About the Conflict that occurred between the Selkirk settlers and the Metis, could there have been any way to prevent it? Like could a peaceful solution have been found?
Question ID
538864
Created
April 29, 2011 12:53am UTC
Rating
0
URL
https://questions.llc/questions/538864
Answers
8
Views
492
8 answers
-
What do YOU think?
Most conflicts can be avoided -- but someone has to give in. Did the settlers and the Metis gain or lose from this conflict?Answer ID
538886Created
April 29, 2011 12:55am UTCRating
0 -
The Metis won. They had to fight for their right, the leader of the settlers wasn't listening *straight*. They could have made deals or something, well they never had a government that time, maybe the government would have provided a law/rules.
This is what I think.
Could I hear your opinion please?Answer ID
538892Created
April 29, 2011 12:58am UTCRating
0 -
The settlers invaded Metis territory. It's human (and animal) nature to defend one's territory.
Answer ID
538899Created
April 29, 2011 1:04am UTCRating
0 -
So no peaceful solution could have been found? Unless the leader of the settler wasn't so demanding right?
Answer ID
538901Created
April 29, 2011 1:06am UTCRating
0 -
But I can't get this off of my head. Why couldn't a peaceful solution have been found?
Just cause there was no other way to fight?Answer ID
538903Created
April 29, 2011 1:06am UTCRating
0 -
If they didn't fight, the Metis would have had to accept a compromise that would have been to their disadvantage.
Some conflicts and wars are justified.Answer ID
538904Created
April 29, 2011 1:08am UTCRating
0 -
Oh okay. So it all depended on the individuals, if they were ready to listen, then fights would not have happened. But since they were not ready to listen, fights were bound to occur.
Answer ID
538907Created
April 29, 2011 1:09am UTCRating
0 -
Yep.
Answer ID
538910Created
April 29, 2011 1:12am UTCRating
0