In the website it tells you that confederation gave many different benefits to many different people. Sadly in 1939 to 1954 aboriginal peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador did not get those benefits in fact they did not get any benefits at all. So Aboriginal people from Newfoundland and Labrador felt very left out because they felt like they were not apart of there province. The authors point of view was that the aboriginal peoples were left out, because they did not get any benefits and everyone else in their province did. The author communicates that it was unfair for the aboriginal peoples because they did not get their own say or their opinion. They also must of felt like they were the third wheel of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is because they did not get any benefits at all, or an opinion. I think the author does have a bias. I think this because one of the author's main point is that the aboriginal peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador were left out of confederation. This is a good secondary source to read because it shows a lot of background research and interesting information in a short amount of text. It also shows an opinion of the author and the text tells us that the aboriginal people of Newfoundland and Labrador were left out. In conclusion the aboriginal peoples must of felt left out and forgotten and I think the author was trying to give notice to everyone that was not aware of the situation. Happily in the end they did get included in everything.
Before confederation started europeans started to live in North America and it became more and more popular. When confederation started europeans were overpopulating first nations. So europeans wanted to “include” first nations. So they made them go to residential school and tried to change them because they thought it would be beneficial for them. Now they realize they were wrong and that you should never change a person's beliefs or culture. The author also talks about women's perspectives on everything! Which is voting, not allowed to be a politician, and was not allowed to express themselves in politics. The authors point of view is that first nations did not get a chance to participate or to be heard. At the beginning of the article the author says that 2 main groups were not heard and were sadly not allowed to participate. The author proves this by telling us that first nations were put into residential schools and did not get a say or an opinion on if they wanted to or not. Also they tell us about all the events that women were left out of. I think the author does show bias. You can tell that the author shows bias because they focus on the point about how they were left out and did not get a chance to say there opinion nor their point of view, not about the good things that happened. As well as how women were neglected in so many ways. First nations had to do whatever the europeans wanted them to do, although the europeans did think it was best for first nation people. This is a good secondary source because it shows two different topics of people who were left out of confederation. It is very interesting and there is not a lot of text and I find that more interesting to read, because there is so much information packed in a small amount of text.
This website is telling us about when and who joined confederation. This website is also telling us about how after parts of Canada joined confederation Canada is way better off and has achieved so many things! They say that Canada is one of the most freest, wealthiest, most welcoming and diverse countries in the world. The author thinks it is all because parts of Canada joined confederation. The authors perspective is that without joining confederation we would not have been able to achieve so many things. I think the author's main idea throughout this article is that without confederation Canada is practically nothing and we wouldn't have been able to accomplish everything that we have today. The author proves this by telling the readers everything that Canada has achieved and done well, since everything has happened after confederation. Yes, the author is definitely is showing a side of bias. They are definitely on the side of confederation because the author is saying only positive things about confederation, because there was bad things that happened involving confederation in my opinion. I think this is a good secondary source because it has so much information. Also at least for me when the text was saying everything that Canada has accomplished it made me feel like I'm apart of a country that has been greatly accomplished. Also it made me prouder to be canadian. In conclusion I think confederation did make some mistakes at the beginning but in the end this article made me think that confederation is good after everything that Canada has accomplished.