That came from the English because the king agree to the claim of their negotiation is "a better path," but they seen to negotiation it doesn't work from Birmingham without tension."
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.
Answer:
The countries of North Africa share a lot of ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity with the Middle East.
Answer:constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine. the Supreme Court ruled that a law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between whites and blacks was not unconstitutional.
Explanation:
