Without consent of the Métis, John A Macdonald purchased Rupert’s Land, the land of the Métis. Discontent, the Métis seized weapons from the Government to defend themselves during a rebellion against the Government. Riel and the Métis had no intention of rebellion; in fact, he was not opposed to the idea of Confederation as long as the Métis were granted a voice in parliament. However, by early December of 1869, Riel feared that the government was armed and prepared for a war. As a result, the Métis arrested several soldiers whom later attempted escape. Riel later executed Thomas Scott, a member of the rai... ... middle of paper ... ...étis were only protecting themselves from the oppressive government. I believe that in a rebellion, the rebels are the attackers. In a resistance, the resistors are those being attacked. The Métis were the resistors, and the Canadian Government was the attacker. Therefore, the more accurate term to describe these events would be “resistance”. Yes, there was indeed violence and bloodshed, however it was an act of defense against the Canadian Government. The Métis were only protecting what was rightfully theirs, and didn’t care for any more or any less. For these reasons Mr. Daley, I can say with quite a bit of confidence that the term “rebellion” is inaccurate and the term “resistance” must be used instead, to provide a factual representation of these events. I hope you consider this letter and make changes to your newspaper immediately. I thank you for your time.
...conclusion that Louis Riel is indeed a legacy who should be regarded as one who is innocent. He has left us questioning whether or whether not his movements were plausible, but then again, he has nevertheless managed to carry honor and pride, while contributing many things towards Canada through his objectives. He preserved the Métis home territory and rights through many obstacles, which gradually led to the formation of Manitoba. He went through plenty of danger, while he knew they were coming. Louis Riel’s noble actions are too worthy to be burdened with charges of high treason and felony. “No matter what happens now,” he stated, “the rights of the Métis are assured by the Manitoba Act; that is what I wanted. My mission is finished.” Louis Riel, a hero, a saint, a prophet, is not the only one that is facing injustice and discrimination today in the 19th century.
To start off, I’ll be writing about the life of people in British North America and its significance towards unifying Canada, as well as background knowledge of conflicts that existed. Life in British North America was changing at an alarming rate. New technology and services were being introduced such as railways and steamships. Industries such as building, producing and farming were being introduced. This was in part due to the many immigrants from Britain and France who’d settled. This was dreadful for the First Nations as their land had been taken away even more so than before. More resources were needed for the growing crowd so trade agreements were made. As more people came, the First Nations were even more distanced from the Europeans. Meanwhile, the French and the British wanted the other’s culture to be erased from the
The main point that Frits Pannekoek makes in her essay is as follows. Panekoek reasons that there are differences between the Metis and the Half-breeds that led them to form to groups apart from each other, with a bitter relationship between the two . Pannekoek believes that "In fact there was little unity between the two groups during the Riel Resistance" . I must start of my first main point by saying that essential there is much reliability to what Frits Pannekoek is saying.
On the Provisional Government Louis Riel came up with the Metis Bill Of Rights. This bill requested that the Metis would be allowed the same rights enjoyed by the other Canadians. This bill requested that either French or English would be used in the Legislature, laws for the new Province would be decided by the Residents, the Metis would keep the rights to their land, (local officials sheriffs, magistrates, school commissioners, and so on) would be elected by the local people, and the federal government would negotiate treaties with the First Nations living there. The Prime Minister accepted the Bill Of Rights, and created the new province of Manitoba. This act committed by Louis Riel helped give the Metis the rights they deserved. If Louis Riel had not done this, than the Metis would have had unacceptable rights.
Canada is a large country with a history of many people and cultures, both good, and bad. Louis Riel, one of the most controversial men in history, was not a hero; in fact he may have been the mere opposite. Riel, one of the most famous Metis leaders, is greatly viewed in the perspective of some, but he can also be viewed, as a true rebel, and someone who wasn’t a heroic Metis. Although Riel took part in joining Manitoba in the dominion of Canada, he also threatened the new dominion of Canada. Riel’s actions and decisions are very controversial, and although many regard his actions and decisions very highly, Riel did the opposite. Through the organization of the Riel rebellions, the executing of Thomas Scott, and going against the Canadian Government, Louis Riel was truly a rebel, who threatened the dominion of Canada.
Therem he heard of the great injustices being done to his people, and was outraged, immediatly taking on the role of leader of the MEtis, to attempt to reason with and secure the Emtis's rights. Riel was educated, and he understood the trecherous position the Metis had found themselves in. He knew, that if the MEtis weren't careful, they stood to loseall of their land to the governemnt, on the basis of having no deeds of anykind to the land itself. Soon, rattled by the surveyors sent into the Red River, Riel fromed the Metis NAtional COmmitee to fight for MEetis concerns of their land. And please note that all of this was very much legal, and civilized- Riel was not a radical crazy dictator, rather he was a level-headed and sound individual. Shortly after the creation of this well-meaning council, Riel and his men occupied Fort Garry, and effectively seized its munitions. And, that was the turning point, and beginning of the Red River Rebellion, a rebellion that Riel had hoped would help the governemnt understand his point of viwe, as the temporary head of the provisional government that Riel sets up in the Red RIver Valley for the
I hold my pen in hand to express my feelings of indebtedness towards you Mr. John Abbott. My name is Gabriel Dumont; I am an anti-European metis scholar and Lawyer. Dexterous at what I do, I became the advisor to Louis Riel and one of his closest friends. I was born in Red River between the years 1847-1849 (my exact birth date is unknown). Throughout my youth people found me to be quite intelligent. I was born to the second in command of the metis national committee. My father was an influential man. I studied law in Scotland, becoming one of the élite to my class. In 1865 I returned to my beloved home Red River. I became good friends with a young man named Joseph Clark; he was the man who introduced me to Louis Riel. Promptly Louis and I became fast friends; I was fascinated by Riels intellect and his skills of persuasion. I learned that my father and Louis’ father had been close friends in the past before my father’s unexpected death. In 1869 Riel had become the metis leader just like his father. I am confident that we the metis in Red River did a substantial deed for the thousands of metis scattered across Ruperts land to Assiniboia. By taking over Fort Garry my people and I had sole control of what had belonged to us for thousands of years,...
In the article written by Tabitha Marshall talks about, a battle that is significant in seven years of war and played a central role in the history of Canada. The battle is also known as Battle of Québec. The battle was fought between the French and British who wanted control over North America. The campaign was fought under the British commander, Major General James Wolfe, played a significant role in the British win. He led the British to Quebec because the French inhabited it. Throughout the history the role Indigenous people have been quietly ignored same as in the article, Marshall gives little importance to Aboriginal people who fought for French. The article did not focus much on aboriginal people or any other community. So, that means this battle
It is illogical to attempt to ‘reap’ what you do not ‘sow.’ However, from 1870 to 1885, many Canadians thought this was a legitimate frame of mind in handling affairs with groups in the North-West. Their selfishness, to them, was sanctified. Sanctified because a push for the formation of Canada overshadowed and overruled each stage in a long, unfriendly struggle. In his article, “Causes of the 1885 Struggle,” Howard clarifies that giving the label, “Riel rebellion,” to these struggles, is a misleading and inappropriate title. He states that Riel was not alone in the unravelling of the events that took place in 1885. From this, Howard identifies the 1885 “hostilities” as a class manifested turning-point in Canada’s movement politically and socially: towards capitalism, modern agriculture and industrialism.
He fought for equality and freedom. During the Red River Rebellion he came up with a list of rights for the Metis. This list not only defended the Metis but the whole settlement under the control of the Canadian government. The list suggested “all people are to be treated equally, with equal rights to the services and aspects of society, including voting and elections, land purchases and claims, and cultural and language rights.” Even after this list was made Riel did not stop attempting to make better conditions for the Metis. During the North West Rebellion he fashioned together a bill of right, this bill ensured that “the Metis are to have equal rights to land, a say in elections, access to their necessities, and the same standard living conditions as the whites". Louis Riel was a defender and supporter of Metis right and culture. Furthermore, Riel helped form Manitoba. It was because of the Metis Provisional Government (which was formed by Riel) and of its demands to the Canadian government, insisting that Metis be given land to live on and the Manitoba Act being passed in 1870, that today Manitoba is a province of
... arrival in St. Laurent, the rebellion has started. Violence escalated from looting and taking hostages to open rebellion. It was only a matter of time before the badly-outnumbered rebels were killed. Riel, having fled the scene of the final battle surrendered on May 15, 1885. For his part in the two uprisings in Canada’s brief history. Riel was hanged on November 16, 1885 in Regina. And To this day Riels execution is a controversy between historians. In my opinion Riels execution in Canadian history was prejudiced and yet crucial because without Riels execution where will Canada be now? Just think about it. Imagine that riel gained supporters and the province of Canada was overthrown? Would the Canada that you and I know be still being here? Or would the province of Canada become part of America? We have no notion but this is the reason we study history isn’t?
It was not only Loyalists that shaped the political culture of Canada, rather the power of the British government in suppressing another rebellion, the various concessions they made, as well as the arrival of “Late Loyalists” and other ethnic groups that shaped the culture of openness and comity in Canada. Mancke argues that the Loyalists deplored “both the rebels and the British for resorting to violence to solve political problems, yet the creation of a responsible government in Canada was “launched with election riots throughout the 1840s and with the burning of Parliament by a mob in 1849”, by these same Loyalists. Furthermore, it can even be argued that a “civic culture beyond official control barely existed before 1820”, and only then did liberal norms such as “newspapers, Masonic lodges, agricultural societies, and debating clubs” begin to proliferate, long after the arrival of the “original British
Many people saw Louis Riel as a hero because of his passion about preserving the Métis rights and culture. Riel was a great Métis leader because he risked his own life just to improve the Métis’ lives. His heroism began when he returned home to Red River in 1868 after his studies, and discovered that the settlement was alarmed by arrangements to transfer territorial rights from the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada. This was because the Hudson’s Bay Company resigned its control of the Northwest, and sold Rupert’s Land to Canada. This caused the Métis (people of mixed Aboriginal and European heritage) to fear that they would lose control of their homeland and traditional rights. They we...
From the inception of this country, resistance has been the main tool for those who are fighting for their human rights. From slave rebellion at Stono River, North Carolina on September 9, 1739, to the opening shot of the American Revolution in the morning of April 19, 1776 in Lexington, Massachusetts, every violence has been resisted. From the Native American Pontiac rebellion in 1963 to displacement of Indians from their land throughout the Appalachians, which is now called the Midwest in the early nineteenth century, the repression met with strong defiance. Every oppression that was imposed on Native Americans and African-Americas by the British and slave masters was met with resistance. Sherman Alexie’s Flight and Ava DuVernay’s Selma show
“Repression will provoke rebellion” expressed by Hugh Williamson. In Upper and Lower Canada, citizens were dissatisfied with the government as what the citizens wanted was of none of their concern. Lower Canada was experiencing the termination of the french culture, land problems, and lack of power within their community. However, Upper Canada had an outdated colonial system of government, land grievances, and transportation problems. All together, both the Upper Canada and Lower Canada 1837 rebellions were justified.