In late spring 1885, Métis and Canadian forces clashed in a series of battles in northern Saskatchewan, collectively known today as the Northwest Resistance. The standard Canadian historiography regarding these confrontations has, over the years, tended to attribute full blame to one man—Louis Riel. A perfect example is Tom Flanagan’s Louis ‘David’ Riel: Prophet of the New World, which portrays Riel as a rabble-rousing firebrand who pits a simple clan of erstwhile ‘half-breeds’ against the Dominion of Canada to fulfill his divine mission from God and his delusional quest for glory.1 By portraying Riel as a manipulator, this historiographical myth simultaneously discredits the Métis cause while painting the Canadian government as justified liberators whose rescue efforts free the young nation from the clutches of a megalomaniac.2 Although some evidence points to Riel’s mental instability, he did not drive the Métis to war in 1885. To understand why the Métis and Canada fought in 1885, one has to look beyond Riel at three underlying causes of the conflict. One, the Resistance took place at the height of colonialism, as such it was a product of the Canadian and global imperialism prevalent during that time. Two, Canada never adequately dealt with Métis land claims from the 1870 Manitoba Act, which frustrated the Métis to the point of picking up arms in 1885. Three, drastic economic change and hardship had swept the west and the Métis had no help from the federal government, which increased Métis frustration. Together these factors caused the Northwest Resistance to erupt. Understanding them helps debunk the myth that Riel was the master architect behind 1885.
persistent, continual process to acquire, understand, and use a variety of strategies to improve one's ability to attain and apply knowledge
Answer: On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness. The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery." Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech. Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended. Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions. Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.
Explanation:
Yes...?
What do you need to get started in
Autocracy. It comes from Autokrator, which in Greek means “self-rule” and “one who rules by himself”. Modern forms of autocracy are absolute monarchies (such as Swaziland) and dictatorships (such as North Korea)
