Week 8 Wall
In what ways were the Rebellions in the Canadas similar to those in the Atlantic region? To what extent and in what ways might the 1830s be seen as an age of revolution in British North America?
Updates from July, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
admin
-
admin
Week 9 Wall
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
-
Nadir Surani
In Saul’s view, the Métis civilization was created as a result of the relationships or the intermarrying between the European fur traders and Indigenous women. Aboriginals taught the fur traders pretty much everything worth knowing, from how to live on the land, how to survive and live in unison. By doing so, the Europeans improved their lives in terms of social, economic and political aspects. Rather than simply seeing Canada as a country developed through conquest and immigration, it is important to focus on how Canada has been shaped by these relationships. Métis civilizations refer to thinking of Canada as being built on the triangular foundation of British or English traditions, French traditions, as well as Aboriginal traditions or cultures.
Moreover, children of these relationships between European men involved in the fur trade and Indigenous women developed a distinctive culture: a combination of European and Aboriginal cultures. This hybrid cultural group, commonly known as the “country-borne,” was based around bison hunting. The “country-borne” could choose to either live with their British relatives or their Indigenous relatives. If, for example, they chose to live with their British relatives, they were considered British, and vice versa. Generally, the Métis and the “country-borne” were very different because of their ways and methods of trade. Through these marriages, new relationships were formed and spread.
I believe most aspects of Canadian culture and polices can be owed to our aboriginal heritage and what has been inspired by the relationships amongst the Metis, indigenous peoples, and the traders. The Hudson’s Bay Company, the Loyalists, and New France, amongst others, were built upon these relationships and partnerships. Today, we are the outcome of that experience consisting of aboriginal influences and ideals. Thus, Canada can be considered a Metis civilization.
-
Susanna Chan
Canada is a Metis civilization even though many may disagree. There is defiantly much controversy over land today, but that is b/c of Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada. They were smart citizens who were key in the fur trade, economic development, etc. The relationship they have to our land is extremely important. Many underestimate the cultural and language importance of place they have in regards to history. Many of our families have maybe been around Canada for a few hundred years or less (depends), but the Metis civilization has been around for as long as we know. We are built on First Nation’s, French, and English traditions in Canada. If it weren’t for the Aboriginal peoples, Canada would not be what it is today. Not only did they help establish the great country we live in, they taught European’s the ways of the fur trade and other valuable lessons by creating relationships with them. They were smart traders who gained economic surplus from the fur trade. Even though we are considered on Indian land, there is much controversy on land claims, who gets what, what its used for, settlement issues, historical landmarks etc. Many like to think that we can simply “strip” away their land where history, family, relations, and cultural were built up from just to build something like a condo complex. We need to think twice about Canada and that it is in fact, a Metis civilization.
-
mwaldron
I completely agree with both of my classmates in saying that Canada is most definitely a Metis civilization. Not only were Aboriginals the first people to inhabit Canada, but as Saul suggests, they played a key role in developing the fur trade that helped the European to colonize the land and make it “their” home. With early trade starting only in and around colonies, help from the Aboriginal who knew the land was needed to expand sales. Aboriginals were also key in establishing the trade when they acted as the “middle men” for transactions, as we talked about in earlier classes and blog entries. European settlers learned many lessons from the Aboriginals that helped to establish them as a large trade entity, and some of their practices are still used today.
Aside from trade, intermarriage plays a huge part in Canada’s Metis civilization. This marriage between Aboriginals and Europeans is quite literally the meaning of “Metis.” Today, a vast majority of Canadians can trace back ancestry to the 1800’s and have a Metis bloodline in the family. I myself know quite a few people who are Metis (even though most are only 1/8th or less!).
In conclusion, Saul’s term “Metis civilization” holds great accuracy in describing Canada. Through trading lessons and aid, to intermarriage and widespread numbers of Metis people currently residing in Canada, Saul’s term is one of the better one’s to describe our country. -
geenalee
Despite the contemporary tendencies of understanding Canada as a product of European imperialism and creation, Saul argues that Canada as we know it today is a direct result of Aboriginal peoples and their culture. That is, Saul stresses the need to recognize and emphasize the fact that Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada, and even though European settlers dominated the land upon their arrival, interaction with Aboriginal peoples was inevitable and thus, had a significant impact. Saul notes the intermarriages between Europeans and Aboriginals to further prove Canada as a “Metis civilization.” Based on what we have learned from lectures so far, it is clear that Aboriginal presence was strong. They undoubtedly influenced European interests and shaped them accordingly. Based on primary sources which many historians have researched, Aboriginals were skilled traders, culturally vibrant, and highly educated and aware of their best interests. In other words, they were not passive. In addition, once a whole new generation was born from the many intermarriages, it further influenced Canada in becoming a product of Aboriginal values. In other words, Canada’s formation was not simply about European settlers dominating and imposing their views. Although Saul’s notion of Canada as a “Metis civilization’ might be highly controversial among those who are not accustomed to viewing Canadian history through this particular lens, I believe it is considerably accurate based on the fact that European and Aboriginal interactions and relationships were undeniably present and thus, influential.
-
lindseyaw
John Raston Saul establishes Canada as a Metis civilization, which is established through Aboriginal legacy. The legacy of Aboriginal peoples in Canada was created through the relationships that they had with both the French and the English fur traders, and then their relationships with the colonists. The relationship between the French and the Aboriginal peoples, such as in the negotiations of the Peace Treaty of 1701, both sides made an effort to adopt certain aspects of each other’s culture in order to create a successful peace treaty. The Aboriginal peoples and the French held a strong relationship throughout the fur trade, and the relations between the French traders and the Aboriginal women created a new Metis identity in a very literal sense.
There was a reliance on the Aboriginal peoples by the English and the French to hold on to land. When the British gained the French land in the Canadian colonies, they took into question how treaties would be established, and by what means. Although it often did not work in favour of the Aboriginal peoples, the thought was still there, and Aboriginal practices were being adopted in the process. The creation of new identities directly creates this idea known as a “Metis civilization”, but not only these relationships and distinct peoples are a part of Saul’s concept. Canada exists because of the relationship that exists between the French, English and Aboriginal peoples. Canada as a nation is built up of the diplomatic and cultural values of all of these peoples creating a unique identity and “Metis civilization”. -
Pierre-Marie B.
Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of the land which we know as Canada today. The history of Canadian civilization is tightly linked with Aboriginal culture because they were the first people whom the Europeans met when they arrived in North America, and quickly relations were tied between the two populations: fur trade, gift-giving, treaties, inter-marriage… Despite European population eventually took over Aboriginals, the influence of the latters is undeniable as they helped creating the economic, social and political policies in force in Canada now.
But the history of Canada is also based on migratory flows. As we saw in class, since the middle 18th century, different population from different cultural origins have populated North America. In Upper and Lower Canadas you could find French and English populations. Moreover, many Americans came to British Columbia or simply passed the border to find work during the gold-rush. All these cultural groups brought a contribution to what Canada is today, and even though they were long-time rivals they melted into a broader view of Canadian population.
Canada is a “Metis civilization” because it answers to the two criteria of what we call melting-pot or intermix. There is a biological interbreeding, that is to say White settlers who had children with Aboriginal peoples. These children evolved in a hybrid cultural group, commonly known as the “country-borne”. Moreover, Canadian history also demonstrates a cultural mixing: the English, the French and the Americans were not ethnically different because they all belong to the White phenotype. However, they clearly showed cultural differences in terms of societal organization, political systems and several other aspects of what constitutes a cultural group. All these cultural influences were mingled in order to form the Canadian civilization we see today.
-
Tina Loo
General Comments on this week’s blog.
This week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. With a few exceptions, all of you bought Saul’s idea. I wonder if you would like to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.
-
-
admin
Week 10 Wall
Can we consider team sports part of governmentality? Why?
Photo Credit: University of Maryland Digital Collections, 2011
-
Nadir Surani
Governmentality is a concept that was developed and originated by the historian and theorist, Michel Foucault, however, was not completed due his death in 1984. Governmentality, also commonly known as “governmental rationality,” defines what politics is all about and concerns those who study, think about, write about, and report on politics. More socially, governmentality encompasses the way in which people are organized in a society, and the way in which governing or ruling is organized.
In relation to team sports, such as hockey or soccer where teamwork is key, I argue that team sports can be considered a part of governmentality. As defined above, governmentality can include the way in which people are organized. In a sport such as ice hockey, different players have different roles throughout the game, and players are given their roles and responsibilities prior to the start of the match/game by a team leader or by a coach. This team leader or coach has a similar responsibility to a government official, or someone who has ultimate responsibility over a group of people.
The emergence of governmentality is shown to not only be restricted to apply in governmental or political situations, but also the application in social activities, such as team sports, requiring a certain number of players and the laying out of certain roles and responsibilities of those who are involved.
-
Susanna Chan
I believe sports teams are apart of governmentality b/c they are funded by the government (to an extent) and involves some of the same structures as the govt. For example, there is a hierarchy. The coach and his staff are at the top who control what occurs, who plays where, team lineups etc; the players are secondary following their boss. In govt, this is the same w/ the prime minister at the top, and we, as citizens are below. This includes staff as well. Both also thrive for the best through changes such as hiring a new coach, adjusting the team (ie: changing lines), trading players etc. The goal is to progress efficiently. Also, everyone has a different role in govt and same goes with sports teams. In hockey, the defence has their duties, centre players have their, along w/ the goalie who is key. The responsibilities may be different but their aim is the same: to win. They adjust responsibilities to best fit the situation, and team as a whole. Negotiations and agreements are made to create equality, and making sure the majority is happy. There are many similarities between the 2; but just different aspects and a different environment.
Teams also serve our nation, so it is important for us to recognize them, esp. the govt. Hockey is the most anticipated sport in Canada, w/ the govt recognizing their accomplishments such as “congratulating Team Canada finalists at WorldSkills Competition” so surely sports teams can defiantly be apart of governmntality. Not only do they represent Canada, they are representing our entire country worldwide.
-
geenalee
Governmentality is a concept introduced by Michel Foucault, which refers to how government practices beyond those of laws and policies, shape and influence citizens in behaving a certain way as to preserve the peace and order in a nation. That is, government is not strictly restricted to government institutions, but rather, can be found in various areas of society. Thus, team sports can be fully considered as a part of governmentality because they largely reflect the ways society is governed. There are many parallels between how team sports are organized and operate, with the functioning of society as a whole. For instance, the notion of the team, can be paralleled to society as being a group of citizens working together with a common goal in mind: to prosper and live harmoniously. Likewise, team sports are motivated by the goal to win the game, and to work together efficiently in order to reach this goal. Moreover, different players have different positions and responsibilities, which are all vital to the success of the game. This can then be paralleled to society where every individual plays some part in contributing to its economy, culture, politics, and social interests. As well, the structure of team sports is fundamentally influenced by discipline, order, efficiency, social hierarchy, and innovation. Such qualities in the context of team sports have an interdependent relationship with the way citizens perceive what justice is, and their views on how to behave in society. In other words, by playing team sports, these qualities are reinforced in people’s daily lives as it makes more sense to adhere to such expectations as they become normalized.
-
lindseyaw
Team sports can be considered to be a reflection of governmentality. Governmentality is the way that a state governs the population of the people it is governing over, deciding how power will be conducted, and how it is to be dispersed among the people. The way that team sports work, is that everyone on the team works together, and generally there is a leader among the people that decides how the team will work, much like the way a government does. The leader decides how the team will work depending on the people that the team is made up of, similar to the way government works. The government has to work with its citizens in order to figure out the proper way to exercise and disperse power. Team sports involve teamwork, as well as multiple other skills that would be considered important values and are promoted by the leader of the team and then by the rest of the teammates. In a governmental situation, the government works to ensure that the values that it wants to promote are shared by the citizens, and that the citizens are willing to share these values with everyone else. If the citizens share these values, society becomes more efficient. Much like the government, when the values that the team wants to share are shared, the team becomes more efficient and successful. In this sense, team sports can be considered as a reflection of governmentality, and show the type of values that citizens and people want to share with one another.
-
mwaldron
I absolutely think that sports are absolutely a part of governmentality. Sports organizations are structured into essentially a political system. However, the “Prime Minister” position is one that depends on the organization itself. In a community organization, this is most usually the President, who chairs meetings, works with treasurers and coaches, and oversees the running of the organization. In a national sporting organization, such as the NFL, often Presidents and owners of the company have little to no knowledge of what happens within the sport and are rarely involved in anything that is monetary. A trickle down effect from head coach to assistant coach to captain to different player leaders (e.g. defensive leader, special teams, etc) in the “hierarchy” on the team.
As mentioned by a couple classmates, values are also inherently a part of governmentality, and also play a large role in a successful team setting. A team without shared values falls apart, as does a government (Ex. Conservative vs NDP). Canadian sports are very linked to the government through funding when players become “carded” and play for their country. -
Tina Loo
GENERAL COMMENTS: Some of you made insightful links between team sports and govern mentality, but not all of you The public education system, police, and penitentiaries all were concerned to enforce certain values and morals and in the case of schools and prisons, to build character. Some of the most important values were deference to authority and industriousness (instead of idleness). These are what team sports do: they discipline their participants and create responsible people in the same way that education, policing, and the penitentiary did.
-
-
admin
Week 12 Wall
So what is Canada? Specifically, what are the storylines running through the first half of this course?
Yeah, baby! After the men’s hockey gold medal game, Vancouver 2010 Olympics
-
Susanna Chan
Canada is what people would say is the land of freedom where we can express who we are, our culture, and identity. This multicultural country has many different aspects to it shaped by all the different types of people within, whether its race or just who you are. When I think Canada, the first thing’s that come to mind is…hockey and cold weather. We are known for having a great love of hockey and with that, cold weather, but what many don’t know is that our land’s first inhabitants were First Nation’s people. I think that storyline was running throughout this term on many topics talked about. For example, fur trade was a big part of history and how it has shaped the relationship between settlers and Aboriginal peoples. As more settlers came into Canada, more land had to be given up to them (economic reasons also), so through history much has been shaped by what has occurred in the past. Most changes have been positive, while others are negative. Relating this back to Aboriginals, the relationship between settlers (aka non-Indigenous people today) and Indigenous people don’t exactly have a good relationship b/c of the corruption in our government history. Although, other positive things that have come about are things such as the TRC and simply, recognition of the issues in society. So I think it was important that Indigenous people was mentioned to such a great degree during this term, especially the articles by Arthur J. Ray and Van Kirk
(Last blog!)
-
lindseyaw
Canada is a country that was formed on the culture of multiple different groups including Indigenous peoples, the British, and the French. The route to confederation started with European contact with Indigenous peoples, and the relationships that were formed between the groups because of the fur trade. The fur trade therefore becomes an important storyline of Canadian identity being established. As settlers started arriving to Canada, different colonies started forming, and relationships between the groups changed. The formation of the colonies led to a focus on the relationship between the British and French settlers, and the changing dynamics as the French became a minority group even though they were a majority group before the British took over their colony.
Another main storyline leading to confederation in 1867 was the want for responsible government from each British North American colony, including West or Upper Canada, East or Lower Canada, and the Atlantic colonies. The reformation of these colonies and their governmental systems represented a change in the way that the colonies worked and wanted to work, which would eventually streamline itself into confederation. Therefore, Canada is a nation whose history contains the stories of many groups of people and their struggles and successes in reaching certain governmental systems, economic systems and religious freedoms. The stories of these Canadians show that the nation that exists today exists because of the meeting of cultural groups dating to hundreds of years ago, and how they decided to work together to create a nation in which all groups are represented in one way or another.
-
mwaldron, 
lindseyaw, and 4 others are discussing. 
Pierre-Marie B., 
Susanna Chan are discussing.
Nadir Surani 11:12 am on October 23, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada was split up into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and in both of these, armed struggle shaped political culture and two rebellions overpowered. The Rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada were the result of a non-representative form of government that gave little or no attention to rights or interests of the populations and put power in the hands of elite groups, namely the Chateau Clique which focused on Francophone values and Family Compact which focused on American values. Similarly, Atlantic revolutionaries questioned the legitimacy of the state and power relations in the name of freedom.
In the aftermath of these rebellions, the British Government realized that it needed to take immediate steps to retain the loyalty of its subjects and retained Durham to investigate the uprisings and give viable recommendations. The prime solution of the Durham report was the principle of responsible government and a large self-governing colony. This principle gradually extended to all of the colonies of settlement from the Canadas to the Atlantic colonies including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. So, the rebellions were very similar: a fight for freedom and responsible government.
For various reasons, it is fair to say that the 1830s was an “Age of Revolution” in British North America. The first was political change resulting in expanded powers for the elected assemblies. The second was religious toleration which allowed for more diversity. Finally, there was the abolition of slavery, which is by far the best example of British North America’s progressiveness. In the 1820s, slavery had been eliminated from non-rebelling colonies, and in 1833, Britain listed colonies in its Empire where slaves could get compensation, but there were no North American colonies on that list.
Pierre-Marie B. 8:36 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The division of Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as a consequence of the application of the Constitutional Act in 1791, provides us a window to look more easily at the political and cultural situation of this time. Many changes were in their making because of rebellions rising in both colonies. These dissents found their origins in inequalities at a socio-cultural level, coming themselves from a misrepresentation of the middle class people in the political system, and from a two-speed economic policy.
Indeed, middle class people and liberal professions were oppressed by the governance of elite minorities – Family Compact in Upper Canada and Chateau Clique in Lower Canada –, who held the political power. This situation led people to campaign for the creation of elected Assemblies, more responsive to their electorate. The elite also largely benefited from the land policy in effect: they owned more, better lands, and consequently the voting and political rights which go with it. The question of citizenship through land ownership was essential and subject to many changes at the time.
These rebellions spread to the Atlantic colonies because the issues were similar. Atlantic colonies had inherited the same political system there was in the Canadas, and its flaw at the same time. Power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of elite, a colonial oligarchy governing for their own interest, not the interest of the colonies. Then people wanted reforms to be undertaken for a better representation of the local population in the elected Assembly. There were a lot of struggle about the lands as well. In New Brunswick, the “casual and territorial revenues” and the taxes levied on trees harvested allowed the Council – which was not elected and therefore not representative – to take actions without the consent of the elected Assembly. In Prince Edward Island, William Cooper led an “escheat” movement: the confiscation of land from absentee proprietors and reallocation to people who invested their labour in improving it, to serve local improvement of urban areas and economy.
As a consequence of the rebellions in both Canadas and Atlantic colonies, British North America in the 1830s saw political changes with expanding power for the elected assemblies. Economic reforms also were undertaken. Agreements were found on immigration and religious matters, allowing people more freedom. All these changes are reasons why the 1830s might be seen as an age of revolution in British North America.
Susanna Chan 10:40 pm on October 24, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Rebellions in the Canadas resulted from constitutional, social-cultural, and economic factors; they were esp made worse in the 1820-30s leading to open insurrection. In the Atlantic, there were also political and economic power issues that led to issues. In both, there is a focus on elites and those who have power controlling what happens. This time was the age of revolution for many reasons. People like Joseph Howe played big roles in lobbying for change; he published the Novascotian which noted the negative aspects of the govt – he was known as the “champion of free speech” b/c of this. Also, acts by other people such as protesting and petitioning led to changes and resolutions. For example, the govt was responsible for territorial revenues in 1854. So with these changes and profound actions by leaders, this was the age of revolution when important changes were implemented.
geenalee 11:54 am on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In the Canadas and the Atlantic region, the rebellions were results of long-existing tensions and the subsequent realizations by the majority of the population of the corrupt nature of the British governments which were controlled by a handful of appointed elites. The tensions were also triggered by the efforts of the government to suppress the majority in terms of economic, political, and social influences. Conservative approaches were replaced with more liberal reforms; people were no longer willing to follow unaccountable and arbitrary power.
The Rebellions in the Canadas unfolded between the Anglophone minorities against the American and French populations in Upper and Lower Canada respectively. Land and property holding was the main issue, and with this came the political segregation of the English and Americans in Upper Canada, and the English and French in Lower Canada. Essentially, the American settlers and Francophones were denied equal political opportunities and the British appointed councils in both colonies were focused on assimilation as well as bringing in new British immigrants. Also, the Francophones in Lower Canada began to reject the Catholic Church, foreshadowing the modern secular state. The reformists in the Canadas were particularly critical of their government systems; despite the existence of elected assemblies, their influence was minimal due to the fact that the appointed councils, which were made up of a small group of British elites, had the ultimate ability to veto decisions and thus, impose more authority. Similarly, the colonies in the Atlantic region were experiencing the same situation. Although land was not as much an issue and despite the population’s overall economic prosperity, like the reformers in Upper and Lower Canada, the Atlantic regions did not approve of the unequal distribution of political involvement and influence. They wanted more representation and accountability. In all these areas, major reform leaders (Mackenzie, Papineau, Howe) significantly led the rebellions in directly refusing the appeasement attempts by the governors and the appointed councils; they were adamant for change.
The rebellions in the Canadas and the Atlantic region were similar in their concern for making the appointed councils more accountable and stressing for the need to implement responsible government. The 1830s can definitely be seen as an age of revolution in British North America as the colonies eventually were able to adopt the system of responsible government, and in all cases, the British governments as well as London were made pertinently aware of the need to respond to the needs of the majority, and that accountability was necessary in order to prevent further rebellion and potential violence.
lindseyaw 2:39 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada occurred because of the want for responsible government due to an appointed system that mainly served the elite class. The dissent in the Atlantic colonies existed because of the appointed government and the power of the elite class as well. The dissent in the Atlantic, and the rebellions in the Canadas both brought about more responsible government in the 1840s and 1850s. The similarity of the governance in the colonies before reform and the similarity of the reform movements in the colonies, show that they had similar political and societal goals.
The 1830s, the time of this rebellion and dissent in the Canadian and Atlantic colonies could be seen as a time of revolution in British North America, because people were active in calling for reform, in the form of protests, and attempts to overthrow the government in Upper and Lower Canada. In the Atlantic colonies, the dissent took the form of criticism, which eventually caused political change in the colonies. Each of these colonies eventually received and achieved political change that led to more responsible government which served society with more equality towards the middle class that wanted the reforms.
mwaldron 4:39 pm on October 25, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Rebellions in the Canadas have many similarities, in social, cultural and constitutional tensions arising. Both were stands against an appointed system, allowing the elite to dictate what they want, at the cost of the rest of the members of the colony. Upper Canada showed a distinct issue with the Family Compact, in their distribution of land to friends and others in the colony for the means of greater political power. In Lower Canada, the seigniorial system of land tenure was not well liked. Atlantic Canada became highly critical of it’s governing body, especially after seeing the steps Upper and Lower Canada were taking, on an issue almost all the same.
The Canadas, each in a different way, fought against an unequal system. Although they had some elected officials, the power of majority was still in the hands of the wealthiest in the region, who had little concern for the rest of the community. They both fought for a responsible government; to have their own voices heard.
The 1830’s could most definitely be classified as a revolution in British North American. For the first time, the settlers were speaking out against the imposed system, and striving for a voice of their own. Both political and economic changes resulted from the Rebellions (although there was far less bloodshed in the Atlantic regions). On top of political reform, also came religious reform. Religious tolerance was increased as the Francophone people began to reject the Catholic Church. The stands which Mackenzie and Papineau took ultimately lead to Durham’s recommendation that the Canadas should be granted a responsible government. After all, revolution is defined as “a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”, and despite different means, this is precisely what Upper, Lower and Atlantic Canada achieved.
Tina Loo 2:26 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on this week’s question:
Most of you did pretty well on this, which is great. You will be asked to synthesize and analyze in just this kind of way on the December exam.
The Rebellions in the Canadas and the political dissent in the Atlantic colonies shared much in common. In both regions discontent centred on the system of landholding and the power of a colonial oligarchy. As well, reformers in both regions saw responsible government as the solution; i.e. a restructuring of government so the appointed part of government was either eliminated or made accountable to the elected part of government. In short, reformers of both moderate and radical persuasions wanted more democracy.
The other similarity that dissent in the Canadas and the Atlantic colonies shared was the central role newspapers and journalists played in giving voice to dissent (Pierre Bedard, William Lyon Mackenzie, Joseph Howe were all newspapermen).