I'm not familiar with the specifics of Canadian government actions. I assume they were quite similar to the actions of the United States government in the same situations.
Both governments could have negotiated for right of way for the railroads instead of removing the Native Americans from their lands. They could have negotiated for actual sale of land to the government or settlers from the east. Maybe you can think of other ways.
In the U.S., even treaties with Native Americans were routinely ignored or violated. Was that the case in Canada, too? If so, that was certainly unfair.
I am writing an essay for socials and the topic is: To what extent was the treatment of First Nations by the Canadian government justified?
So far, I plan to explain both sides but lean more to the unjustified side(2 body paragraphs on that).
My points are: the treaties and other means of unfair treatment(1 para), the implementation of residential schools(1 para), and lastly to explain the positive side- the building of the CPR and Canada's emergence(3rd para). I would like some help on the positive side(3d para) but I am having trouble explaining why these series of unjust events were still somewhat worth it. How? What did all this discrepancy to the First Nations do to help Canada as a country?
What would Canada be like without these social injustices from the past? (Keep in mind I am leaning towards the, 'they could have done things in a less violent way, but they didn't'- what other ways could the Canadian govt at the time do to make their movement less harmful and fair?)
Thank you for your time.
2 answers
With your descriptions, yes the Canadian government was very similar to American governments.But how do they negotiate?