There are several reasons why the Metis had the right to complain about the sale of Rupert’s Land. Firstly, this land was originally their ancestors, so they should have had the right to decide whether or not they would like to sell it off to the British Crown. Though the European settlers that came to the land in 1670 did make the land’s economy better, by expanding the fur trade, and introducing the First Nation’s to newer technology. Also the Metis would’ve not been here if the Europeans never came, because the Metis were a community of people that were half Aboriginal, and half European, and this was done for the better of the economy of the land. But even after all this, I still believe the faith of the land should still be in the hands of the Metis. The Europeans also have the charter, that says they own the land. But even after all that, the Europeans do not have the right to decide what happens to the land because they only modified it, it wasn’t theirs to begin with. To make this easier to understand, I have created an analogy.
Let’s say, Mr. A has a sketch of a cat that his father had drawn for him when he was a child. One day, Mr. B came along and asked if he could have the sketch, and Mr. A obliges. Mr. B tells Mr. A that the sketch would be better if it had some color, so he colors it in. He also tells him that people would like it more if the cat had a longer tail, so he draws it in. Suddenly, one day, Mr. B tells Mr. A that the cat sketch is his, because he colored and modified the tail. But who drew the original drawing, and who had it in his possession first? Mr. A and his father.