Previous  1  2

Confused you too? I reread it a couple of times, just to make sure I hadn't had a stroke.

   

Quote:


Louis Riel was a rebel, and in the context of the time and situation he was right to be hung for treason.


man ! we are so different! and you guys are wondering why we want to seperate...

   

I’m sure you weren’t having a stroke, but evidently we were both witnessing a grand mal seizure.

   

   

Please define "we"

Don't you mean "you"

   

HOLY NECROPOSTING BATMAN!

   

Quebecers as a hole. To us Louis Riel was a Hero for fighting for his country men, and the fact that they hung him still stains the Federal Government in our history books. He wanted to create Manitoba as another francophone province of this country(it was in majority french metis btw) but his death, and promotion of massive anglophone migration killed that(also Quebecs feeling of alienation from the rest of Canada). More or so, the fact that the federal government never allowed Francophones from Quebec to migrate to the west, etc. Alot of things Macdonald did stains his name in Quebec. He is no hero to us.

That period pretty much started Quebec alienation.

   

1885 was a long time ago, and wasn't he supposed to be mentally ill?

   

This seems short on historical accuracy and long on bias and agenda pushing (Riel’s execution “started” Quebec alienation?). Riel’s actions were clearly traitorous and aggressive and he was dealt a legitimate contemporary brand of justice.

   

Yep. Most credible historians conclude that he certainly suffered from some sort of mental illness. He had sporadic outbursts and episodes and was temporarily institutionalized in an asylum. Often the Gallic nationalists seem to omit this rather important character trait when they romanticize Riel (that and his execution of Scott and his subsequent violent actions).

   

I said this period, as alot of other decisions by the feds alienated Quebecers.

   

I could be wrong but none of this seems to be making sense anymore . What would the Metis say ? This is as confusing as saying that Columbus discovered America .

   

I'm sorry but I can't see it that way, it seems to me that Quebecer's alienated Quebecer's.

   

“Period” still seems a stretch, as many historians would counter that these episodes (that includes the Manitoba School Question) were merely points of contention in a long string of Quebec/Canada cultural issues that stretches further back in time than late 1800s. This still doesn’t alter the fact that Riel’s death isn’t as myopic as amateurish students of history would suggest – its complexity is addressed in good history books.

   

The boringness of the history of the Canadian West I think is in part attributable to the sanitization of that history.

Riel is an excellent example. There is a lot there, not only him as a person, or what he did, or how he ended up, but how the whole story was tied up in a long and fairly heated struggle by Toronto and Montreal for control of the region, -- which was the background to all of it.

If histories were written that told the story really set in a proper context, there's a whole lot more there to tell.

I think that by the turn of the last century there was already a strong push to minimize what had happened, just so both sides in Eastern Canada could put a lot of the animosity behind them.

Which is a fine and appropriate thing to do, but it has left blanks in Canada's history.

I don't know if Canada can yet really look at it's own colorful past.

   

Previous  1  2