When I came to the North West in July, 1884, I found the Indians suffering. I found the half-breeds eating the rotten pork of the Hudson Bay Company and getting sick and weak each day. Although a half-breed, and having no pretensions to help the Whites, I also paid attention to them. I saw they were deprived of responsible government. I saw they were deprived of their public liberties. I have directed my attention to help the Indians, to help the half-breeds and to help the Whites to the best of my ability. We have made petitions, I have made petitions with others to the Canadian government asking to relieve the condition of this country. We have taken time; we have tried to unite all classes, even if I may speak, all parties. The only things I would like to call your attention to before you retire are:
1st That the House of Commons, Senate and Ministers of the Dominion, who make laws for this land and govern it, are no representation whatever of the people of the North West. 2nd That the North West Council generated by the Federal Government has the great defect of its parent. 3rd The number of members elected for the Council by the people make it only a sham representative Legislature and no representative government at all.
British civilization which rules today the world, and the British constitution, have defined such government as this is which rules the NorthWest Territories as irresponsible government, which plainly means that there is no responsibility, and by all the science which has been shown here yesterday you are compelled to admit that if there is no responsibility, it is insane. [Riel is referring to Crown witnesses who testified that he was insane.]
Good sense combined with scientific theories lead to the same conclusion. By the testimony laid before you during my trial witnesses on both sides made it certain that petition after petition had been sent to the federal government, and so irresponsible is that government to the North West that in the course of several years besides doing nothing to satisfy the people of this great land, it has even hardly been able to answer once or give a single response. That fact would indicate an absolute lack of responsibility, and therefore insanity complicated with paralysis.
If you take the plea of the defence that I am not responsible for my acts, acquit me completely since I have been quarreling with an insane and irresponsible Government. If you pronounce in favour of the Crown, which contends that I am responsible, acquit me all the same. You are perfectly justified in declaring that having my reason and sound mind, I have acted reasonably and in self-defence, while the Government, my accuser, being irresponsible, consequently cannot have but acted wrong, and if high treason there is, it must be on its side and not on my part. The agitation of the North- West territories would have been constitutional, and would certainly be constitutional today, if, in my opinion, we had not been attacked. Perhaps the Crown has not been able to find out the particulars, that we were attacked, but as we were on the scene, it was easy to understand. When we sent petitions to the Government, they used to answer us by sending police.
What is Riels purpose in making this speech?
His purpose in making this speech is to explain to the Jury that they should do somehting to help the Metis live a more sustainable life.
What is Riel's tone while giving this speech?
He has a serious and strict tone. Please add!!
What information is presented?
Information that is presented is that the Indians are suffering from eating rotten food of the HBC company, from which they are getting ill, and that his people are deprived of responsible government.
Is this information reliable?
Yeah I think this information is reliable, cause Riel is not a liar, and he's saying all this since he's experienced it.
What information is left out?
Info about Thomas Scott getting executed is left out. IS there anything else?
What other sources of Information would you use for Comparison?
I really don't get this question. I was going to say a book or movie, but these answers seem to be off topic.
What generalizations could you make?
I would say that that Canadian government did not let the Metis live a peace and comforting life. They had to suffer. The Canadians disliked Metis and their leader Riel. His execution left his leaders disheartened.
"What other sources of Information would you use for Comparison? "
You could use other eye witness accounts plus information that was reported at the trial.
You did a great job on this assignment, Emma.
Oh..thanks. Okay I should have thought of that, thanks for the help.
Could you check over this answer again please, cause I still have a doubt on it.
What is Riels purpose in making this speech?
His purpose in making this speech is to explain to the Jury that they should do somehting to help the Metis live a more sustainable life.
And then for the information, it asks what has been left out, I only put that execution of Scott has been left out. Is that all?
Thanks
You're right about Riel's purpose in making this speech. Riel wasn't only speaking to the jury, in one sense he was speaking to all of Canada.
Alrighty:D Thank you:D
You're welcome. :-)
In order to answer the question, "What is Riel's purpose in making this speech?" you can analyze the content and context of the speech. According to the information provided, Riel's purpose in making this speech is to advocate for the rights and well-being of the Indigenous people in the North West Territories. He highlights the suffering of the Indians, half-breeds, and Whites, and emphasizes the lack of responsible government and public liberties in the region. Riel asserts that he has been actively working to petition the Canadian government to improve the conditions in the country.
To understand Riel's tone while giving this speech, you can examine the language and attitude he conveys. Based on the information provided, it is mentioned that Riel has a serious and strict tone. His words express the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate action to address the injustices faced by the Indigenous people and half-breeds.
The reliability of the information presented in Riel's speech can be assessed by considering Riel's credibility as a source and any corroborating evidence. As the information suggests, Riel is personally sharing his observations and experiences of the suffering and deprivation faced by the Indigenous people and half-breeds. However, it is always important to consider other sources of information for comparison and verification.
While the information provided in the speech sheds light on the challenges faced by the Indigenous people and half-breeds, it is likely that there are other aspects and perspectives that are not mentioned. For example, the speech does not mention the execution of Thomas Scott, which was a controversial event connected to Riel and impacted relations between the Canadian government and the Métis people.
To further evaluate the accuracy and comprehension of Riel's claims, it may be helpful to consult other sources, such as historical documents, records, or scholarly research. These sources could provide additional perspectives and information to compare with Riel's speech.
Based on the information provided, some generalizations that can be made include the assertion that the Canadian government's treatment of the Métis people was detrimental and resulted in them suffering and being deprived of their rights. Riel's execution caused disillusionment among his followers and displayed the Canadian government's disapproval of Métis leadership.