In this essay, the articles ‘Listen to the north’ by John Ralston Saul and ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?’ by J.R. Miller will be analyzed, specifically looking at each authors argument and his appeal to ethos, logos and pathos. In the first article, ‘Listen to the North’, author John Ralston Saul argues that current Canadian policy when it comes to our north, and the people that reside there, is out of date and based on southern ideals that hold little bearing on the realities that face northern populations. He suggests instead that the policies and regulations should be shaped by people who know the territory and it’s needs, namely people who live there. In the second article, ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?, Author Jim Miller discuses conventions in recording native history, focusing on an area he refers to as native-newcomer history. He discusses topics such as who should be recording said history, and for whom it should be intended, as evidence in the title. Both of these articles provide arguments that appeal to ethos, logos and pathos, but it is my opinion that John Ralston Saul makes a more convincing argument to his audience in ‘Listen to the north’ than Jim Miller makes in ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?’.…