Red River Rebellion Summary

Words: 515
Pages: 3

Out of the three authors of the Red River Rebellion of 1885, George Woodcock portrayed the events more accurately than Charles Mulvaney or Chester Brown. Though Woodcock's version of the Rebellion of 1885 shows bias, it also states facts such as, “Sir John A. McDonald ignored the pleas and petitions of the aggrieved groups, just as he ignored the grievances of the Indians for whom the treaties were being meanly interpreted by an economically minded government” (Woodcock, 273). Woodcock is stating, that McDonald took no action during these occasions which contributed to the start of the Rebellion. Moreover, unlike Mulvaney and Brown's illustrations of the Rebellion, Woodcocks used the proper language to refer to the Metis, avoiding prejudice name-calling, in particular “half-breeds were doubtless justified.” and “established an island of medievalism and of alien race” (Mulvaney, 28). …show more content…
Furthermore, Woodcock's version of the Red River Rebellion mentioned the difficulties faced by the prairie people due to the conditions in the treaty - more specifically “the Metis -- who were not included in the treaties'', which lead to the Rebellion, (Woodcock, 273). The Metis were not taken into account during the treaty so as a result, part of their lives were forced to be abandoned and had no land to live in, this was an honest part of history that Woodcock communicated. Woodcocks wrote his book with little bias, not showing support for the side he chose to write about nor remorse for the opposite side, he wrote the facts and events, the cause and effects of the Red River Rebellion of 1885. On the contrary, Mulvaney and Brown were the opposite, they’re descriptions and illustrations showed bias in various