Oops...I guess I missed this. And away we go!
Virgil wrote:
Alright. First of all, yes the Metis did have a trial in 1869 and Thomas Scott was executed.
Their “trial” was bogus (an all Metis jury in a Provisional Government? Please), their legitimacy was questionable and Riel’s goal was more in line with a leader trying to make an example than someone geared towards doling out justice.
Quote:
“There is no reason for that to be considered violent unless you are some kind of ignorant racsist who has never really looked into the event”
That’s nonsensical mush – I’d be very careful in what colourful rhetoric you stoop to and you may want to follow your own “advice” as so far it screams projection
Quote:
“Scott sexually harassed a thirteen year old girl, and severely beat an unsuspecting prison guard. He frequently aacted violently himself, and was considered a threat to anyone who was not White Anglophone. The Government tried him, and saw fit he be executed.
He was tried for “insubordination” after he participated in Schultz’s raid – an attack that was in response to Riel’s seizure of Fort Garry and his subsequent capture of Scott and others (who were being held captive) in raid. Either you omitted the relevant historical information – which fails to question Riel’s actions and legitimacy – or you were unaware of the actual events. Either way, your previous comments are coming back to bite you.
Quote:
“I would however like to ask you why you do not criticize the Canadians for not having Metis in their jury when Riel was executed?”
And I’ll be looking for your assessment of the All Metis jury for Thomas Scott. Whoops. You kinda’ walked into that one.
Quote:
“Nextly, Riel did take up arms in the Rebellion in 1885”
Yep. That was my point – he was violent.
Quote:
“But he was not a traitor, the Canadians had proved themselves as traitors in their failure to uphold seven of the terms made in the Manitoba act. The Canadians also failed to send a Dominion official to distribute land grants to the Metis who was able to communicate with them, despite several petitions sent by the Metis to Ottawa. For this reason Metis were frequently chased off there land by the Mounted Police. Wich brings us to Duck Lake. Gabriel Dumont robbed the Eden store with several other Metis as well as setting up an ambush for the Mounties. In doing so he also chased the Mounties out of the Batoche area and was able to feed several of the Metis families wich were starving. I would thus enjoy an enlightenment on your opinion of how taking up arms against a foreigne people -- who for the past six years had simply pretended that the Metis didn't exist, and who had visions of a northwest dominated by foreign people and culture-- is treachery.”
Oh, I’ll enlighten you, but that’s a tall order. Firstly, how can Canadians be foreigners if Manitoba was brought into Confederation? That’s either patently dumb or an attempt needle the issue with silly semantics – stick to facts. And before you rally to the Provisional Government of Saskatchewan argument consider the fact that Riel has little support this time and this calls his government’s legitimacy into question. Secondly, I’m not absolving the Dominion some guilt in its land grants, cultural insensitivities or ramped up military presents (although one could easily justify the contemporary argument that it was to also discourage American encroachment on Canadian territory), but don’t trying pushing historical revisionism by somehow taking a Riel apologist role. It won’t wash. Dumont took up arms against the Canadian government - despite your rationalization it was violent (so was Riel when he took ammunition from Batoche) and this was my salient point. Don’t like it? I don’t care – take your issues up with history.
Quote:
“True, Riel was elected into parliament, he was however, immediatly and unanimously voted out for the "murder" Thomas Scott.”
He wasn’t “voted out”. He wasn’t granted amnesty for his egregious miscarriage of justice (come on, capital murder for insubordination?) and his actions during the Red River Rebellion and accepted a monetary political bribe to go into voluntary exile. Why omit this?
Quote:
“And despite the fact that he was elected for the St. Boniface area, he never became a Canadian citezen, and was soon exiled.”
He was elected and he accepted exile.
Quote:
“I can asure you that the Metis never wanted to be Canadian, take a look at my signature”
Really? Then why did Riel’s Provisional Government negotiate with Macdonald over the creation of Manitoba? This was done in violation to the Metis’ wishes? In fact, by did they also object to the Dominion’s acceptance of most of Riel’s List of Rights too? I guess the native name was also a slap in the face as well.
Quote:
“The Metis did however understand that though they could temporarily avoid Canadian conquest in order to attain equal rights within the Dominion-- they could never ahve survived a long war with either Canada or America, whom they also deeply considered joining.”
This seems at odds with your previous historically curious assertion
Quote:
“Prior to 1870, wherest the Metis forcibly attracted the attention of Canada, they had no say in their fate.”
And AFTER 1870 did they have a say? Needling won’t help you as my point still stands
Quote:
“It is not historical fact that Riel had a mental illness, it is not found in Canadian school curriculums and the only accusation of such I have ever read is in Woodcock's Gabriel Dumont.”
Wrong. Countless historical sources – from Brune, Gilmore and many others – cite a serious mental illness as an issue with Riel. Read more – he was briefly institutionalized – and even the Dictionary of Canadian Biography identifies his obsessive religious (he believed himself a prophet) behaviour as mentally unhealthy. Sorry, it is found in the Provincial school curriculum as its important historical information.
Quote:
“And to further suggest that Riel was not a supporter of violence: When the Provisional Government of the Saskatchewan decided on military resistance to Canadian expansion Nolin, whom the Metis owed much to their attitude towards the Canadians, fled to Prince Albert.”
Riel was violent. It’s been established by his execution of Scott, his previous seizure of Fort Garry, his refusal to lay down arms at Mctavish’s request, his subsequent actions and involvement in the North-West Rebellion (his plan to attack Ft. Carlton, his desire to use violence against federal troops) all point to a very violent existence. Sorry, you’ve yet to provide anything that seriously challenges history.
