Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā The two readings we had this week were From Folklore to revolution: charivari and the Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837 by Allan Greer and Roughing it in the bush, or, life in Canada by Susanna Moodie. They were both about the Charivari, one explaining it better than the other. I found that Moodieās book explained Charivari better than Greer did, Moodie explained it more in a story-like sense where Greer just seemed to assume the readers know what it means. Also there was a lack of references in Moodieās which makes it seem a little made up, whereas Greer had his sources in his paper which made it more convincing. Reading Greers Journal first not having a clear sense of what Charivari was make it a little but difficult to understand, but the language Greer uses is quite a bit more modern in the way that he writes, which helped a bit to connect with which helped with understanding. The way that the Charivari was explained made me think that else groups of people going out, acting crazy and bringing props around made my understanding of these groups of people like gangs. Charivari was an old tradition that was brought from France to Lower Canada, comparing Lower Canada to Renaissance France. It was tradition that quite a few people took part in, it was tradition of mockery in Lower Canada. Indicated in the title of Greerās it was about rebellions. That this tradition as Greer says āEnlisted not simply to ‘state positions’ or register ‘protests’, the charivari form was actually used to destroy elements of the existing state structure and even to prefigure a new regimeā (p26). Once the rebellion hit it was riots, with threats that were heightened substantially. The two readings connected well together to help with the understanding of the C
