I’m somewhat concerned with this piece from the Globe’s Eric Andrew-Gee. I’m not sure there’s sense or safety to engage in a revisionist history that basically completely paves over people of colour. One of the very earliest frames taught in college level History is to consider looking at people and groups as self-interested parties as opposed to presuming them as some kind of entity. During the 1800s, pioneering into Canada was a dangerous and profitable venture. There was immense country, and Europe was attracted to the resources offered. During this time, First Nations had knowledge of the terrain, how to survive, and commanded a price for this.
The early pioneers brought their ambition, but they also brought their problems across the Atlantic. There are plenty of reports documenting the sectarian and racial violence between all of the different Europeans who were brought by sea by their respective states. Everyone was looking for wealth, land, shelter from persecution - perceived or otherwise.
But Gee now focuses on Professor Cooper on the premise that the provinces that eventually were established had some kind of identity. I’d suggest the opposite, these borders were set for administrative purposes to at least frame over what we would now characterize as the complete wild West.
My immediate two cents anyway