Open protest, conflicting interests, lives changed forever. This is a rebellion. You’re willing to fight the authorities to be heard. Armed rebellion is only justifiable if nothing else works. The Rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada, Red River Rebellion, and Northwest Rebellion are all part of Canadian history. They show us that people can go against the government which usually results in a large loss of life, but more importantly change. The Rebellion of Upper and Lower Canada mainly occurred because of land issues, government inequality, and irresponsibility to the people. Power was held by a small group of noble elites, they can veto any law that hurts their status. Mainly controlled by wealthy English aristocrats / businessmen, the government only serves for their purpose. Land speculators overpriced or tied up prime land, while Crown and Clergy reserves hindered road development. French Canadians also faced discrimination, unequal taxation, and lack of power within government. Petitions were signed, negotiation started, newspapers were produced, and public speech were made, but they all failed. People were arrested, newspaper companies were shut down, and protesters were even shot. With such limitation of free speech and freedom of press, they had no choice but to go for armed rebellion. Although the Rebellion ended in failure with serious consequences for major leaders (imprisoned to slave labour and hung), Britain realized that change was necessary to maintain peace. This eventually led to responsible government and Confederation. The Rebellion of Upper and Lower Canada may be the most important rebellion in Canadian history, but it wasn’t the only one. The Red River Rebellion occurred because the Metis and their la... ... middle of paper ... ... and outgunned. Defeated with major loss of life, Louis Riel was brought to court. He argued that the Metis has been mistreated and goaded into rebellion, and described the deprivation and poor living conditions of his people. Ultimately, he was executed and any national unity the Metis felt was forever ended. For the Rebellions of Upper/Lower Canada and Northwest, their armed resistance was justifiable. Neither had any other choice for their petitions to be heard. As for the Red River Rebellion, they had other more peaceful choices. Executing Thomas Scott unquestionably tarnished Louis Riel’s reputation. He was blatantly viewed as a villain, but that is changing as more of our history is uncovered. Nowadays, Louis Riel is widely regarded as a hero for what he’s done, fighting for Metis rights. All in all, armed rebellion is only justifiable if nothing else works.
...truggle and violence. From the Iran Revolution to the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the struggle and violence lasted from 1979-1988. If only applied to the Iranian revolution then the period of violence was short, only a year, but without knowing what would have happened had Iraq not invaded Iran, it is hard to say how long that period would have lasted. As I used both the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, the period of violence in this case turns out to be nine years. The implications of policy application of this theory is knowing that the pressure on newly formed regimes to secure internal security through outside conflict means that policies may change or pass with the intention of inciting a state to enter into conflict with the new state. The purpose of this would be to give the newly formed state an opportunity to strengthen and consolidate its authority.
...attles. It eventually ended when Louis Riel surrendered on May 15 1885, after the defeat at Batoche. Riel had written a letter to General Frederick Middleton (British general), saying that he didn’t like war and he’d surrender himself only if the Métis were freed. After the rebellion ended, Riel became a prisoner of the Canadian government and was taken to trial for treason in Regina. He was eventually convicted and executed as a traitor. And so lived and died the heroic, peaceful founder of the Province of Manitoba, and defender of the rights of the Métis.
today, perhaps it could be justified. For one, President Donald John Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, which practically bans all foreign immigrants from residing nor entering the nation. America is what it is today because of its diversity. Yet, President Trump and a considerable number of people believe that the country should be of its natives instead of those who seek the privileges of its constitutions and hence potentially violates the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men have the right to seek asylum. Considering how the Declaration of Independence originated the U.S., it is ironic for the nation to limit it. Therefore, civil disobedience is required. As it is apprehended that the matter requires civil disobedience, the negotiation comes in; however, a president could be convinced, but not negotiated with his own nation, and thus this step is nullified. Moving on, the enactment of non-violent direct actions is legally safe from the nation’s military forces, but it could be met with a group of people, potentially possessive of deadly weapons, who support the Immigration Executive Order. As it could be life threatening to some extent, one should be ready to self-defend, but not retaliate to the extent where the other is harmed. Finally, launch coordinated systematic direct actions nationwide for the maximum effect. In doing so, President Trump would eventually have to nullify
The 1800's were a renowned era in European history. With the rise of imperialism came the ruthless desire to seek new land through the use of authoritative implications. Whether it be the discovery of the Americas, where Christopher Columbus discovered various islands, which were clustered with indigenous people that were eventually completely wiped out for the pure desire of Spaniard power. This craving to "assimilate" indigenous people and to convert them to Christianity was an element, which rooted 19th century Europe. Although the actual question to whether these actions were good or evil are up for debate. Imperialism has been viewed as an expansion that serves only ones "object" and that it has no purpose beyond the benefit of the "self". This paper will explain Imperialism through a sociological perspective, while blending in notions of capitalism and modern day Imperialism that may now be viewed as Globalism.
This is just one example of civil disobedience action. Peaceful resistance to anything can only have a beneficial effect for America in the future. For instance, if the workers during the industrial revolution went around burning factories or killing rich people, then their movement to have more economic regulations would have never happened, but since they peacefully protested, the great American free market exists today. At the time, it was viewed that the protesters were horrible and hurting the American economy and the way the world worked, but looking back, they were
The united states has had some great history and some terrible history such as the greatest being the ending of both world wars to the very lowest of america being the terrible event we know as 9/11.Some examples that may lead citizens to rebel against the system would be them knowing something was not fair to their religion or race.Such as martin luther king knowing that the other races were not being fair by enslaving the african americans and stripping them of their dignity.Their is only a slight difference in revolution and rebellion they both fight for what they believe and what they think is right.I would take part in a revolution or rebellion because if the rest of the country is not going to be fair then why stay in a place or live
Violent protests were more effective than peaceful measures in resolving the colonists’ conflicts with the British. The colonists were unhappy with the British and their actions, so the colonists wanted to show that they were mad through violence. The colonists demonstrated many acts of violence towards the British. Violence is better than nonviolence because they need to get their point across, it will change for the better, and lastly will scare them to make it change it their way.
The Confederate States of America was a country formed by the thirteen states which officially and unofficially seceded from the United States due to disagreements over states’ rights and slavery. It existed from 1861, when the first states began seceding and joining together, until the end of the American Civil War in 1865, when the states were reentered into the United States of America and the Confederate States of America’s federal and state governments were forced to dissolve.
Social activism existed in this country of the United States of American since its Founding Fathers, and it continues to exist today as American citizens strive for improvement for the future. With this long history, citizens have joined various social movements. Social movements result from the unity of people to strive for a change for certain problems. The gatherings for a change can inspire and can scare the reality that already existing. The struggles for change first must evolve from a person’s resolve. The reasons of why people communicate, collaborate, and go into motion must be understood to further the understanding of why social activism continues to occur. Three theoretical claims have enlighten society
What started out as protesting in the streets turned into British soldiers firing upon the colonists. First it was a street fight, of the colonist throwing snowballs, stones, and sticks at the British soldiers. Then more British soldiers were called in and those too were attacked, which led to the British opening fire into the mob. Killing 3 citizens and wounding 8 others, two of whom died later on. The 'installed' government should never come to the point to where they have to maim, kill or threaten their people. Sometimes the government needs to be shown when it's time to back
First, a rebellion could help people by telling them what other people think and that they do not have to be afraid to speak out the truth. It could benefit the nation by knowing what others think. John Proctor said in The Crucible, “Spoke or silent, a promise is surely made (Miller, 61).” He is saying that if you either speak your word or stay silent, you can still rebel against what the community or government says. If you want to speak your word do it, no one is going to stop you. Just be you and do not be like everyone that does not want to be apart of anything. Another quote from The Crucible said by Danforth was, “You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted
I would define rebellion as an act of opposition against the already occurring rules or guidelines. Rebellions can occur on a very large scale such as the American Revolution, or a small scale where everyday actions could be rebellious. An example of this could be the clothes that people wear. I am very grateful to be going to a school where individuality is encouraged and students wear different clothes that represent themselves. In some areas, however, some clothes may be discouraged. For example, in the business environment, there is a standard for the type of clothing that people should wear to meetings and other events. So, going against this and wearing something different could be a way of rebelling against the standards of clothing
The scary truth behind the islamic reign is the idea of aftermath and the consequences that are to come. Creating a connection between Marji and ourselves is a difficult task in itself. She grows up in a dangerous, confused, divided, and judgmental society; sure we all go through these different situations separately throughout our lives but for Marji everything is conjoined into one specific time period. She is a growing teenager and is barely old enough to understand what is going on in her country. Marji is exposed to so many different life-changing experiences that her childhood in a way is take away from her. She is expected to grow up without the experience and forced to look down upon those who are less fortunate. In Marjane Satrapi’s
Resistance to authority is part of what helped to form the great nation that we live in today, The resistance to the King and their oppressive laws helped to create the laws that we recognize and live with today. This resistance started peacefully but eventually led to a war that tore the British Colonies of America apart before creating the United States of America. Similar to today, there was undoubtedly resistance to this protest, even when it was peaceful. Today, it seems we are constantly hearing about protests happening across the country. Often the protest start peacefully and with good intentions, but it seems to be increasingly common to have these protests turn violent and destructive. It is during these times of destruction that
Throughout history, revolutions have been effective in voicing the peoples opinions and changing the government using the mass population of the people. Non Violence campaigns as well as violent campaigns have proved to both be successful overtime. You may think of Martin Luther King Jr. leading the civil rights march or the French revolution in the late 1700s, but the question is which is truly more effective? Popular violent campaigns may make the headlines but when it comes down to it, the using of violence in revolts simply does not warrant the same results. The most powerful and efficient form of protest is nonviolent because it is safer with less death, the outcome is more positive in terms of what was trying to be achieved, and lastly, and probably most important, it has a much higher success rate in the results.