Rupert

’s Land: The Division Lies Only In Interpretation Essay, Research Paper

I sit here and I consider myself a young and developing Historian. I consider Frits Pannekoek and Irene M. Spry to be similar historians, yet with more knowledge, age, and experience. What I am sure does not differ between myself, these Authors and other related Historians, is a certain degree of ability to take a piece(s) of work and critically canalize it. I have done just that recently. I have taken the essays, The Flock Divided: Fractions and Feuds at Red river by Frits Pannekoek and The Metis and Mixed-Bloods of Rupert.s Land before 1870 by Irene M. Spry, and I have done my own critical analysis. I believe that both Authors are very persuasive in their respective essay, however when analysed and broken down the reader can see that aspects of both essays can be used to determine that just like any groups of a society the two Native groups of Rupert.s land were at times separated other times they were not. I would tend to sway more to Spry.s well researched essay, but Pannekoek.s positive points must also be mentioned to get a broad picture. This is best done by addressing the respective essay one at a time, then bringing some ideas together.

Before I get right down to analyse Pannekoek and Spry I must give the general background that the two essay use as their base. The Rupert.s Land of Red River has many ethnic groups. The two that are concentrated on, as Pannekoek I believe accurately puts it, are the English speaking Protestant mixed blood (Half-breeds, respectively) and the French speaking Catholic mixed blood (Metis, respectively) . It must also be know the location of Rupert.s Land to get a proper mental picture of the events. Rupert.s Land, Red River, was in what today would be (fill in later when you find location).

The main point that Frits Pannekoek makes in her essay is as follows. Panekoek reasons that there are differences between the Metis and the Half-breeds that led them to form to groups apart from each other, with a bitter relationship between the two . Pannekoek believes that .In fact there was little unity between the two groups during the Riel Resistance. . I must start of my first main point by saying that essential there is much reliability to what Frits Pannekoek is saying. The two groups were divided to an extent in this time, at least in some of the main areas that Pannekoek explores. Pannekoek.s whole essay seems to be based mainly on the division of religion, conflicting to decide polities in the Red River colony, between the Mixed Blood Catholics and the Protestants. I see Pannekoek to be right in saying that this effected the majority of the Native population in Red River.

The reader sees that .The first petition [for political change] came in June of 1856 from the Protestant clergy. . .They did not wish for the removal of the Councillors, only that vacancies were filled by election, and that settlement be divided for that purpose into districts. . As the essay is read on it is apparent that this is only the first of many petitions and complaints from both of the groups. Now that the agitation has begun, even to by this small request, a bitter ex- Hudson.s bay Company employee named William Kennedy returned to Red River . Kennedy now became a leader of sorts for the Protestant side along with his relative Alexander Kennedy Isbister and local men Donald Gunn, James Ross, and Rev. John Black. Meetings were starting, they were held in the Half-breed parishes where William Kennedy wanted the people .to elect five members, including himself and Isbister, to serve in the provincial legislature of Canada. . With the arrival of John Palliser, head of the British expedition to the North-West, we see some what of a rest in agitation from the Canadian party(mainly Catholic) side, and a stirring on the Protestant side . When Rev. G.O. Corbett, of the church of England, arrived in 1858 his arousing agitation towards the Catholic Metis and the church of Rome let him to become the predominant leader on the side of the Protestant Half-breeds . Corbett said .that their future lay with a Protestant Crown colony firmly affixed to the British Empire. . We now see that the two groups are more clearly divided with the protestant English speaking Half-breeds on the side with Corbett to make Red River a crown Colony, and the French speaking catholic Metis who hated Corbett and that were against the idea of crown colony as Kennedy was . We then see that Corbett, backed by the Half-breeds circulated a petition for crown colony status . This petition was fittingly counter circulated by a counter petition by Kennedy mainly backed by the Catholic French speaking Metis who wanted no part of Corbett and his crown colony antics. We now see petitions and counter petitions thrown back and forth between the two sides, most of them going ignored. As the tensions between the two groups continue Corbett is jailed on charges of Abortion . The groups are now not only split between pro-crown and anti-crown, but the supporters of Corbett stand behind him. Corbett and his followers said that he was falsely accused by the company of Assiniboia(He saw to be mainly Catholics). Mainly the Catholics stood with the company against Corbett, and the Protestants believed Corbett and stood behind him . In 1865 the Half-breeds succeeded in liberating Red River from the Hudson.s Bay company, with their re