• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,675
Points
1,060
Really good points by Miss Wynne. Whitewashing our history isn't going to change anything. It's not the first step on reconciliation road it's a shallow attempt to placate a small portion of society who will quickly be on to their next social crusade.

I feel like the teachers union is trying to grab spotlight with this suggestion.

The french teacher from the link supported removing Sir John A's name but backpedaled when asked about giving French-Canadian Sir Wilfrid Laurier the same treatment.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Look, Bird Gunner, your opinion is yours and I actually agree with a lot of them.

But get some basic facts right: The Metis were not there for thousands of years. They could not, as Metis are not "natives" in the same sense as the other native tribes of North America. They are by definition a mixed race resulting from union of French Settlers/explorers of the great plains with local natives that became an independent tribal organization. That arrival of French settlers/explorers started in the late 1500's early 1600'. So they were only there for at most 200 years at the time of the rebellion.

Perhaps it wasn't worded well, but it was meant to say that the natives had been there thousands of years and the metis had been there more recently (+/- the arrival of the HBC/NWC/Compagnies de la Franches Marine circa 1750-ish).

Agree that they are not native in the traditional, but there were "more native" than the British/Canadians who arrived later to survey once the queen had given royal ascension to the transfer of the Northwest territories to Canada. Britain still had no real presence in the area, and Canada less so, so calling Riel a "traitor to Canada", a country he and the rest of the metis living in now Winnipeg had no or little association with for the 200 years of existence, is strong IMHO.

 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,359
Points
1,260
Jarnhamar said:
... I feel like the teachers union is trying to grab spotlight with this suggestion ...
And it would also be interesting to know how much input the membership had as a whole into the idea, versus The (Union) Centre doing something "on behalf of."

Jarnhamar said:
... The french teacher from the link supported removing Sir John A's name but backpedaled when asked about giving French-Canadian Sir Wilfrid Laurier the same treatment.
Funny that ... #MoreThanOneHistory
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,703
Points
1,040
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Perhaps it wasn't worded well, but it was meant to say that the natives had been there thousands of years and the metis had been there more recently (+/- the arrival of the HBC/NWC/Compagnies de la Franches Marine circa 1750-ish).

Agree that they are not native in the traditional, but there were "more native" than the British/Canadians who arrived later to survey once the queen had given royal ascension to the transfer of the Northwest territories to Canada. Britain still had no real presence in the area, and Canada less so, so calling Riel a "traitor to Canada", a country he and the rest of the metis living in now Winnipeg had no or little association with for the 200 years of existence, is strong IMHO.

In 1869 during the Red River Rebellion, Riel was advocating for rights for the Metis prior to the imminent transfer to Canada. He was an advocate for incorporation with Canada partially as a defence to US incursions because enshrining Metis recognition and French language and Catholic worship rights were more likely that way.

Manitoba became a province and the remainder of St Rupert's land a territory in 1870.

The revolution for which he was tried was not the 1869 Red River Rebellion but the 1885 North West Rebellion by which time the federal government had enshrined it's dominion over Manitoba and much of what is now Saskatchewan by way of treaties with the various First Nations that had aboriginal claims to the lands. The Metis as such had no aboriginal land rights in Manitoba and only the limited rights to be assigned 1.4 million acres in Manitoba pursuant to the 1870 Manitoba Act.
See: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12888/index.do

The Metis who were the foundation for the 1885 rebellion in the North West Territories (principally that portion which became Saskatchewan) were very recent immigrants to it having moved there from Manitoba in the previous decade. Riel himself had a turbulent life which went from being elected to the House of Commons to living in exile in the US.

The land in the North West Territories (within which the recent Metis migration lived) were aboriginal lands but had been ceded to Canada through treaties by 1877. see here: http://www.otc.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/treatymap_large.pdf.

The conclusion to much of this is that Canada had legal dominion over the lands in question and that the lands the Metis fought over had been ceded by their true aboriginal stakeholders a number of years before the rebellion.

Riel once again set up a provisional government as he had in 1869 (but this time on Canadian lands instead of aboriginal/company lands) in order to negotiate an agreement with Canada but had greatly miscalculated the government's reaction to this (In 1869 Canada was newly formed and much concerned by Quebec support for Riel while in 1885 the country was much more secure, had a railway going west and had less of a Quebec problem).

IMHO this was a rebellion and Riel a traitor (or by virtue of his more recent US residency--1877 to 1885 during which time he became a naturalized citizen of the US--a foreign invader)

:cheers:
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
:goodpost:

And I don't disagree with his fate for that matter either.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
405
Points
880
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Perhaps it wasn't worded well, but it was meant to say that the natives had been there thousands of years and the metis had been there more recently (+/- the arrival of the HBC/NWC/Compagnies de la Franches Marine circa 1750-ish).

Agree that they are not native in the traditional, but there were "more native" than the British/Canadians who arrived later to survey once the queen had given royal ascension to the transfer of the Northwest territories to Canada. Britain still had no real presence in the area, and Canada less so, so calling Riel a "traitor to Canada", a country he and the rest of the metis living in now Winnipeg had no or little association with for the 200 years of existence, is strong IMHO.

I apologize Bird Gunner. I certainly misunderstood your meaning even though it was plainly there.

But there you go again in rebuttal: The Compagnies Franches de la Marine are a not companies in the sense of commercial corporation, but as military fighting companies: They are the French colonial troops, equivalent to the Royal Marines of the era. They never forayed outside of what is now known as the Province of Quebec.

I think you had the Compagnie des Cent Associés in mind  [:D

Sorry, couldn't resist. Keep up the good work  :salute:
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I apologize Bird Gunner. I certainly misunderstood your meaning even though it was plainly there.

But there you go again in rebuttal: The Compagnies Franches de la Marine are a not companies in the sense of commercial corporation, but as military fighting companies: They are the French colonial troops, equivalent to the Royal Marines of the era. They never forayed outside of what is now known as the Province of Quebec.

I think you had the Compagnie des Cent Associés in mind  [:D

Sorry, couldn't resist. Keep up the good work  :salute:

Actually, les compagnies franche de la marine served throughout New France, Isle Royale (Cape Breton), Louisiana, and the Caribbean until the end of New France. By the fall of Quebec, they were more akin to colonial regulars than marines (the name means "Free Companies of the navy").

Depending on how your french is, the following is a good link that details the employment of les compagnies.

http://www.ameriquebec.net/actualites/2009/11/03-lhistoire-des-compagnies-franches-de-la-marine-en-nouvelle-france.qc

The units were generally employed throughout the empire, including in austere trading posts such as Fort Dauphin and Fort La Reine in now day Dauphin and Portage la Prairie. They also had a fort in Winnipeg, but i can't recall off the top of my head what it was. These soldiers and traders interacted widely with the natives since they were thousands of km from the nearest french unit. Notably, all of the units in the west were recalled at the start of the French and Indian wars to defend Quebec and never returned. However, a number of their former bases were taken by the British companies once they moved into the area as they were generally well strategically placed.

There's also a good book by Allan Greer called, "The people of New France" that details the compagnies role in the life of french society in la nouvelle france. In particular, it details how commissions in the officer ranks were coveted by the new nobility of New France, which meant that often young men waited for commissions and started their careers in the ranks. It also talks about how postings to the western sea, the prairies, and other locales was a key draw for many.

So no, the units certainly served outside of Quebec and into the west/Red River area, certainly interacted with the natives, and certainly (with the traders) left a distinct french mark in the area that remained until Riel arose.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
FJAG said:
In 1869 during the Red River Rebellion, Riel was advocating for rights for the Metis prior to the imminent transfer to Canada. He was an advocate for incorporation with Canada partially as a defence to US incursions because enshrining Metis recognition and French language and Catholic worship rights were more likely that way.

Manitoba became a province and the remainder of St Rupert's land a territory in 1870.

The revolution for which he was tried was not the 1869 Red River Rebellion but the 1885 North West Rebellion by which time the federal government had enshrined it's dominion over Manitoba and much of what is now Saskatchewan by way of treaties with the various First Nations that had aboriginal claims to the lands. The Metis as such had no aboriginal land rights in Manitoba and only the limited rights to be assigned 1.4 million acres in Manitoba pursuant to the 1870 Manitoba Act.
See: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12888/index.do

The Metis who were the foundation for the 1885 rebellion in the North West Territories (principally that portion which became Saskatchewan) were very recent immigrants to it having moved there from Manitoba in the previous decade. Riel himself had a turbulent life which went from being elected to the House of Commons to living in exile in the US.

The land in the North West Territories (within which the recent Metis migration lived) were aboriginal lands but had been ceded to Canada through treaties by 1877. see here: http://www.otc.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/treatymap_large.pdf.

The conclusion to much of this is that Canada had legal dominion over the lands in question and that the lands the Metis fought over had been ceded by their true aboriginal stakeholders a number of years before the rebellion.

Riel once again set up a provisional government as he had in 1869 (but this time on Canadian lands instead of aboriginal/company lands) in order to negotiate an agreement with Canada but had greatly miscalculated the government's reaction to this (In 1869 Canada was newly formed and much concerned by Quebec support for Riel while in 1885 the country was much more secure, had a railway going west and had less of a Quebec problem).

IMHO this was a rebellion and Riel a traitor (or by virtue of his more recent US residency--1877 to 1885 during which time he became a naturalized citizen of the US--a foreign invader)

:cheers:

I agree with what you are saying, but still find "traitor" to be a strong term, since the North west rebellion was rooted in the upheavel of the Red River Rebellion. The displaced Metis were largely in a bad place- the bison were nearly killed off, the fur trading jobs they had relied on had largely disappeared, and they hadn't received any indication that their land rights would be respected by the GoC (which, to be fair, wasn't going to happen and didn't happen). Riel was brought back in 1884 as a metis voice since he had the highest "star power" in the hope that they woudn't continue to be ignored by the government. The revolutionary bill of rights included such things as, "That the Land Department of the Dominion Government be administered as far as practicable from Winnipeg, so that the settlers may not be compelled as heretofore to go to Ottawa for the settlement of questions in dispute between them and the land commissioner."... Pretty strong stuff.

For the battles- At Duck Lake the RCMP fired the first shots after extended negotiations and the actions at Frog Lake/Battleford by Big Bear were not really related to Riel, with Riel convincing the Metis to not follow the RCMP for future battles.

All that to say that the metis and Riel did take arms against the Canadian government, so meet the definition of "traitors". The complicated aspect is that the metis and natives were in fact being stripped of the rights that had been given to them after the Red River Rebellion. They were in fact going to continue to lose those rights and the Canadian government was asked several times to discuss the issue but preferred to stay silent. The metis and natives also never viewed themselves as Canadian and never took on this identity, staying more as a conquered people than willing participants. In this sense the rebellion is reasonable in much the same way that Scottish, Dutch, and other European rebellions against other powers are now viewed. That's why I still dont see Riel as a real traitor as he and the others weren't fighting against a power that was recognized. History's complicated.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,703
Points
1,040
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I agree with what you are saying, but still find "traitor" to be a strong term, since the North west rebellion was rooted in the upheavel of the Red River Rebellion. The displaced Metis were largely in a bad place- the bison were nearly killed off, the fur trading jobs they had relied on had largely disappeared, and they hadn't received any indication that their land rights would be respected by the GoC (which, to be fair, wasn't going to happen and didn't happen). Riel was brought back in 1884 as a metis voice since he had the highest "star power" in the hope that they woudn't continue to be ignored by the government. The revolutionary bill of rights included such things as, "That the Land Department of the Dominion Government be administered as far as practicable from Winnipeg, so that the settlers may not be compelled as heretofore to go to Ottawa for the settlement of questions in dispute between them and the land commissioner."... Pretty strong stuff.

For the battles- At Duck Lake the RCMP fired the first shots after extended negotiations and the actions at Frog Lake/Battleford by Big Bear were not really related to Riel, with Riel convincing the Metis to not follow the RCMP for future battles.

All that to say that the metis and Riel did take arms against the Canadian government, so meet the definition of "traitors". The complicated aspect is that the metis and natives were in fact being stripped of the rights that had been given to them after the Red River Rebellion. They were in fact going to continue to lose those rights and the Canadian government was asked several times to discuss the issue but preferred to stay silent. The metis and natives also never viewed themselves as Canadian and never took on this identity, staying more as a conquered people than willing participants. In this sense the rebellion is reasonable in much the same way that Scottish, Dutch, and other European rebellions against other powers are now viewed. That's why I still dont see Riel as a real traitor as he and the others weren't fighting against a power that was recognized. History's complicated.

History is indeed complicated and I agree with much that you say above.

Where I take a different course is that I see the Metis issue and the Indian (as the term was then)  issue as two very separate ones.

The Indians were recognized by the crown as the aboriginal landholders and the crown negotiated with them to obtain title in exchange for certain benefits flowing to them from the crown. (I won't get into the argument about whether or not those dealings were honourable for the time and circumstances as I expect that's probably a couple of university courses that I don't have). By 1885 there were both economic pressure, as you indicated, and poor administration of treaties and the Cree attempted to renegotiate their treaty and when that didn't work, some rose up.

The Metis on the other hand were seeking recognition of rights which at the time the crown didn't think that they had as they were not a distinct aboriginal community with aboriginal rights. They occupied lands but with no legal status. The Metis in fact wanted to be part of the new British (later Canadian) colonies and advocated and negotiated for that in 1869. They did win concessions under the Manitoba Act (which were poorly administered) By the time of the NW Rebellion there may have been a backstory but nothing which provided a legal or justifiable right to take up arms against the crown.

Because of the treaties entered into before 1885 the Canadian crown very definitely had been recognized as the "owner" of the lands by the very aboriginals who ceded them to Canada. Citizenship was a much more fluid thing in the west at the time as one had a broad mixture of aboriginals, settlers from eastern Canada, foreign (read European) immigrants and US border jumpers. While the Metis may never technically have been Canadian citizens before 1885 they were, nonetheless, at that time, in occupation of Canadian lands and, therefore, by going into armed conflict with Canada, could be considered in open rebellion.

The term treason (or, more accurately, high treason) is a very technical one and is defined in the Criminal Code to include "everyone ...  who, in Canada ... levies war against Canada ..."  In 1885 the government charged Riel under the British Treason Act of 1351 (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1351 and here: http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/STATS/TREASON.HTM) which was a part of Canadian law and which defined "High Treason" to include "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm". The court convicted him on the basis of that act and he lost all appeals. It matters not whether or not the Metis considered themselves subjects of Canada. By virtue of Canada's legal title over the North West Territories by treaty and the fact that the Metis took up arms against the crown "within [the] realm" the act of treason was completed and thereby they were traitors.

:cheers:
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
FJAG said:
History is indeed complicated and I agree with much that you say above.

Where I take a different course is that I see the Metis issue and the Indian (as the term was then)  issue as two very separate ones.

The Indians were recognized by the crown as the aboriginal landholders and the crown negotiated with them to obtain title in exchange for certain benefits flowing to them from the crown. (I won't get into the argument about whether or not those dealings were honourable for the time and circumstances as I expect that's probably a couple of university courses that I don't have). By 1885 there were both economic pressure, as you indicated, and poor administration of treaties and the Cree attempted to renegotiate their treaty and when that didn't work, some rose up.

The Metis on the other hand were seeking recognition of rights which at the time the crown didn't think that they had as they were not a distinct aboriginal community with aboriginal rights. They occupied lands but with no legal status. The Metis in fact wanted to be part of the new British (later Canadian) colonies and advocated and negotiated for that in 1869. They did win concessions under the Manitoba Act (which were poorly administered) By the time of the NW Rebellion there may have been a backstory but nothing which provided a legal or justifiable right to take up arms against the crown.

Because of the treaties entered into before 1885 the Canadian crown very definitely had been recognized as the "owner" of the lands by the very aboriginals who ceded them to Canada. Citizenship was a much more fluid thing in the west at the time as one had a broad mixture of aboriginals, settlers from eastern Canada, foreign (read European) immigrants and US border jumpers. While the Metis may never technically have been Canadian citizens before 1885 they were, nonetheless, at that time, in occupation of Canadian lands and, therefore, by going into armed conflict with Canada, could be considered in open rebellion.

The term treason (or, more accurately, high treason) is a very technical one and is defined in the Criminal Code to include "everyone ...  who, in Canada ... levies war against Canada ..."  In 1885 the government charged Riel under the British Treason Act of 1345 (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1351 and here: http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/STATS/TREASON.HTM) which was a part of Canadian law and which defined "High Treason" to include "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm". The court convicted him on the basis of that act and he lost all appeals. It matters not whether or not the Metis considered themselves subjects of Canada. By virtue of Canada's legal title over the North West Territories by treaty and the fact that the Metis took up arms against the crown "within [the] realm" the act of treason was completed and thereby they were traitors.

:cheers:

I can tell you're a lawyer  :p

I concede the definition of traitor and perhaps read history too stoically. I think we can agree that Louis Riel, circa Red River, was not a real traitor while we can disagree about Louis Riel, circa Northwest Rebellion. Sounds like the kind of complicated history that should be enshrined on a statue to show the duality of history  :cdnsalute:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
We have been including Metis into consultations for a large project near Fort St John, they are quite pleased to be included and treated equally to the FN's. There is one recognized settlement in BC at Kelly Lake. A number of the FN's are uncomfortable at having the Metis at the table.
 

Rick Goebel

Member
Donor
Reaction score
7
Points
230
Anybody else notice that the new version of cabinet is no longer gender-balanced?  Because it's 2017?
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Rick Goebel said:
Anybody else notice that the new version of cabinet is no longer gender-balanced?  Because it's 2017?

The current cabinet is Trudeau + 15 men and 15 women.  That's the same as before, isn't it?
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,327
Points
1,360
jmt18325 said:
The current cabinet is Trudeau + 15 men and 15 women.  That's the same as before, isn't it?

One more, now. 

I guess you missed the part where the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs was split into two portfolios: the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs; and the Minister of Indigenous Services.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
WRT "Metis" -

Just for the record - metis incorporates both French speaking Roman Catholics like the Riels and Scots speaking Presbyterians like the McKays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-M%C3%A9tis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungi_Creole
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/mckay_j.shtml

Mum was often a legitimate First Nations woman while Dad was a proud subject of the Crown.

And then there was Riel.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the whole definition of Métis. I know that  Métis are persons of mixed blood (European/Aboriginal), but why do they have a distinct group at all? There are a lot of "Status Indians" in Ontario who are mixed-blood and they aren't considered Métis? Do the Métis not maintain roots to whatever tribes/bands their ancestral parents belonged to?
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,675
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the whole definition of Métis. I know that  Métis are persons of mixed blood (European/Aboriginal), but why do they have a distinct group at all? There are a lot of "Status Indians" in Ontario who are mixed-blood and they aren't considered Métis? Do the Métis not maintain roots to whatever tribes/bands their ancestral parents belonged to?

I was wondering the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top