Imagine a scenario, where you and your people are living on land that was settled on by your ancestors years ago. You’re running your own government and things are looking great. But suddenly your land is being sold by people who claim they own the land, even though they started ‘owning’ the land after you and your people had already claimed it. When a foreign government comes to claim ‘their’ land, you fight against them. When one of these men not only breaks one of your laws but also causes many of your men to lose faith in you, you do what you think is right and execute him, gaining back your honor but also following the laws you have made and have been following for countless years. However, this motion turns almost the entirety of the foreign country against you and suddenly …show more content…
The citizens of Canada were mad that Louis Riel had executed Thomas Scott, but they refused to look at the situation from a different perspective. They saw his act as Thomas Scott as an outrage, an attack on their country, but Riel was simply governing. However, if the situation had been flipped, where Thomas Scott had been executed by the Canadian government, their opinions towards Scott definitely would’ve been changed. Although I cannot say for certain, I believe that this scenario would’ve been the case for any other official government, like say America, which has had this scenario many times. But their government was treated in the same way that Riels was, they were following their laws. People argued for them, they followed the laws of their government, executing someone who broke them, regardless of their citizenship/nationality, But people refused to do so for Riel and his government despite them having operated by themselves for countless years. If America was justified in their actions, why not Riel and his government? Why are they different from each