This author’s opinion is that confederation had good outcomes and bad outcomes. He shows this by talking a lot about Sir John A. Macdonald, and telling the readers lots of this about him. In the beginning of the article, he talks about politicians and First Nations. He also talks about how some people think Sir John A. Macdonald is a good role model for young children because he is a nation builder. Then the author talks about how Aboriginals were not treated properly. The author talks about how they lost their land and how the white people in Canada were treated as superiors to First Nations. Then the author talks about a book, “Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life”. And the author said how it is a good book to read for a proper telling of Sir John A. Macdonald and his relationships with the First Nations. After this the author talks about Sir John A. Macdonald’s legacy. The author says many journalists like writing about politics. The author also mentions that people see Sir John A. Macdonald in different ways. Some said “Macdonald was a ‘visionary patriot or hateful embarrassment.’”. And lots of other people said other things similar to that. The author also says that historians also made their own statements. In the end, I think this is a good secondary article to read.
This article is from the opinion of a First Nations person. Their opinion is that Canada should not have taken their land and then built a nation on it. The author proves their point by giving examples of what happened and explaining how First Nations were not treated properly and treated unfairly. In the article, the author recognizes and tells us that not all of Canada is treating First Nations badly, and some places are trying to help fix what confederation did to them. The First Nations author says that the First Nations do not want money, but instead access to all that confederation took away from them. They want access to their land, hunting grounds, and they want to be able to do the things that they used to, like, following their prey and migrating with it. Which can not be done with the cities and towns that confederation made. It is not fair for the First Nations t have their world and way of life taken away from then by confederation. The author says that people shouldn’t steal land from other people just to gain power and money. To sum it all up the author says, “So, no, many Mohawks will not be celebrating 150 or 375, even if some of our people take back a little bit of money from the celebrations of a country that tried to destroy us. That's like inviting people into your house to blow out the birthday candles after they've kidnapped your child.” To explain that it is not right for First Nations to celebrate something that tried to destroy them. Overall I think this article is bias towards First Nations, and is a good primary article to read for a First Nations opinion.
The author of this article explains his point of view on Canadian confederation, and that Canada isn’t really a nation at all. One of the first things this author talks about is about how some groups in Canada either are not really part of Canada, or that they are not recognized as much as they should be as a part of Canada. These groups are the First Nations, and the Quebecoi. The second thing the article talks about is about how all the other Countries and nations can call themselves nations, but Canada can’t, and shouldn’t. Another thing the article mentions is about how the federal government is in dept, not recognized as much as it should be, and that they are not able to do a lot without the provinces’ recognition. The next thing the author says is that Canada has an unstable balance and that the country could break apart. The author also states that we allow free trade with the rest of the world, but we do not have free trade with ourselves. The author also says to the readers their own opinion about how they think they could fix these problems they talk about. They talk about how that it it not right to blame certain peoples when it is not particularly their fault. It is also mentioned that some people think a nation should be one culture, which Canada is not. They say that we need one leader who is superior to call ourselves a nation, but still we are not a nation. Overall, I think that this is a good secondary source to read, being against confederation.