First, your research into events and their effects seems to be admirable. Your writing is a bit clumsy. I cannot go line by line here, but I'll go over the first paragraph to give you some hints.
First, "on-going" should be hyphenated. But it's a clumsy way to say what you want to say. It assumes that the treatment was "mistreatment," which, as you say, is debatable. You might say, "Alleged mistreatment..." or "Continuing mistreatment..."
You then say "to Aboriginals..." A better preposition would be "of."
Then you say it has been ...debated amongst the Canadian government." Government is a singular noun. It can't debate all by itself. "Amongst" implies plural debaters. "Within" might be a better word.
Your next sentence, beginning with "This editorial..." is also a bit clumsy. You might better write that "We need to explore some of the history of relationships between native populations and the Canadian government to understand the issues and the effects (look up "affect" and "effect")..."
"Nevertheless" needs a comma after it. But the sentence, again, needs polishing. Descreation of what? Mistreatment of whom? I know what you mean, but you don't SAY what you mean. And I am not sure your use of "nevertheless" is appropriate. Historical events have ended. They are history. An event is specific. You might say something like: "The desecration of Aboriginal land and neglect of native Canadians has roots in the past, and is apparent today."
I hope this gets you started as you revise your first draft.
Can you edit my editorial for grammar punctuation, spelling etc?
Samantha Witkowski
CHC 2D
Mrs. Buyers
April, 4, 2015
Aboriginal Opinion Editorial
On going years of mistreatment to Aboriginals have been heavily weighed and debated amongst the Canadian government. This editorial will go in depth of the social injustice by the political leaders and the affects it has had on our native population. Nevertheless these historical events have not ended, much of the desecration and neglect is still apparent today.
For example, Caledonia’s dispute over land ownership. Leaders within the liberal government and the Six Nations Confederacy have argued over who can rightfully use the land. Liberals sought after the title of ownership because they aspired to build what was believed to be manufacturing and commercial units. Caledonian community members’ argued that they were rewarded the land by the British Crown in 1784 for their loyalty during the American Revolution therefore allowing them to “take possession of and settle”. The natives’ response to the dispute was to rally four hundred civilians for a protest and create multiple road blockades over separate periods of time. In correspondence, many were arrested during said protests and this triggered the twenty million dollar lawsuit to compensate for the suffering over that five year period of time. Twenty million dollar settlement was signed on July the eighth of 2011.
Two controversial perspectives that relate to diverse factors are another prime example. Two articles written by Canadian Journalist, Jonathan Kay and another by Hayden King, Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at Ryerson University discuss their points of views. Each view is either branching from economic based priorities or are in favour of human rights and equality.
These aspects contribute to many disputes and are the silver lining to the outcome and actions from various participants. The Government in recent years have begun to acknowledge the issues for the sake of aboriginal peoples being able to represent their rights and speak up. We find them on the councils, in our communities. They are everywhere and they are making the change visible to everyone and spreading awareness. Hayden King is of aboriginal heritage himself.
Throughout his article you dive in and follow the stories he shares; all of which relating to the tragedies as well as recognizing his aspirations. King breaks down the concept of gender roles, and proves that any self governed nation can work and strive with the right qualities and laws in place. Each writer refers back to old treaties, but they’re ideas differentiate from one another. Kay argues that aboriginals run rural societies and are deteriorating our economy, he states in his article “Rural economies have been dying since the Second World War”. Hayden King believes strongly that “even as distinct nations, we can share the same territory”.
The assimilation of these aboriginals were by forceful tactics taken by the government. Children were taken from their families and put into north american culture to become educated members of society. The parents agreed that the children would benefit but when children came back there was an astounding cultural disconnect among other things. Children no longer understood their mother tongue because in schools it was prohibited that you speak your native language and if so there was a massive plethora of harsh punishments for such a simple ideal, and habit. This left families split apart, children as disappointments to some homes and an increased rate of suicides and substance abuse statistic among teens.
Parents were responsible for their children’s attendance, as it was mandatory, for Aboriginal children across Canada. Failure to send children to the residential school often resulted in the punishment of parents, including imprisonment. Canada was built upon an ideology that did not consist of a place in Canada’s future for Aboriginal Peoples. Canada was developed with policies that forced Aboriginal assimilation and separation from their land. These policies, legislations and regulations are examples of natives not able to do everything promised by government.(eg; Section 35, The Constitution Act)
Looking into the future of this matter, in my opinion, it seems very unpromising for aboriginal rights and the development of better ties in this nation. However I have high hopes that peace will come, I agree with many points Hayden King has made. I do not believe the equality will come supported by the hands of treaties or lawsuits. I truly aspire for the peace that comes from a consensus of understandings among all nations. The mutual perspective that we are all contributing members and we must all be considered. Perhaps people could look past their economic benefits and see that these are people just as the rest of us are. They need to be nurtured and are absolutely capable of working and communicating laced within other cultures and social ladders. It seems unfathomable now that racial integration was ever apparent, whites and coloured people separated. I don’t see how this is different in that concept, although dull results are present in the aboriginals history, I strongly think that if people start to open their eyes to the possibilities the future could then be foreseen bright from here and peaceful relations are not unreasonable.
1 answer
1 answer