[Tman1]

Not to turn into a separatist thread but in the case of separatists I would label them traitors to the country. Intentionally trying to destroy the country for their own gains. Riel faught for his people, I respect that but at the cost of ones sanity and he did I might add get exiled which apparently didnt teach him anything, is not worth the price.

[DerbyX]

You will get absolutely no argument from me that I think the seperatists are traitors! They are trying to tear apart a nation that their ancestors helped to create. You are killing me though. They will say that THEY ARE fighting for their people. Believe me, I hate that with me saying that last statement opitunum or LBP would quote that wil a "thumbs up" or something but that is the position the seperatists will take. Again I state that I am in total agreement with you on that point though!!

[WLDB]

I see Louis Riel as a great man who stood up for his people. A hero. I dont see him as a traitor as he was never Canadian, nor did he want to be. It was forced on him and his people. He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line. If it werent for the execution of Thomas Scott, Riel may have succeded without firing a shot.

[Lord-Beaverbrook]

WLDB WLDB:

I see Louis Riel as a great man who stood up for his people. A hero. I dont see him as a traitor as he was never Canadian, nor did he want to be. It was forced on him and his people. He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line. If it werent for the execution of Thomas Scott, Riel may have succeded without firing a shot.

I agree and am proud to say I am hung like Louis Riel!

[Mustang1]

WLDB WLDB:

I see Louis Riel as a great man who stood up for his people. A hero. I dont see him as a traitor as he was never Canadian, nor did he want to be. It was forced on him and his people. He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line. If it werent for the execution of Thomas Scott, Riel may have succeded without firing a shot.

Riel was a hero? Uhh…okay, I’m glad it’s that simple. What legitimacy did Riel possess when he summarily killed Scott? And could explain exactly how he tried to accomplish his political (I noticed you omitted the psychological issues that he possessed) goals through peaceful means (I’m interested in how the rebellions are addressed)?

[WLDB]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

WLDB WLDB:

I see Louis Riel as a great man who stood up for his people. A hero. I dont see him as a traitor as he was never Canadian, nor did he want to be. It was forced on him and his people. He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line. If it werent for the execution of Thomas Scott, Riel may have succeded without firing a shot.

Riel was a hero? Uhh…okay, I’m glad it’s that simple. What legitimacy did Riel possess when he summarily killed Scott? And could explain exactly how he tried to accomplish his political (I noticed you omitted the psychological issues that he possessed) goals through peaceful means (I’m interested in how the rebellions are addressed)?

He was elected to represent his people but was not allowed to take office. That was peacefull. Scott was a loudmouth, racist and a drunk. I think they were wrong to execute him. Given Scotts behaviour im surprised he wasnt killed sooner. Riel had a provisional government which gave him all the legitimacy he needed. At least in the eyes of the people he led.

[Stellar]

$1:

despite delusions of grandure, he was a great man. He fought for his people and what he believed in. He stood up for his people's rights and helped make Canada what it is today.

Good post, but T Man has some pretty good points too. I do think he was cought up in a mess but other than that he did a good job for Canada.

[Mustang1]

WLDB WLDB:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

WLDB WLDB:

I see Louis Riel as a great man who stood up for his people. A hero. I dont see him as a traitor as he was never Canadian, nor did he want to be. It was forced on him and his people. He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line. If it werent for the execution of Thomas Scott, Riel may have succeded without firing a shot.

Riel was a hero? Uhh…okay, I’m glad it’s that simple. What legitimacy did Riel possess when he summarily killed Scott? And could explain exactly how he tried to accomplish his political (I noticed you omitted the psychological issues that he possessed) goals through peaceful means (I’m interested in how the rebellions are addressed)?

He was elected to represent his people but was not allowed to take office. That was peacefull. Scott was a loudmouth, racist and a drunk. I think they were wrong to execute him. Given Scotts behaviour im surprised he wasnt killed sooner. Riel had a provisional government which gave him all the legitimacy he needed. At least in the eyes of the people he led.

Firstly, if Riel was peaceful, how do you explain his seizure of Fort Gary (didn’t this have the potential for bloodshed), his largely illegal execution of Scott (why not explain what Scott’s charges were and why he was killed?) and his deliberate act of insurrection (North-West Rebellion). Peaceful? History seems to disagree with that erroneous supposition.

$1:

”He was elected to represent his people but was not allowed to take office”

Yep, and do you know why he was denied his seat in Parliament by Macdonald?

$1:

“Scott was a loudmouth, racist and a drunk.”

Point? Riel talked to God – we can play the fallacious argument game all day, but you still didn’t address the actual particulars surrounding Scott’s execution.

$1:

“Riel had a provisional government which gave him all the legitimacy he needed.”

Really? Hmm…that may come back to haunt you later.

[WLDB]

I dont remember the exact charges and ive already said that I disagreed with the execution of Scott.

[Mustang1]

Fair enough, but you still didn’t address, “if Riel was peaceful, how do you explain his seizure of Fort Gary (didn’t this have the potential for bloodshed), his largely illegal execution of Scott and his deliberate act of insurrection (North-West Rebellion).” How is that peaceful?

[WLDB]

That insurrection happened because the Canadian government would not listen. Riel was in the states and probably wouldnt have goten involved if no one went to get him.

As for Fort Garry, of course there was risk for bloodshed. But there wasnt.

[Mustang1]

WLDB WLDB:

That insurrection happened because the Canadian government would not listen. Riel was in the states and probably wouldnt have goten involved if no one went to get him.

As for Fort Garry, of course there was risk for bloodshed. But there wasnt.

You originally claimed, “He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line,” and I’ve presented several objective historical instances that clearly show Riel to be a rather violent individual. Your initial supposition was historically invalid. That was my point

$1:

“That insurrection happened because the Canadian government would not listen”

Huh? So Riel’s (I guess now you are indeed acknowledging his violent tendencies, while still omitting his obvious megalomaniac personality – he thought he was a messiah, for Pete’s sake) traitorous uprising (one that he instigated) is justified because “the Canadian government would not listen” (some historians have found fault in Riel’s execution of Scott as it inflamed an already combustible atmosphere)? What? How does this alter his “violent” actions? That was the point, wasn’t it? I challenged your historically invalid (and over simplistic) notion that Riel was a “hero” that tried to achieve his goals through peaceful means. He didn’t. Unless you can prove otherwise, Riel was a violent (read: not peaceful) deeply disturbed individual whose historical legacy is forever tarnished by his controversial actions.

[ShepherdsDog]

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

However, his largest stumbling block was the fact that he was Metis, a people who existed in the limbo between the white world and the world of the native peoples. The new settlers and Canadian authorities wouldn't take him seriously because to them he was just a half breed rabble rouser. Viewing him through the eyes of a 19th century settler, he was most definitely a traitor, but a century ealier so too were Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. They however, won their conflict with the government. In today's light Riel should be seen as one of the founders for the province of Manitoba and eventually Saskatchewan.

[WLDB]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

WLDB WLDB:

That insurrection happened because the Canadian government would not listen. Riel was in the states and probably wouldnt have goten involved if no one went to get him.

As for Fort Garry, of course there was risk for bloodshed. But there wasnt.

You originally claimed, “He tried doing it peacefully, but then Ottawa tried to force them to fall in line,” and I’ve presented several objective historical instances that clearly show Riel to be a rather violent individual. Your initial supposition was historically invalid. That was my point

$1:

“That insurrection happened because the Canadian government would not listen”

Huh? So Riel’s (I guess now you are indeed acknowledging his violent tendencies, while still omitting his obvious megalomaniac personality – he thought he was a messiah, for Pete’s sake) traitorous uprising (one that he instigated) is justified because “the Canadian government would not listen” (some historians have found fault in Riel’s execution of Scott as it inflamed an already combustible atmosphere)? What? How does this alter his “violent” actions? That was the point, wasn’t it? I challenged your historically invalid (and over simplistic) notion that Riel was a “hero” that tried to achieve his goals through peaceful means. He didn’t. Unless you can prove otherwise, Riel was a violent (read: not peaceful) deeply disturbed individual whose historical legacy is forever tarnished by his controversial actions.

Riel stopped the Canadian surveyers without violence. He set up the "Metis National Commitee" to speak for the Metis. He told Ottawa that any attempt by Canada to assume authority would be contested. He was ignored and a Lietenant Governer who couldnt even speak french was given control. After getting rid of the Lieutenant Governer Riel allowed anglophones to join him to help come up with a course of action. All peacefull so far.
His provisional government tried negotiating with Ottawa peacefully. It failed.

He could not be a traiter to Canada as he was never Canadian. Nor did he or his people want to be. They were sold to Canada without having a say. It all comes down to them wanting representation.

[Jaime_Souviens]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think the best term to describe Riel is tragic. He was truly concerned with the future of his people and what their place within the new nation of Canada. Their way of life was ending, a result of the increasing migration of English Canadians into the area. He knew it was unavoidable and wanted the best deal possible, preserving their laws and property titles. The problem was Riel, although a brilliant man, suffered from mental illness, he was delusional, apparently a manic-depressive and likely schizophrenic.

I like this, but I'll take it in a different direction....

I think he was nuts. I think he had more in common with the Branch Davidians in Waco than anything else. There are many examples of people wandering off into the frontier of Canada and the U.S. and creating various forms of millennial movements.

But the tragedy was not just his own movement, but that his story is kept alive down to today. Whoever wants to espouse the values they want to attribute to Riel, isn't there someone better to make into a hero? Isn't there something besides tragedy to honor?

What happened was tragedy, but it was also pathetic farce.

Whatever movement he's the hero of, it needs better heros.





.