I believe that the metis would call it an incident because they would see it as a small footnote in history. The main problem was that they couldn't sell pemmican to the NWC because of the colony's leader. They blamed the HBC for the conflict because the of the aforementioned pemmican proclamation which the metis saw as an attack on the NWC as the NWC saw it too. The proclamation threatened their way of life because the metis could not sell the pemmican which meant they could not make a living.
The HBC would claim it was a massacre because they believe that since the British did not win the fight then the metis would only make a massacre. The British also have a history of twisting things to make the British reign supreme, they would call it a massacre because they wanted the metis to be seen as barbarians and needed public opinion low of them. This is shown by how after the battle they claimed the metis instigated the conflict and mutilated bodies after the fight. This persisted after their investigation showed that the metis did not instigate the fight and did not mutilate the bodies. They would also use the word massacre to emotionally charge people to believe the metis are monsters. None of the things Britain said was true but they always tried to lessen the power of the natives and metis. This notion of it being a massacre has persisted so much that it is hard to find a picture that is not geared to look like a massacre.
The Winnipeg free press would say it was a incident as well, after more information came to light it would be shown that the metis did not instigate the battle. In total 22 people died in total this is not enough to warrant a massacre name. The most significant was how the HBC tried to turn it all on the metis. All of this leads me to believe that they would call it an incident.
The main problem throughout history was the lies the British spread even after Coltmans report which clearly stated that the metis were not the instigators in the fight. The main reason it was called a massacre was British interference throughout history saying it was a massacre.
After the event of seven oaks lord Selkirk used his own private army to take fort William, which was the HQ of the NWC he remained at the fort for the winter and sent his men to retake fort Douglas. on the way they captured several smaller forts. this caused the NWC to take 5 HBC post, the war continued on for 5 years. Thankfully the Selkirk colony continued to grow steadily.
In 1820 the HBC started to mimic the NWC tactics, they pushed further in First Nation lands often losing money doing so. Because of all the pressure the HBC was causing the two companies merged in 1821.
References
The battle of seven oaks/2017. uploaded by Wikipedia, Available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Seven_Oaks
My brain
-John
Over all this was decent blog post Jonathan. Got some real solid content, good read, would read again. I would give it a 4 out of 5 starts on yelp, and recommend it to a friend. First I would like to point out that I think you made some good points and I agree with most. The metis likely would call it a incident, but I would have liked to see you expand on it a bit more. Seeing as they did not instigate the battle, and had probably twice the amount of the settlers. All images depict the Metis armed to the teeth, on horses and battle ready. The settlers are more poorly armed, lacking people and so scared. So they would not be arrogant about this win.
ReplyDeleteI felt you explained the British side of it really well, but I would have to say I disagree with the Winnipeg Free Press opinions of it. I believe they would not say that it was a incident, for a couple of reasons. I'm sure the Metis don't own to many newspaper company's, and so the Winnipeg Free Press would have a lot of control with what they say. The owner of the Winnipeg Free Press was William Fisher Luxton, and English man, and so I met that he would take the same side as the British. He would likely say that it was a massacre to also make the Metis look like animals. Other wise I think this was really well done, good job john.
Great post John, I have to agree with a lot of points in this post with how the metis would call it an incident because they didn’t start it which was a really good point, there was another good point about the HBC thinking it would be a massacre and i agree with that one aswell. There is one point i’d have to disagree with and that’s the point you made where you explained that the Winnipeg Free Press would call it an incident. In my opinion I would say they called it either a battle or massacre because it would add more flare to it as to where more people would want to know what happened. I mean 22 people in total that’s not a lot but if you have the power to say what ever you want to make it look more interesting and readable like i think the Winnipeg Free Press did. The image that you included is very nice and when I see that picture me personally would think it was a massacre because they’re all shooting and going for each other. But after learning about it and realizing that the metis only lost 1 person to the settlers it really makes me think otherwise. I really enjoyed your blog post john it had some really good detail and a great picture and again just a good one, Good job!
ReplyDeletei'm going to start this blog off the way everyone starts off one every comment! wow john such a great blog post i really enjoyed it. there was a lot of information pack into it! i like how you spaced it out real nice and added a picture. but to actually comment on the blog i'd have to say i agree with what you say. the whole metis thing and how they would call it an incident is so true really agree there. you used a lot of fancy word which was kind of hard for me to understand but i caught the drift. you said it was a incident and again i agree why because like you said the didn't start it and 22 people is not a massacre. you covered the british and metis sides very well. you really made it easy to understand in the part you added about british making up lies to make it seem like a massacre. the picture seems like a wild fight but the blog really explains how it wasn't. in conclusion really liked the blog, good information man. by the way your reference saying "my brain" is good because you're a smart man. but deuces john.
ReplyDeleteHey John, awesome job on this months blog!! I really enjoyed reading what your perspective was towards what the Metis, HBC and the Winnipeg Free Press would have view the Battle of Seven Oaks as. The amount of detail and information you put into this post really helped to give more of a background on the event. It definitely helped me to better understand the topic.
ReplyDeleteIt’s really interesting to think about the fact that this event has been labeled so many different ways throughout history. These being a massacre, a battle or simply an incident. You did a really good job of hypothesizing and explaining as to which group you thought would call the event by which name. Your explanations really helped to backup what it was you were saying, and gave proof that you really knew what you were talking about.
I find it interesting that you said that the Metis people would title the event as an incident. I never really considered the fact that the battle may not have played a very big role for them. When you say this, are you meaning that the outcome of the battle didn’t play a big role in the Metis culture? Or maybe that the event was important, just didn’t really change things for them? I’m very interested in knowing.
I like how you pointed out the fact that the event might be labeled as an incident or a battle and not massacre, based on the number of deaths that occurred. I would have to agree in the fact that when I hear the word massacre, I think of a huge battle with hundreds of soldiers and high death counts. And so by labeling this event (that had only 22 deaths, and overall wasn’t very big.) a massacre, it could be misleading and confusing. I wonder at the time of the event, what word the Metis and HBC people would have used to describe what had happened. And would the word massacre have had a different meaning at that point in time?
Below I’ve attached a link to a website that provides a really great explanation of the events that happened leading up to and during the Battle of Seven Oaks. I think they did a really good job adding lots of detail to help writers understand what happen at that time.
http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP6CH5PA3LE.html
Once again, awesome job on your blog post, it was really helpful in better understanding the Battle of Seven Oaks.
Wow !! Great blog John, and as I can see I'm not the only one who thinks that. Look at all those comments !! That is awesome. John, I really enjoyed reading about your understanding and perspective on The Battle of Seven Oaks along with whom thought which one of these it was. Incident, Battle, Massacre. It is very cool how many times those 3 words have been switched around, throughout history on what this brawl really was. I like how you mentioned that The Winnipeg Free Press would call it an incident because there was 22 deaths. That makes sense to me because if it were to be a massacre, wouldn't you think that there would have been several people killed. Also I wonder if these terms were quite the same for people back than as it is now a days. Hard to say! You also did a good job with the British making up lies saying it was a massacre when really all they were trying to do was make the Metis look bad because the Metis did win. I think Massacre is a little overboard. I like how you included the aftermath and what had happened years after. There was one thing I was hoping to see in this blond not only did I find it but, I found much more. I was hoping you would include when the HBC and NWC merged together and you did. Terrific job on the blog, I'm impressed. Here is a website that you can browse through if you would like, It tells you more about the event and could come in handy for the exam !
ReplyDeleteBattle of Seven Oaks, Last edited on January 11, 2018. Uploaded by; Wikimedia Foundation INC, Link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Seven_Oaks
Amazing blog John! Many people think so look at how many people commented. Wow! I like how you were very detailed about the situation. You showed multiple perspectives on the situation. You were very detailed to show a great understanding on the topic and the multiple ways it been called different things throughout history.How the Winnipeg free press called it a incident because of the low amount of deaths. To me that sounds right. A massacre sounds like there was many many deaths and more like a war then a small fight resulting in 22 lives being lost. Some us the word massacre simply for publicity reasons. One thing i wonder is how the local people viewed this situation back then. Guess we will never know. I like how you included that Britain called it a massacre to make the Métis look bad. Goes to show how the ones who lose always try to make it sound worse then it actually was. The word massacre is a little much for this type of situation. I was very impressed with how you explained what all happened years after the incident happened. Shows you really understand the topic. That also helped me understand what was really happening in this situation. If i were to have missed this day in class this would have for sure helped me catch up. One thing that maybe should have been meantioned was how the HBC and NWC later became one. That would have been nice to see and i know You would have explained that with lots of detail. I was Very impressed with this blog John! I left A website that explains the same topic and might also be helpful for studying for the upcoming exam.
ReplyDeleteLast edited 1/9/18 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/m/article/seven-oaks-incident/