Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet
Yep that's the colony, founded on Red River by Lord Selkirk in 1812. Canada prefers terms like settlement, hunter/gathers, Indians, Metis anything that helps people not identify with those living in what would be come Western Canada, or to think that they had rights as British Subjects, or any property of any significance. It was best if for Canadians to think there were only a few trappers with a couple gardens.
Also if you read those sites you'll notice that the term "Metis" (French/Indian) is used even when the more accurate for the time term "Mixed Blood" to (Scottish/Indian) should be used. That's a whole other post about terms used to prevent people, in particular the English protestants in Ontario from identifying with those being colonised by Canada. I first noticed that in references to people at YF called Mixed Blood by HBC and Metis by Canada.
Here's a link with yet more search words. http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history...rmilling.shtml I was looking for a site that had some quotes from John A on the colony and how they were to be treated, didn't find it but that one from the MHS talks about the mills.
It is recorded that John A knew the people Canada had purchased had rights. John A made it clear that they would be deceived, kept down violently when needed, until they could be completely disenfranchised by mass waves of immigration from Canada.
By 1881 Manitoba had 19,125 residents who were born in Ontario, which was more than the 18,020 born in Manitoba.
Interestingly the immigrants from Ontario did not like the treatment they got in the West from their own government. As the original inhabitants became swamped and displaced their complaints became easier to ignore but not the rising complaints from Canadian immigrants.
Canada had hoped the next massive wave of Immigrants from outside of Canada would help that but they too had issues with their treatment by Canada, and so on to even today over 100yrs later.
The foundation of the issues that lead to the original question in this thread dates back to Canadian colonisation. Westerners are still asking why they send so much of their treasure to Canada and get so little in return.
In the past asking that question too loudly came with very real risks. Does it today? Maybe a new thread for those that think the answer to this one is yes time to end or dramatically change Alberta's relationship with the Federal Government. |
Where are you getting those numbers for population in 1881? Stats Canada has the population at 62,260, yet the total you have is 37,145.
Either way the settlement had no authority over the land due to HBC's domain over the land. At best settlers were leasing the land from HBC, since prior to being bought by Canada HBC essentially governed the entire area and had a monopoly on anything produced inside of Ruperts Land which meant whatever HBC was going to pay you for grain was what you were going to get. Yes, people were upset with the federal government when the gov. bought the land from HBC (without consultation or involving the settlement) and sent a surveyor to re-jig how the land was segmented into a grid pattern that is common in AB and other provinces. Instead of deciding to plow through opposition the Federal government agreed to and established Manitoba and the provincial government there, and they accepted federal rule. Perhaps a compromise from both parties since the Federal gov could have if they wished wiped out the settlement.
So what happened to the settlement after it essentially became Manitoba and the Feds came in? Was it razed to the ground? Did it become a ghost town? No, it became Winnipeg.
Not only that but the Feds put the money up for the CPR Rail, sure it was for BC but it certainly didn't have to go through Winnipeg. They could have made the red river settlement a ghost town by putting the rail line farther south (happened to some settlement established between when the first route was published and when the route was finalized). Suddenly the people who were there prior to the HBC sale had a voice in decisions that governed their lives, a railway that gave them access to markets east and west of them, and were freed them from a closed market.
Would it have been better if the US bought Rupert's land? Probably not, Alaska was annexed in 1867 and received statehood in 1958. The states still has territories that can't even vote for POTUS.