0
I'm guessing he is using it at the St Boniface Cathedral in Winnipeg, but I would not recommend looking for it. Old spirits will rise and the Rebellions will begin again if Riel is disturbed.This time Canada will lose it's colonies because you can't kill the army of the dead. Or maybe people would just get upset.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why was Louis Riel guilty of treason I need a valid argument for a grade 8 Canadian history project it is for a mock trial of Louis riels trial i am the prosecutor against riel?
billy goat
Is Louis riel a hero or a traitor?
Riel is both a hero and a traitor.Louis Riel is often considered a hero, especially among Métis and aboriginal people who imagine him as a racially motivated leader of a race war. Among some of them he is raised almost to the level of godhood, and this is the version often imparted in school textbooks. To many in Quebec he is a hero because he was French-speaking and stood up to English Canadians.It is also fair to point out that in the Red River Rebellion of 1869, Riel's government was formed in a settled and established community, and stood for the interests of all of the people who were settled there. It was not established just for the Métis, but for everyone. They had clear and coherent demands, almost all of which were granted when Manitoba became a province. Riel was such a popular leader in Manitoba that he was three times elected to Parliament even though he could not attend. He is rightly viewed as a hero by Manitobans.The Northwest Rebellion of 1885 was another story. The rebels' demands were not coherent, the objectives of their aboriginal allies were even less so, and Riel had an expressed intent to overthrow the government of Canada as a whole. (He had ideas about himself as being divinely appointed which we won't go into here) Louis Riel was a Canadian; he was born and raised in what was in 1885 the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were territories under the administration of the Dominion Government.Therefore there can be no doubt that in trying to overthrow the government of his own country by force of arms he committed the crime of treason and was a traitor. Nobody seriously doubts that he committed the acts of treason; debates about whether he was wrongfully convicted generally focus on the possibility that he may have been entitled to the benefit of an insanity defence.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The above answer is but one to the question.When it comes to Canadian history there is rarely one correct answer. This is because Canada is a Confederation of many Nations, each with many Cultures and each of those Nations and Cultures with their own history of what is today the Confederation of Canada.For many Canadians this role of many Nations is first noticed when they learn about Louis Riel. They ask the question themselves. Riel? Hero? Rebel? Traitor? Resistence fighter? Freedom fighter?It depends on who you are, your culture, your nationality, even your political views on the rights of indigenous peoples (indigenous being used here to refer to those living on a land before colonization) or the right of an individual to have a say in how they are governed.To understand some of these histories as they relate to Riel it helps to understand the history of Canada. A look at a map of Canada before Confederation and just after Confederation shows that "Canada" was, and still is in many ways, a small geographical area along the St. Lawrence River, with Upper Canada becoming Ontario and Lower Canada becoming Quebec.Even with the addition of another Eastern North American British Colony the Canada of 1867 covered less than 10% of the Canada we see on modern maps.The majority of Canada was transferred from Britain and purchased from the Hudson Bay Company after Confederation.Canada tries very hard to project the image that pre-Confederation Canada outside of Southern Quebec and Southern Ontario was empty of people and the few that where there were just "Indians" (considered lesser people with fewer rights not worthy of concern).In the very few cases where there may have been some who were not Indian the Canadian position was that they welcomed colonisation by Canada.Riel shows this view of history to be very questionable.There were people on the lands purchased by Canada and they were not all the less worthy "Indians" as portrayed by Canada and it's new Confederation.There were in fact many different peoples and cultures living in, on and off the lands purchased and acquired by Canada. These peoples were not given standing or consideration during the negotiations that lead to Canada claiming dominion over them and the land they considered their home. Worst yet most did not unquestioningly welcome their new masters.Ask yourself how you would feel if your family farm or business was visited by someone claiming they were your new master and that you will now have to pay taxes? Taxes that would be sent thousands of miles away to a government you did not choose and as it turned out you would never be given equal representation in.The fact is most people living in what is now Western Canada had concerns with colonisation by Canada and while for some those concerns could be addressed with being given proper representation for others nothing less than freedom was acceptable.Canada had to "manage" these and other political issues to ensure it was and is seen as the only rightful ruler over people who might otherwise be seen as having the same rights to self determination being claimed by Canada.The term Rebel is an example of the ongoing attempt to spin the events such that Canada is seen as the rightful ruler. These people are considered "rebels" by Canada because Canada claims right of dominion over them.A more objective view would see them as part of a Resistance to Colonisation.Even the Northwest "Rebellion" can be seen as part of that resistance because Canada had been negotiating in bad faith when they got some to agree to the province of Manitoba. Today we have letters from John A giving some details to that bad faith negotiation though we need only look at the results of the concessions given by Canada in 1870 including the promise that people could keep their land that Canada had little intent of holding to their end of the bargain.The resistance to colonisation by Canada did not end in 1870 and neither did the colonisation.Neither has Canada's attempt to justify their use of force and other colonisation methods to force their sovereignty over peoples who today most would say had every right to decide for themselves their own political and cultural future.We can see more of the spin or political managing by using the term Metis to describe Riel. Riel's claim to Metis by blood is tenuous, one distant ancestor. Would you define yourself by the culture of one of your great grandparents? The only one different than all other ancestors and different from the culture your parents raised you in? Maybe if it was advantagous but otherwise not likely.The term Metis as used by Canada was meant as a slur and was used to tell its citizens that Riel was not the White French Canadian farmer he and his family appeared to be.This was very important because Riels family was in fact just that. French Canadian settlers who had been farming land along the Red River for many decades. A look at Riel's parents, where they lived, how they made a living, where they went to Church, where Riel grew up, lived and studied, paints a very different picture than the one that Canada paints.Riel was French and Canada could not risk been seen by the French in Quebec as using force against one of their own. The Confederation and promises of French minority rights in the new Confederation was much too fragile to handle that truth. Today we refer to Riel as Metis even though future historians will identify him as French first, particularly after they consider Riel's views on aboriginal religion and culture.The story of Riel, his resistance and Canada's violent response, is the pathway to those wanting to learn more about Western Canadain history. The story of Canada using troops to force colonisation and leaving in place a paramilitary force, today's RCMP, to control ongoing resistance while using mass immigration to swamp pre-colonisation cultures has yet to be told as any other historical event should be. Someday it will be told to explain why Western Canada contributes more per capita taxes and has less representation and services than Eastern Canadians.Unless of course Canada continues to write Western Canadian history. Then it will never be told and Canadian history will remain comfortably simple.
Should riel have killed Thomas Scott?
Riel did not kill Scott. He was killed by firing squad after being convicted of a capital offense by a court with 7 judges, 5 of which agreed with the execution. But Riel could have stopped it and he did not. In fact he is recorded as saying that "Canada must respect us." We look at history as if there was only ever one path for it to take but this isn't how history is created. Riel could not see the future. Without the ability to see the future Riel could not tell that Canada was prepared to invade and take land and lives regardless of how moral or justified they were. Taking a life was the act of a legitimate government. A government of the people. The very same legitimacy would be claimed by Canada for killing Riel even though they did not have the backing, support, or votes of the people. From a government point of view there is no reason to not have Scott killed if he was guilty. Was Scott guilty of the charges? It is interesting that Canada, the victors that label Riel with Scotts murder, rarely challenge Scotts guilt. Clearly he was guilty. He was a threat to many people, and the government. If he had carried on in Canada as he did in Rupert's Land or Red River, he could have easily been convicted and faced the same fate. Should Riel have stepped in and prevented the execution as he had done with Boulton? No. Only hindsight suggests Riels government should have accepted the revolt, and threats. On the other hand........ The trial was less than fair, even if Scott was guilty and Riel's government did not need to exercise the ultimate power to prove it's legitimacy. In fact doing so may have undermined it's authority. Scott could have been banished or shackled in solitary where he would have presented no threat and still represented the power of the peoples government.
What was Louis riels crime?
he went to Canada and bought all of Manitoba
What is Louis riels moms name?
Julie Lagimodière
What was Louis riels mistake?
Listening to his voices and not his general.
How many people were at Louis riels trial?
There were eight members on the jury at Louis Riel's trial.
Does anyone show me Louis Riels Letter that warned William Mcdougall not to enter Red River?
ya
Did anything tragic happen Louis Riels life?
The most tragic aspect of Louis Riel's life is that he was convicted of treason and was executed by the Canadian government.
What was Louis riels culture like?
Mostly French Canadian but living in Western Canada he had some influences from the local Cree, Scottish and English.
Why was Louis Riel guilty of treason I need a valid argument for a grade 8 Canadian history project it is for a mock trial of Louis riels trial i am the prosecutor against riel?
billy goat
How many US dollars is 1000 Canbodia riels?
798,564,321,642,567,123.
What is the name of the cambodian money?
Cambodian money is called Riel. Exchange rate is about 4000 Riels to 1 US dollar.
What qualities did Louis Riels have?
He was a part of Canadian history. As in the Red River rebellion uprising. Very good leadership qualities for leading the Metis for rights. Also rivals to Mr. John . A. Mac Donald the first prime minister of Canada. other Qualities include : Proud of his race ( obvious really he was half Metis half French) , and united poelple(solved problems between the settlers in the red river settlement). Thoses were just the major ones. for more info on Louis Reil try looking him up on canadahistory.com .
What is the cambodian currency?
The official currency is the Riel, however the dollar is pretty much the main currency. Riels are known to be given as change for small items. Some places only accept dollars.
