Thich Nhat Hanh once said “ If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can simile and blossom like a flower, and everyone in our family, our entire society, will benefit from our peace.” Peace means that there are few conflicts even no conflicts, In order to achieve the peace, we should avoid these conflicts or solve them directly. The way how we avoid the conflicts is that we need to accept a different way to finish tasks and respect these methods. Different cultures may become the cause of the conflicts if we do not treat these cultures properly. In the Canadian history, because of the different ways that the Metis lived, the conflicts were still serious at that time. Because of the solemn conflicts, the Canadian government displayed much intolerance when they dealt with the Metis though tolerance with the Metis were still existed. At last, the government’s solutions show that there were more intolerance than tolerance.
Although the conflicts were quite serious, tolerance was still shown by the political decisions, the extent of government’s management and the extent of accepting the Metis opinions. The first instance which tolerance was displayed was demonstrated by the political decisions made by the Canadian government to the Metis. After the Seven Oaks, Cuthbert Grant who was the first leader of the Metis and led them to surround the Scottish settlements was acquitted of murder charges. The Canadian government still took the political action to appoint Cuthbert Grant “ Warden of the Plains” even though he killed twenty Scottish settlers and that was a solemn issue. Also, the political decision of offering the provisional government to the Metis was taken by the Canadian government. Therefore, the political decisions showed tolerance since the Canadian government respected the demand of the Metis and provided them with things that they expected. This is not the only example that the tolerance for the Metis was shown, as it can also be argued that the extent of the government’s management displays the tolerance. After the provisional government was formed, the Canadian government allowed Louis Riel who is the leader of the Metis to assert the Metis to control over the area. Also, the government must negotiate with him if they want to make decisions. This agreement exhibits the tolerance since the extent of the management of the government is not large compared to other cases and the government offers the Metis the power to control their land. Another case is that Alexander Mackenzie who was the Canada’s second Prime Minister left the Metis alone which means that the Metis don’t have to worry about losing their power to control over the land. The extent of the government’s management was completely reduced in this case. Therefore, both cases indicate that the extent of the management also demonstrates that the Canadian government showed tolerance when they dealt with the Metis. Last but not least, the extent of accepting the Metis opinions of the government exhibits that tolerance was existed when the government dealt with the Metis as well. After Donald Smith, a HBC manager, negotiated with the Metis and Louis Riel, the List of Rights was revised. Although some unreasonable rights were not achieved, most of the rights that the Metis wanted were provided. Also, after the Manitoba Act in 1870, John A. Macdonald decided to allow the Red River area to join Canada as a province which means that the Red River was no longer a part of a territory. The Canadian government admits the Metis to control over education, have an elected assembly and rights would be beneficial for them to protect their culture. It is thus clear that the extent of accepting the Metis opinions of the government illustrates that the tolerance was shown by the Canadian government when they dealt with the Metis. In Canadian history , the tolerance that the government demonstrated was existed because of the political decisions, the extent of the government’s management and the extent of accepting the Metis opinions. Therefore, there was some tolerance when the government dealt with the Metis.
Though the tolerance was existed, there was still a great deal of intolerance with the Metis because of the lack of control power over their own stuffs, the violent actions and the government’s cold and mean attitude. Since the Metis lack of control power over their own stuffs because of the government, this showed much disrespect to the Metis. The Canadian government offered the settlers scrips for trade. However, land speculators who wanted to use the scrip to get loans from banks bought most of the scrip for less than it was worth. If the Metis refused to sell their scrips to the land speculators, they would be punished. This forced the Metis to leave Manitoba. The government did not take any action to make the Metis stay. The Canadian government also did nothing when Lawrence Clarke took control of the local Metis culture. The Metis could not create rules to protect their culture. People could hunt buffaloes whenever they wanted. This led to the rapid decrease of the number of the bison. The Metis had a difficult time finding food to eat as they couldn’t protect their cultures by making rules. It can thus be argued that the Metis lack of control power over their own stuffs because of the government, displaying the intolerance of the government when they dealt with the Metis. The second instance in which intolerance was displayed occurred when the violent actions were taken. Because of the Pemmican Proclamation which was proposed by the Miles Macdonell, the Battle of Seven Oaks was started by the angry Metis. Scottish settlers chose to confront the Metis by having a fight instead of negotiating with the Metis. Another case happened after the Manitoba Act. Since John A. Macdonald still hated the Metis, he sent an army led by Colonel Wolseley to Manitoba in order to make the Metis feel uncomfortable. The army did nothing to keep the peace between the Metis and members of the Canadian Party but to brutalize the Metis by beating them and sometimes even killing them. It is thus clear that the violent actions occurred between the government and the Metis demonstrate the intolerance that government displayed. Finally, the cold and mean attitude of the government displays the intolerance when the government dealt with the Metis. In 1868, the Canadian government keeps being cold to the Red River settlers - the Metis and told them nothing about the land transfer. The Metis was surprised when these surveyors divided the Metis strips into large squares for British style farms. Another case is that Dr. John Christian Schultz kept mean to the Metis by buying a newspaper called the Norwester to attack the Metis since he believed that the Red River should be controlled by Caucasian, Protestant Europeans instead of Catholic Metis. He wrote that the Metis should be forced to leave or stay and work as only drivers. He even claimed that the Metis are not as smart as Europeans. These disrespectful words are not only a kind of racism but also the intolerance to the Metis culture. Therefore, the cold and mean attitude of the government exhibits that there was a lot of intolerance when the government dealt with the Metis. During the long Canadian history, though there was tolerance when the government dealt with the Metis, the large amount of intolerance was still existed and shown by the lack of the control power over the Metis’ own stuffs, the violent actions and the cold and mean attitude of the government. Therefore, there was a great deal of intolerance when the Canadian government dealt with the Metis.
Since both tolerance and intolerance were displayed in Canadian history, the government’s solutions still show that there were more intolerance than tolerance because of the three periods - the time from 1820 - 1870, the Red River Rebellion and the time that the Metis move west. The first period is the time from 1820 -1870. Although this period is considered peaceful, there was still more intolerance than the tolerance when the government dealt with the Metis. The tolerance that the government showed was appointing Cuthbert Grant as “ Warden of the Plains” after he acquitted of murder charges for the Seven Oaks. However, there were more intolerance cases during this period. For example, Dr. John Christian Sohultz bought a newspaper called the Norwester in order to attack the Metis. He wanted the Metis to leave instead of controlling the Red River, so he used an intolerant way to treat the Metis. In 1868, another event demonstrated that the government displayed intolerance was sending surveyors to the Red River without talking to the Metis. Although the government set Cuthbert Grant free and allowed him to control the Metis, the land issues were still serious during this period and Cuthbert Grant was used by the HBC for its monopoly. Therefore, during the time from 1820 -1870, intolerance was more than tolerance when the government dealt with the Metis.The second period that supports there was more intolerance than tolerance was the Red River Rebellion since during this time, the intolerance was much worse and more than the tolerance. The main reason of tolerance during this period was providing the Metis with things they wanted such as the formation of the provisional government, offering the Metis most of the List of Rights. It seems that everything was going fine. In fact, behind these tolerance, there were more intolerance. For instance, the land problems were still existed since Manitoba did not get crown land. Also, after the Manitoba Act, John A. Macdonald sent an army in order to harass the Metis and make them feel uncomfortable. This forced the Metis to leave the Red River and Canada was divided. Therefore, the Metis could not control the new province even though the provisional government was formed. It is thus clear that during the Red River Rebellion, there was more intolerance than tolerance. The last period was the time that the Metis move west, as during this time, intolerance became the worst and there was almost no tolerance. Besides the army brutalized the Metis, scrips also became a way of forcing the Metis to move out of Manitoba. Lawrence Clark who is the HBC chief Factor and magistrate controlled over local Metis culture. Therefore, the Metis could not protect their culture and prevent the bison from being over- hunted even though the Metis created the Laws of St. Laurent to challenge the power of the government. In this period, no tolerance was shown clearly since the intolerance took most part of this time. It can be argued that in Canadian history, there was once a period without any tolerance, displaying that the intolerance is stronger. In general, the time from 1820 - 1870, the Red River Rebellion and the time when the Metis moved west all support the argument that intolerance was stronger when the government dealt with the Metis.
If people expect to achieve peace, they must avoid the conflicts. The way that people treat others as well as the tolerance and the intolerance they demonstrate play an important role in reaching the peace. When we look at the history of Canada, we could find out that the government display the tolerance by the political decisions, the extent of government’s management and the extent of accepting the Metis opinions. The intolerance that the government showed is also demonstrated through the lack of control power over the Metis’ own stuffs, the violent actions and the government’s cold and mean attitude. Finally, intolerance is stronger even though the tolerance was existed because of the three periods - the time from 1820 - 1870, the Red River Rebellion and the time that the Metis move west. Therefore, the government’s solutions show that intolerance was stronger than the tolerance.
本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/99abd4a2be1e650e53ea9989.html
文档为doc格式