[Mustang1]

Alexandre Alexandre:

First of all, Wolfe is not "guilty" of anything since he was not officialy charged with war crimes by any courts.

But yes, many historians categorized Wolfe as a war criminal. I already told you about Fregault. I remember clearly the way he talked about Wolfe's actions. Im not sure he used the words "war criminal", but thats what he meant. Just read him, i cant scan you his book.

Look, even Peter Shawn Taylor wrote the following in a very pro-Wolfe article he wrote for the national post:

"Yet today, Wolfe’s good name lies in tatters. Historians characterize him as a suicidal war criminal, ignorant of basic military strategy, who achieved his only victory through pure dumb luck"

"In his popular 2000 book Crucible of War, American academic Fred Anderson suggested a morose Wolfe planned the attack on Quebec as an elaborate suicide. He also fingered Wolfe for an official campaign of "rapes, scalpings, thefts and casual murders."

http://www.vigile.net/Wolfe-in-goat-s-clothing

Look even this very pro-wolfe article admit that many historians and academics described Wolfe as a war criminal. Just get over it.



Its funny that you guys tell me that im only writing opinions and propaganda when you guys dont give me any facts.

Quote mine much? The article, not written by a historian, is an examination of Wolfe's historical character, a historiography that misses the major sources. That's it. IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM, does it suggest that he was guilty of "war crimes" nor does it list these historians that charge him with such - in fact, some positive aspects are alluded to, but you leave them out. That was your claim. You've provided NOTHING, nor have you addressed why Morton or Stacey or Chartrand all seemed to err in their omission of these alleged war crimes in their work.

And you didn't read Anderson's work, all you did was ape a quote from an editorial that you deliberately searched out on your google quest. That's piss poor history.

[Mustang1]

Alexandre Alexandre:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Alexandre Alexandre:

And which historian say that Riel and the métis were a bunch of traitorous barbarians ?

"Riel was the man who, after a Kanagroo court trial, ordered the murder of a loud-mouthed Ontario Orangemen and, to boot, was a crazed religious fanatic that led two armed rebellions" - Jack Granatstein. Heard of him?

End of story

He didnt say that that Riel and the metis were a bunch of traitorous barbarians.

He said that Riel was crazy and that he murdered an impolite orangeman. Which i completely agree.



None of you seem to attack my main point: that Riel was a guy who helped the metis fight for their rights. Thats why i think he is a hero.

The fact that he murdered a racist orangeman who came to fight the metis dont bother me. Its not like if he killed plenty of innocents civilians. That murder of this racist piece of shit is only a distraction to what Riel was about and the cause he defended.

Georges Washington let happened the murder of a french officer in the seven years war. He is still considered a hero.

So, nothing on Granatstein? Didn't think so - your little challenge was easily answered. Riel is no hero. Maybe to the Metis, but to others, he's not, and rightfully so.

And your rationalization of his murderous past is cheap justification and it smacks of hypocrisy since you rail against it here, but condemn Wolfe with similar alleged actions. That's sad.

[fifeboy]

Interesting Editorial in the Star Phoenix today. By Gerry Klein:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Riel+figure+history/2610426/story.html

$1:

Not for the first time in his political career, Peter Goldring, the Conservative MP for Edmonton-East, is stirring up trouble over Louis Riel.

He sent a four-page missive around his constituency in December decrying a private member's bill by Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin that would overturn the Métis leader's conviction for treason and have erected on Parliament Hill a federally funded statue of Riel, considered a Father of Confederation.

Riel, Goldring insists, was a traitor and the author of events that resulted in the death of dozens during two violent resistance movements between 1879 and 1885. What of his victims, Goldring asked. Who will build monuments to remember them?

It's noteworthy that even within Goldring's own party such a view is deemed controversial and unacceptable. Manitoba Conservative MPs Shelly Glover and Rod Bruinooge -- both Métis -- said last week that neither they nor the party agree with Goldring.

That may be the case, but the Edmonton MP has been clear with his views for years without his caucus colleagues being able to dissuade him. In 2001, Goldring's was among the few voices of complaint raised when Liberal Senator Thelma Chalifoux, Canada's first Métis appointed to the upper chamber, fought to have made into law a private member's bill that would exonerate Riel.

Like Martin's bill, hers met with about the same success as Riel's attempt to appeal his hastily reached death penalty. This isn't surprising. The dissension over Riel's case hasn't been limited to the ranks of the Conservative caucus.

Although former prime minister Jean Chrétien laid claim to having Métis relatives in Western Canada, he recognized that little good could come from being seen as a champion of Riel, the hero of western Métis.

Among Chrétien's final acts in office, and among the first to fall when his bitter rival Paul Martin succeeded him, was Chrétien's attempt to establish the Canada History Centre in a downtown Ottawa courthouse. Initially, the Riel story was to be a centrepiece of the institution. However, according to the Ottawa Citizen, by the time of the launch party on May 26, 2003, Riel had become a footnote on the plan's back pages.

Although Martin killed the plans for the centre, he made it clear he wants Canada to rethink Riel's place in history. It would seem to be a natural cause for the Liberals. After all, it was the iconic Conservative prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald who is deemed responsible for the Métis leader's execution.

And it was iconic Liberal leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier, while in Opposition, who lobbied to have Riel's execution commuted and who, according to University of Saskatchewan historian Bill Waiser, "once told a Quebec audience that he, too, would have shouldered a gun had he lived on the banks of the Saskatchewan in 1885."

Yet, as Waiser noted in a StarPhoenix op-ed last month, it was when Laurier was prime minister and western expansion at its peak that the Métis were dropped from identifying themselves in the national census.

And it was while Martin was in office that his parliamentary secretary for cities, Toronto MP and historian John Godfrey, fought tooth and nail to stop any attempt by cabinet colleague Denis Coderre to exonerate the Métis leader.

During his life, Riel caused divisions between French and English Canadians, Orangemen and Catholics, Central Canadians and westerners, and Grits and Tories. One would think that 125 years later, the country could get past this. Apparently not.

This, I don't find surprising.

Canada's history all too often has been told from its centre. Is it any surprise that in a country that only has one national museum situated in the West -- and that one not set to open for two more years -- it's impossible to have one of the most important and controversial historical figures at the forefront of the Canada History Centre because his story conflicts with Ontario's view?

This is not to say that Godfrey's or Goldring's view of Riel is wrong; only that it's too narrow to explain why the French, Métis, and westerners continue to honour the man 125 years after he was hanged. The Central Canadian view fails validate the sense of alienation and victimization felt by Native groups, people living in the territories and even Quebecers for being steam-rolled by Macdonald's national dream.

Because that dream was the creation and maintenance of a Canada that was controlled culturally, politically and economically from the centre, it's difficult for some to see how a symbol of resistance to it can be honoured by a holiday in Manitoba, a 364-kilometre trail in Saskatchewan and have his name plastered on buildings from Winnipeg to Edmonton.

It's impossible to understand Canada without understanding Riel, yet according to annual surveys, only a handful of Canadians have any idea who he was, much less the complex role he played in our history.

Premier Brad Wall has designated 2010 as the Year of the Métis. Métis people from across North America are planning a reunion in July at the site of the Batoche battle.

But this is not just a Métis event but one of national significance. No matter which side one takes on the glorification of the Métis hero, one hopes that Canada finally has grown up enough to understand that delegating Riel to the anteroom of history won't make him disappear.

It's Saskatchewan's responsibility to remind the country of that.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

only that it's too narrow to explain why the French, Métis, and westerners continue to honour the man 125 years after he was hanged.

More properly this should say, the Metis and French continue to honour him. Most western Canadians continue to view him as a treasonous troublemaker funded by American interests.

[fifeboy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

only that it's too narrow to explain why the French, Métis, and westerners continue to honour the man 125 years after he was hanged.

More properly this should say, the Metis and French continue to honour him. Most western Canadians continue to view him as a treasonous troublemaker funded by American interests.

Wasn't that Ralph Kline?

[fifeboy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

only that it's too narrow to explain why the French, Métis, and westerners continue to honour the man 125 years after he was hanged.

More properly this should say, the Metis and French continue to honour him. Most western Canadians continue to view him as a treasonous troublemaker funded by American interests.

Sorry Shep, but the Marching season is over.

[kenmore]

Awesome fifeboy awewsome.. I heard that a national Riel day is in the works.
about time.

[fifeboy]

kenmore kenmore:

Awesome fifeboy awewsome.. I heard that a national Riel day is in the works.
about time.

The Metis have been celebrating Riel day for years.

[kenmore]

Yes and rightly so. He is one of the fathers of Confederation.

[Mustang1]

Alexandre Alexandre:

Stop finding excuses. Many historians compared Wolfe's actions to war crimes and i just proved it. Even this pro-wolfe article i found admit it. Just do your own researches for godsake.

I did my own research, quote-miner (and you've read Anderson? Bull. I'm calling you out, liar). Why so hostile? I guess you don't like having your bad history exposed? Again, the article IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM,suggests that he was guilty of "war crimes" nor does it list these historians that charge him with such - in fact, some positive aspects are alluded to, but you leave them out.

And why didn't Morton, Stacey or Chartran - all reputable scholars - not arrive at the same conclusion. Dodge away, but you've been caught.

$1:

And again, you dont bring facts. You say im wrong, but you got absolutely NOTHING to prove it.

I provided a list of historians! All reputable works and NONE (let's be honest, you have no idea who they are) list Wolfe as a "war criminal". That's historical discourse. You've responded with NOTHING to counter that claim. You fail.

Take a break.

[Mustang1]

Alexandre Alexandre:

My "little challenge" was for you to go past the murder of Thomas Scott and put Riel into his real context: The métis rebellions. And you did nothing, zero, nada.

The only thing that matter to you is the murder of a single enemy combattant, which happens in almost every conflict.

What is really sad, is that you say Wolfes actions are similar. Only a moral deviant would compare the plunder, starvation and bombing of civilians populations to the murder of a single enemy combattant.

Apparently you're the one believing ridiculous propaganda.

Nothing on the Granatstein quote? Didn't think so. You're done here.

And again, if Riel is put into his historical context (which he was or why was there a trial?!?!?) then why don't you put Wolfe into similar comparison? This is where your utter lack of academic historical training comes shining through - there's a massive difference between what Riel did and Wolfe - something trained historians would pick up on in an instant. That's not you and that's why your clumsy points are immaterial.

Go read a real history book (not ape a quote off the net) and then come back. Until then, you're nothing more than a cautionary tale for others.

[Lemmy]

The problem here, as on many threads, is that people can find a lot of nonesense through Google searches, while serious academic journals are not available for free perusal on the internet. It's easy to find lots of references to Riel being a hero. But there isn't a serious academic historian alive who would support such nonesense. Can I prove that? Of course not, because I don't have a paid membership for online access to most History Journals. The shit that prevails on the internet, as easy citation material, tends to be revisionist pop-history with little academic worth.

The facts are that Riel was an American citizen at the time of his execution. He was a nut-job and the only defensible position for his actions is one of mental unfitness to stand trial. Macdonald knew this and he, personally, pitied Riel and regretted that he NEEDED to execute him. But the Americans openly sought to use the Metis and Riel to gobble up the fertile agricultural lands of the Red River Valley. They only stopped openly expressing their desires to annex the prairies when Riel returned to Saskatchewan around 1884, largely because the Yanks realized that they had thrown their support behind a lunatic instead of someone who could have actually furthered American interests in the region. There are hundreds of American newspaper articles from the 1860s and '70s openly supporting American annexation of this region. I'd prove this point by directing people to read "Louis Riel and the United States", a terrific journal article by J.M. Bumsted (American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 29, 1999), but of course, serious history isn't readily available to internet quote miners.

Macdonald executed Riel to show the Americans that Canada controlled the land north of the 49th and would not bow to manifest destiny in any way. The Canadian hero of this episode in history is Macdonald, not Riel. Riel's role in the story is that of a sad, mentally ill pawn of anti-Canadian interests. He's not a "Father of Confederation", he's the Fredo Corleone of Confederation.

[Mustang1]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The problem here, as on many threads, is that people can find a lot of nonesense through Google searches, while serious academic journals are not available for free perusal on the internet. It's easy to find lots of references to Riel being a hero. But there isn't a serious academic historian alive who would support such nonesense. Can I prove that? Of course not, because I don't have a paid membership for online access to most History Journals. The shit that prevails on the internet, as easy citation material, tends to be revisionist pop-history with little academic worth.

The facts are that Riel was an American citizen at the time of his execution. He was a nut-job and the only defensible position for his actions is one of mental unfitness to stand trial. Macdonald knew this and he, personally, pitied Riel and regretted that he NEEDED to execute him. But the Americans openly sought to use the Metis and Riel to gobble up the fertile agricultural lands of the Red River Valley. They only stopped openly expressing their desires to annex the prairies when Riel returned to Saskatchewan around 1884, largely because the Yanks realized that they had thrown their support behind a lunatic instead of someone who could have actually furthered American interests in the region. There are hundreds of American newspaper articles from the 1860s and '70s openly supporting American annexation of this region. I'd prove this point by directing people to read "Louis Riel and the United States", a terrific journal article by J.M. Bumsted (American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 29, 1999), but of course, serious history isn't readily available to internet quote miners.

Macdonald executed Riel to show the Americans that Canada controlled the land north of the 49th and would not bow to manifest destiny in any way. The Canadian hero of this episode in history is Macdonald, not Riel. Riel's role in the story is that of a sad, mentally ill pawn of anti-Canadian interests. He's not a "Father of Confederation", he's the Fredo Corleone of Confederation.

Excellent points backed up by research - great post. This is the crux of the matter - the Internet quote-miner can essentially use whatever out-of-context text they want, despite that fact its historically-questionable, lacks a source review and ignores any historiographical analysis. In short, it's "i'll find whatever i can to prove my point and damn the stuff that contradicts it" approach. Amateurish and bushleague.

The reality - which is why i initially quoted Granatstein - is that the Canadian historical community acknowledges the problems inherent to labeling Riel's legacy anything subjective. He's a hero to some, a villain to others and objectively, a murderer, a violent radical, mentally-unstable hypocrite. The latter is supported by independently verifiable evidence. The former is much more suited to those that mine history for anything that can bolster their contempoary agenda. That's what we've got here in this thread.

[kenmore]

Its easy to find tory diatribe as well and the tories have been twisting facts since confederation and before. .. Sir John was probably drunk as usual when he ordered the execution.

[2Cdo]

kenmore kenmore:

Its easy to find tory diatribe as well and the tories have been twisting facts since confederation and before. .. Sir John was probably drunk as usual when he ordered the execution.

Completely predictable from the one trick pony.