Yes, Provincial exams...the exact reason why I have been away for so long.
*you give me an odd look* But those aren't until the end of the month!
*looks down at his shoes* Exactly, but the studying...grr...never mind...
Well, I am back...*looks above* did I just write that? Well, I must have because no one else is on this blog except me....oh boy....anyway as you may know already I still haven't finished my book but I am working on it and have a few thousand more words to go before it is ready to begin revising (which there will be a lot of). Other than that I am working on my English course with renewed enthusiasm as my teacher continues to give me pleasing marks and as for my Socials courses I am also getting off to a great start...hey, that sparked an idea, how would you like to read some of my work that I have written? Ok, well, lets see......ahha...here it is, this is a post I wrote recently arguing that the Canadian rebels (in 1837) were justified in taking up arms against the British government....here it is....
In 1837, were the rebels justified in taking up arms against the official government?
With Rebel Patriots causing much tension in 1837 and political unrest growing between Britain and the Canadian colonies many people began to grow unsettled with the unjust rules that were being put down upon them. With the unchanging law set by the king of England forcing tariffs and other self beneficial taxes, the un-loyal people began to bend under the pressure that was set. Now it was only a matter of time before they exploded, and they did. The real question though is did, or did not the Patriots become justified in taking up arms against their benefactor. My answer, yes they were justified.
Upon the immense migration into Canada during the 1800’s many new complaints began to arise among the unhappy settlers. Some of the complaints had to do with the fact that they had little land to farm and that their taxes were too high, but most were based on the fact that transportation was terrible and that the roads were much too rough. With these complaints in mind they decided to take them to the only people who could make a difference which at that time was the British government. Popular men like William Mackenzie and Joseph How were some of the leaders who came up with these lists of grievances and presented them to the high court in hopes for acceptance, but they were refused and looked upon as the ‘minority of requests’. When the people who had sent out the grievance letters received their answer they realized that they would have to show Britain that if their requests would not be granted, then they would fight for them.
Now, after hearing a bit of the history of why the rebels took up arms against their mother country you can begin to understand why I am brought to believe that they did it for a rightful cause. Britain saw these people as a minority rather than important and therefore scorned them and treated them with little respect (in certain aspects, this being one of them) and is seen when they refused the grievance letters. From what I understand, Britain, at this current time period, was having enough troubles of its own and did not want to deal with Canada’s too so they only accepted the beneficial happenings that came their way. By doing this I suppose the Canadians thought they were being disrespected and thus revolted. According to history these revolts that they carried out always were seen as a fight for freedom and not as a rebellious act out of disrespect to Britain therefore proving that they were fighting for a rightful cause rather than for other reasons.
Finally I understand that many people believe these Canadians were complete rebels, but you should understand that before the leaders stirred dissension within the people, they never once thought of starting an outright rebellion against Britain for their liberties and political freedom. Because of the influential speakers like Louis Joseph Papineau people were drawn into the whirlpool of the rebellion that was going around at that time. Without these leaders these people may never have had rebelled against England and never would have stood up for what they believe their liberties should be, therefore crediting these people for causing all of the problems would be inaccurate. Now with this understood you can see that because of the influence of the rebellion leaders the colonists wanted to be part of the liberalistic viewpoints that the Americans were thriving off of not insubordination that they are now charged with!
So, after reading my post on why I believe the Patriot’s/Rebels were justified in taking up arms against Britain you should understand their true motive as to why they began to fight against Britain. It was not for selfish reasons, but for just ones and it was not out of rebellion that they stood their ground, but defence against an intruding nation that was going to try to rule their lives and government. The Patriots stood for a righteous cause and by doing so were justified.
Here is an essay I just finished. Personally I don't think it to be as strong as my response for Socials, but it still has gotten me a good mark.
English 10 Lesson 11 Les Misérables Essay:
Protecting the Welfare of Others
Each of Hugo’s main characters in his dramatic play ‘Les Misérables’ make numerous decisions concerning others welfare and each of them have their own varying degrees of success. When wise decisions allow some to thrive and leave behind a flourishing path others will fail and leave nothing but a sorrow filled future for its victim. As he wrote the play Hugo simply wanted his audience to understand that they are responsible for the welfare of other people no matter what the circumstance. In ‘Les Misérables’, the author demonstrates examples through Valjean and employee’s daughter Cossette, Fantine and her daughter Cossette, and finally being the most important Bishop Myriel and Valjean. So with the tension upon these characters lives they all must make life changing decisions that will affect the welfare of another character, but how will they emerge from the situation?
The first character who assumes the responsibility to protect the welfare of another person is the main character Jean Valjean and his responsibility is an employee’s child, Cossette. Upon rescuing one of his employees, Fantine, he learns that she had a child and she beseeches him to find the girl and bring her back. When the woman dies out of shock when she finds out whom Jean Valjean actually is he sets out to find the child and stops at nothing to fulfill his duty. After searching for some time he finds Cossette and ‘adopts’ her from her cruel care takers and shows his first act of responsibility for the girls welfare. Valjean also teaches the child what she must know to make a living and how to live a prosperous business life with simple education much like his. Many times it is explained that he spends time with Cossette teaching her to read and write while allowing her to complete other tasks she never had been taught by her foster family. By doing this he proves his second act of responsibility conceding Cossettes welfare. Finally due to his over protective behaviour for his ‘daughter’ Valjean causes the young woman to feel restricted and independent in life therefore making her want to become dependent and she does so when she marries a man her father despises. Even though Valjean is only trying to fulfill his promise to Fantine by taking care of Cossette he realizes his job is done, but due to the build up of stress over the years he finally dies. Because of his kind actions to a complete stranger he not only saved Cossette from a life of poverty, but a most certain death.
Fantine is the second character that will be discussed as she partakes in the responsibility for her own daughter’s welfare in life. As the single mother struggles through life, Fantine decides that she can no longer keep her precious daughter with her and that she must leave her with foster parents until she is able to find a steady and reliable job. This idea becomes an action when she finds a well off family who accepts her offer for only a small salary to keep the child well and alive. This is Fantine’s first action concerning her responsibility for her daughter’s welfare as she allows Cossette to have a steady life rather than a nomadic future that is inevitable. Also, while Fantine receives minimal salary from her job in a factory she is sent letters from the Thenardier family requesting more money for her daughters needs. Instead of asking them what needs had to be fulfilled she quickly sold her hair along with two of her teeth and sent the income for her daughter. By fulfilling this selfless act she once again proved her responsibility for her daughter’s welfare. Finally, upon her death bed Fantine requesters Valjean, who is still unknown to her, to find her daughter and bring her back. By simply trusting a stranger to complete an important task such as this one she concluded her responsibilities for Cossettes welfare. By doing the tasks shown above Fantine, much like Valjean, saved Cossettes life and stopped at nothing, even her own health to make sure her child had a comfortable life.
Concluding the characters who assume the responsibility to protect another’s welfare, the Bishop is a fine example as he takes care of Valjean during his short stay. Bishop Myriel entertains the convict, Valjean, who has just been let out of prison and allows him to stay at his monastery. This is his first act wherein the Bishop assumes the responsibility for caring for Valjean’s welfare. Also, during Valjean’s stay the Bishop begs Jean Valjean to recount his life and reconsider the path that he has chosen and to decide carefully about his future. This is not only because this is the Bishop’s job to help sinners chose a lifelong path, but it is because he cares for the man and does not want to see his life ruined any more than it already is. This is the second act of responsibility for Valjean’s welfare as you can see. Finally, and most important, when Valjean is found by an officer with much of the Bishops silverware which has been stolen the Bishop is faced with the decision to dictate the due punishment coming to Valjean, or to allow him to go free in hopes for him to change. The Bishop does not need to think long as he states he gave the silverware to Valjean and that he forgot to take the candle sticks as well. This is the final and, most important action wherein the Bishop assumes the responsibility for Valjean’s welfare. Due to his kind and godly actions Valjean was saved from a lifetime in prison and he was also allowed to positively affect other characters lives.
Now after you have read about how Hugo’s characters dealt with their responsibilities, Valjean with Cossette, Fantine with Cossette and Bishop Myriel with Valjean, you can begin to understand exactly why the author wanted to show us why we too should be responsible to the welfare of others around us. Not only is this Biblical, but it is also morally correct for us to be helping our ‘neighbour’ and being responsible for them when they are unable to support themselves. Overall Hugo wants us to be the people his nation never was at the time he wrote ‘Les Misérables’, so are we up to the challenge or will we refuse to become responsible for others benefits? The choice is up to you.
not marked /6
Ok, there you have it, my 690 word response and my 1,092 word essay. So, after looking over some of my school work you can begin to understand why I am not exactly writing much. :) Keep praying and hopefully I will be able to finish soon! Also if you will keep me in your prayers as I will be attempting my first Provincial Exam on the 25. Thanks so much!
~Son of the King~