Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Academic papers on the metis
Essay on louis riel
Essay on louis riel
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Academic papers on the metis
Louis Riel was a Metis leader, founder of Manitoba, and a central figure in the Red River and North-West resistances. He was born on 22 October 1844 in Saint-Boniface, Red River Settlement and died 16 November 1885 in Regina, SK. He lead 2 Metis Nations, and brought Manitoba to confederation. Many people think that he is a martyr. A martyr is a person that was killed to protect or for their religion or other beliefs. However I still think that Louis Riel is a traitor. A traitor includes someone who betrays another’s trust, someone who is false to an obligation or duty, and it is also someone that acts against one’s nation, sovereign or country. And I think that Louis Riel did just that.
One reason why I think that Louis Riel is a traitor is because of the North-west rebellion. The North-west rebellion was violent, insurgency (active revolt or up-rise) against the Canadian government, fought mainly by Métis militants and their Aboriginal allies in what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta. Just with that information, you would assume that Louis
…show more content…
Riel was part of it. That is because, he is the leader of the Meits, so it would only make sense if he was there. In the North-west rebellion a group of armed rebellion (included Metis) that broke out at Duck Lake against a group of North West Mounted Police. Then in Battleford and Frog Lake they were raided in pursuit of food. In response to that, Prime Minister Macdonald sent troops west via the railway and it only took them 5 days to arrive at the Metis headquarters of Batoche. Then they fought, the Meits fought with bullets that the women made, and when they ran out, they used stones and nails. However they surrendered only after 2 days. So how could Riel be a martyr, he most likely told and directed the Metis on what to do. And not only that, he is sacrificing his own people’s lives rather than going out and fighting for them. A martyr would do nearly anything for their people, and Riel definitely did not show that. Another reason that I think that Louis Riel is a traitor is because of the Red River Resistance. At the Red River Resistance, surveyors started appearing in the Red River settlement area and began to divide up the land into square lots. When they were doing that, they were also ignoring the fact that Métis people already lived on that land. The Métis, and Louis Riel, protested, and refused to allow the surveyors onto their land. You might think that he did something a martyr would do. However he actually slowed down the process of the western expansion. Usually you would want to expand as fast as you can, then start to build. But when he started protesting, it was wasting time that could of been used for the western expansion. If those reasons don’t convince you, this one will.
My final reason that I think that Louis Riel was a traitor is because he flees to the United States of America. The reason that he wanted to flee to the USA was to protect himself. A large number of the soldiers wanted to seek out Riel and avenge the death of Thomas Scott. Because someone told him about the soldiers plans, he decides to flee with Lépine and William O'Donoghue, an Irish American. I don’t think that it was right for him to leave his people and flee to the USA to protect himself. Like the definition of a traitor states, someone that betrays their group. He abandoned the Metis just to protect himself. If he was a martyr, he would’ve stayed in Canada and protect his people like that. According to the slides that we did, he didn’t come back on his own. Some of his people had to bring him back to Canada. And not to mention, he left for 5
years. A reason that he is not a martyr is clearly explained with the execution of Thomas Scott. Thomas Scott was a violent and racist man and one of the persons attempting the overthrow. He was caught and put into trial. After the trial, he was considered to be guilty. So he had to executed. He was executed by Louis Riel. Even though Thomas Scott was not a good person, RIel shouldn’t of execute him. He should’ve been jailed instead. I don’t that it shows him being a martyr because he executed someone because he thought that he was bad. However, he doesn’t know that he is just as bad. For example he promised an amnesty by the Prime Minister of Canada but it never came. He thinks that he is right but he really isn’t. So those are some reason why I think that Louis Riel is a traitor. Though many people may think that he is a martyr, they should know who he really is and what he did. A traitor is someone who betrays other and Riel did that to his own people. He might be passionate about his people rights, but sometimes it seems like he doesn’t care. However, I admit. Sometimes he is an actual martyr to his people, but then he is a traitor to the Canadian government. Riel might be an awesome hero to his people at times but a nightmare to the Canadian government. So overall he is still, a traitor.
The story of Louis Riel began on October 28th 1844. He was born in a log cabin beside Seine Lake. The same priest who married his parents one year earlier baptized Louis on his day of birth. Many people view Louis Riel as the biggest pioneer of Metis in Canadian history. They base their decision on the fortresses he took and his position in Metis organizations. Others call him a joke and despise him. They base this on him being taken to trial for treason and eventually convicted and sentenced to death. As well as him betraying his country and fleeing when the land's owners were switched ruining a chance for a rebellion and having the nerve to return and restart a rebellion only before being arrested tried and hung. Everybody has his or her own view as what to make of Louis Riel. What's yours…? Hero or Villain?
During this time, Canada was still a member of the British Empire and was legally at war the minute that Britain was. Even though the Canadian government was had no control about being at war, it did have control over what role Canada would play during the war. Canada could send soldiers, food and clothing, or they could even do nothing about the war. Robert Borden, who was Prime Minister at the time, felt that Canada should send soldiers, food, and clothing to Britain. He felt that Canadian's should be proud to fight for their king and country. Wilfrid Laurier, who was leader of the Opposition at the time, was hoping that the war would be over soon, and that we should offer money and food to France and Britain. Henri Bourassa, who was the publisher of Le Devoir news paper felt that Canada should do nothing, and that Britain got into the mess by themselves, so to can they get out of the mess. After much debate, the government decided to send soldiers, and economic aid to Britain for the war.
In changing his mind, he lost many citizens’ trust in their government. The majority of those opposing Borden were French-Canadians. While Canada's involvement in WW1 was supported by the vast majority of English Canadians, the issue of conscription clearly and sharply divided the country. For some Canadians it was an important and necessary contribution for a faltering war effort. However, for others it was an oppressive act passed by a more British government than Canadian. Many francophones living in canada during World War 1 were not to fond of the idea of a draft army and were more reluctant to enlist as they felt a little attachment to Britain. They did not believe that it was their war, as a result they felt suppressed by the canadian government and that their opinion, linguistic and cultural independence was ignored. The French-Canadian’s reluctance to enlist had much to do with the fact that little accommodation was made for those soldiers that did not speak English. Francophones were expected to understand the English commands given by British officers, which they resented. Their linguistic barriers were ignored and the feel of having conscription being imposed on them led to public displays of resentment. Former Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier claimed that conscription "has in it the seeds of discord and disunion". He was correct since
Was Louis Riel a hero or a traitor? Well, some individuals say that he was a hero, and others say that he was a traitor. Individually I believe that Louis Riel was a hero because he was the forefather of Manitoba, which is a province of Canada. The fact that he was a persuasive politician and spiritual leader made him a hero as well. Lastly, he stood up for Native rights. Others like the British had thought of him mostly as a traitor, because they were not able to understand that Louis Riel had just needed the Canadian government to treat his people fairly, and that he was willing to do everything for his people. Instead the government had thought that he was violent and evil, so a threat to them. Most people who had seen him as a traitor had realized that he did everything for his people…after his hanging.
On October 5, 1970, British trade commissioner James Cross was kidnapped in his Westmount home by members of the terrorist group Front de liberation du Quebec. The FLQ Manifesto called for non-democratic separation to be brought about by acts of terror. From 1963 to 1967, the FLQ planted 35 bombs; from 1968 to 1970 they planted over 50 bombs. By the fall of 1970 the terrorist acts of the FLQ cells had claimed 6 lives. The kidnappers' demands included the release of a number of convicted or detained FLQ members and the broadcasting of the FLQ Manifesto. The Manifesto was read on Radio-Canada. Then, on October 10th, the Quebec minister of justice guaranteed safe passage to anywhere in the world for the kidnappers in exchange for the safe release of Cross. That same day Pierre Laporte, a famed Quebec reporter, author of The True Face of Duplessis, and the minister of immigration and labour in the Quebec government, was kidnapped by a different FLQ cell on the lawn of his suburban home. Laporte's kidnapping triggered a phone call from Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa asking Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to prepare the Canadian Armed Forces for action in Quebec and to declare War Measures. Two days later, October 12, Trudeau summoned armed troops to guard potential targets in Ottawa and Montreal such as cabinet ministers, John Diefenbaker, who was on the FLQ hit list, and federal buildings. On the following day, October 13, Peter Reilly of CJOH and I were at the west door of the Centre Block of the House of Commons. Reilly was asking Trudeau some basic questions in a laconic, unemotional style about the army and tanks being in Ottawa. Suddenly we were joined by CBC reporter Tim Ralfe who asked Trudeau a very emotional question about his decision to invoke the War Measures Act. Pierre Trudeau interview
Marie Antoinette was the Archduchess of Austria, and became Dauphine of France after several years. Many French citizens dislike her because of her behaviors. Some citizens blamed on her that she was one of the reason to cause the French Revolution. Some of the people said that she was not a serious problem for forming the French Revolution. There were also some people said that those behaviors were came from Louis XVI or influenced to Marie Antoinette, and actually he was one of the reason that caused the French Revolution. So what is the truth as one of the cause of French Revolution? Was she really a cause of the French Revolution?
On November 15, 1976 René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois were elected in Québec, winning the popular vote with 71 of 110 seats (Conway 86). The first step that Lévesque would take in order for Québec sovereignty would be to develop its own foreign policy (www.pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca). Lévesque started L'Opération-Amérique to help try to find support from other countries on Québec's independence (www.pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca). Lévesque anticipated that the United States would understand Québec's situation and continue to be open-minded on the issue of Québec sovereignty (www.pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca). It was important for Québec to have the United States remain neutral in order to maintain close business relations with them. ...
The Sons of Liberty were major fanatics and didn’t help America! They rebelled too many times and were really outrageous and crazy. They hurt America more than they helped. I believe that the Sons of Liberty were fanatics and not heroes. They loved to hurt people and violence to people and their property. The Sons of Liberty did illegal things and hated taxes.
Lambden P. Milligan was one such "traitor". He was arrested at home in Indiana on October 5, 1864 by the order of Brevet Major-General Hovey, military commandant of the District of Indiana. On October 21, Milligan was put on trial before a military commis...
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
The Marquis de Lafayette is best remembered for the part he played in the American War of Independence. He contributed in helping the Americans gain free control over the colonies by breaking away from British home rule. For sixty years he fought with consistency and insight for political ideals and social reforms that have dominated the history of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hence, Lafayette can be attributed to the spreading of liberty and freedom throughout America and France. Therefore, he is viewed as a symbol of liberalism in a once absolutist world.
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...
Louis Riel was many things, but a traitor was not one of them. He, was the Father of Manitoba. He was a central-figure in the Red-River Rebellion, where the Metis, uneducated and alone had to take a stance against a mighty governemnt. He was the spiritual and political leader of the metis. He was an incredibly well-educated lawyer, husband, and father. He was a martyr. And most importantly of all, Louis Riel was a hero. When he was of a younger, age I suppose he would've never guessed what fate had in store for him. Returning to his homeland, becoming the figurhead of Metis rights and culture, rising up against the injustice occuring een after Manitoba was established, and most importanly, and somehow the most tragic,
If Napoleon betrayed the revolution, then he betrayed the ideals of Liberty, equality and fraternity. For it is ideals rather than realities that Napoleon allegedly betrayed. The reality of the French revolution is 8 periods of constant change and successions of policies and leaders, with each new leader and party bringing amendments to the revolution. Napoleon’s “coupd’e`tat of 18 brumaire was an insurance against both Jacobin revolution and Royalist restoration.” The French people expected Napoleon to bring back peace, order and to consolidate the political and social conquests of the Revolution. Napoleon considered these conquests to be “the sacred rights of property, equality and liberty.” If Napoleon gained power with the promise of upholding the principals of the French Revolution how did he betray the revolution? Many historians argue that Napoleon was an effective but ambitious leader. This ambition led to a dictatorship, which they consider Napoleons ultimate betrayal. However other Historians such as Tombs and Furet see Napoleon’s regime as “the most convincing though temporary solution to the political and ideological problems bequeathed by the Revolution.” Napoleons dictatorship can also be considered a natural progression from the authoritarian nature of the French revolution. One idea is that is undebatable is - if Napoleon betrayed the French Revolution, this means that his actions, motives and policies were disloyal to the Revolutionary ideals of Liberty, equality and Fraternity.
Some people may claim that the Sons of Liberty were trying to be patriots, but I believe that they were terrorists. The definition of a terrorist is a person who uses or advocates the use of violence or threats to intimidate for a political purpose. The Sons of Liberty used violence by using tar and goose feathers to force people to do things for the revolution, or even to intimate governors and tax officials refusing to carry out the plans of parliament. To be honest, the various actions that took place worked for the most part. All the actions that took place mostly forced governors to hide in 1766. This mean that the Sons of Liberty actions were working! There is no doubt that they were not terrorists.