NICOLE CURRIE
Opinions Writer

This is a response to Tyrel Eskelson’s article “Louis Riel was no hero”

Based on your presentation of Louis Riel I am shocked to see that controversy and ambiguity still surround him.

The university has acknowledged Riel’s heroism with the plaque in Place Riel, but apparently this is not enough to have students recognize his accomplishments. Maybe this should be an indicator that more needs to be done on the education about Métis people and Canadian historical events.

You continually refer to Riel’s actions as being motivated for self-interested ends, however you do not once indicate what these self-interested ends are. In what way did Riel benefit from becoming a Métis leader? He did not fight for his own individual rights, but for the rights of the community he belonged to.

Moreover, Riel wanted recognition of the rights for the entire community at Red River — this included the English, French and Métis alike. He was dedicated to the preservation of all the people at this settlement, so in what way does this show him to be self-interested?

I find your claim that Riel “hinder[ed] the Métis’ chance at addressing their grievances through politics and rebellion” particularly problematic. It was only through Riel that the Métis could have had their voices heard. Riel, one of the few educated members from Red River, understood that the Métis people needed to unite and create their own list of rights in order to be considered in negotiations concerning them.

It was through his leadership that members of the area were able to enter negotiations with the government to address land, political and other rights. Riel did not harm the Métis cause, but promoted it through nationalism. Also, Riel could not have hindered a rebellion, because there was none. The Métis declared that they were loyal subjects of the Crown, and were in no way rebelling against this. They just wanted Confederation to be on their terms and for their land rights to be taken into consideration and validated. They in no way separated themselves and rebelled against the Canadians; they wanted to be unified and included.

The execution of Thomas Scott has always been a controversial issue, but you only provide a one-sided, single-line explanation of the event. In regards to your statement that Riel made his first tactful error, I would say that it was not of choice but of necessity. He was trying to prevent a civil war from breaking out, not ignite one.

Also, you chose not to include the fact that Scott was tried by martial law before he was punished with the death penalty. Riel had no part in the decision of Scott’s fate. Scott’s own actions against the Métis provisional government, his threat against Riel and his actions towards the guards all contributed to his unfortunate end.

As for your insistence that Riel was insane, you must not have been informed that Riel was recognized to be sane by the courts and psychiatrists.

The biggest issue I have with your article was that you used the word “evidence” to describe what you had presented in your writing. I think a better term to have used would have been “opinion” or, more fittingly, “prejudice.” Clearly you have formed a judgment without any facts to support it.

You have a right to your opinion, but I believe you do not have the right to misinform readers of the Sheaf. It is hurtful to see him criticized in such a way that is not defended with credible evidence. You have presented people who may not know anything about Riel and his accomplishments with a one-sided and biased view. I don’t think this is fair for people who look to Riel as a symbol of Métis nationalism.

Louis Riel day is coming up on Nov. 16. Why not take this opportunity to learn more about this Métis leader and the historical events that surround him? Then you can form your own opinion.