Mustang1 Mustang1:
Alexandre Alexandre:
Riel fought for the right cause. He was a freedom fighter.
Thomas Scott was a racist orangeman who fought the Métis and was executed for it. That sort of things happen often during insurection. Nazis were often executed by partisans when they got captured during ww2. Hell, even the canadian troops did it.
Even tough he was not perfect, he and his rebels fought for the good cause against a much stronger ennemy. Thats enough for me to consider him a hero.
Personnally i dont believe you when you say that Riel was a bad guy only because he executed Thomas Scott, that's hypocrisy to me, because lots of you consider war criminals and mass-murderers like Wolfe and Amherst as heros. You hate him because he was a french guy who dared to rebel against the british crown, period.
Spare me the banal French-separatist revisionist drivel. I "hate" him? Nah...I know history - evidently better than you - and Riel's "provisional" government murdered Scott. Don't like it? I don't care.
And here's some history for ya' -
Riel's Kangaroo court (an all Metis jury?) was a true miscarriage of justice - it's interesting that you condemn the Dominion trial latter, but refuse to acknowledge similar actions in the earlier execution. Bias on your part
Wolfe isn't a mass-murderer anymore than Montcalm is or Dumont or Papineau. That's bad history. Your anti-English is shining through again.
Riel resorted to violence, time and time again, to push his agenda. If that constitutes a "hero" in your world, fine, but history will remember him as a mentally unstable, hypocritical, seditious murderer.
Where i said that Riel didnt murder Scott? Yes he did murder him and yes the kangoroo court was a joke. I just said that those things happen pretty often during rebellions. Thomas scott fought the métis, its not like if Riel murdered a complete innocent.
There is none revisionnism in "my" version. Riel and his métis fought bravely for a good cause. That doesnt mean the extra-judical killing of scott was right tough, but which conflict is 100% "clean" ?
Oh, and Wolfe was a mass-murderer, even tough he was not as worse as Amherst. He did order the bombing of civilians in Quebec city and his troops burned down the villages of our ancestors. That happened often during the 18th century wars, but even then it was considered a war crime.
This wolfe in his own word:
"If, by accident in the river, by the enemy’s resistance, by sickness or slaughter in the army, or, from any other cause, we find that Quebec is not likely to fall into our hands (persevering however to the last moment), I propose to set the town on fire with shells, to destroy the harvest, houses and cattle, both above and below, to send off as many Canadians as possible to Europe and to leave famine and desolation behind me; but we must teach these scoundrels to make war in a more gentleman like manner"
That sound like a pretty sick mentality to me.
Oh...so, when Scott is murdered by a trumped up charge by a questionable jury, its rationalized away due to the inevitable moral quandaries in conflicts? Brilliant. You just kicked your own silly quote mining of Wolfe to the curb.
Wolfe committed no war crimes and he was NO mass murderer - quit pushing this bushleague ahistorical mush as no reputable historian would ever suggest such nonsense. He beat your ancestors and then, New France ceased to exist. Get over it.
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
