Holo Witz's views are debatable, and when he talks about Canadian collectivism and Toryism in the second half of the 19th century, he argues that it laid the foundation for Canadian agrarian socialism in the first half of the 20th century.
Historical facts, however, show that collectivism and Toryism in the second half of the 19th century actually hindered the infiltration, creation, and consolidation of various social movements on the Canadian political base, including Fabianism in Britain, the Social Gospel in the United States, the Trade Unions, and the Catholic Guild Unions.
In addition, the impact of the wave of migration should also be taken seriously.
The two mestizo uprisings led by conservatives were brutally suppressed, not in the spirit of "Red Torrisianism". Conservatives are corrupt ruling elites created to record a "Pacific scandal" in their history over the financing of cross-border railways.
This sparked a debate about whether Canadians were "red" or not, and the contradiction was caused by G's reasoning. Horowitz discusses the peculiarities of Canadian socialism, arguing that the germ of socialism was made possible by the existence of Torryism, but also suggesting that they were carried by British immigrants.
Socialism, however, is no stranger here, for it was not brought by foreigners, but was established by British immigrants, workers, and the functionaries and ideologies of the socialist movement.
Despite its limitations in explaining some issues, G-Theory provides us with in-depth insights into Canadian history.
Horowitz could not explain why British socialism was strongest in the West, even in the Atlantic provinces, where conservatives and loyalists never settled, or why historically conservative areas – the Atlantic provinces – were the least receptive to socialism.
Another weakness of the G-theory lies in the fact that Horowitz and Hartz and Sm.Lipsset both tried to explain the origins of Canadian agrarian socialism in terms of a single factor, such as its association with Torryism, while ignoring the influence of many other factors.
For example, the Sifton immigrants from Eastern Europe did not bring with them Fabianism in Britain, but socialism in France and Germany. In addition, the theory does not take into account religious factors, ignoring the economic factors that caused the major contradictions in tariff policy between central and agricultural provinces of Canada, as well as the impact of World War I and the October Revolution.
n.Wessman's theory of migration attempts to integrate previous theories with the fragmented concept of theory l. Hartz and Sm.The theory of "formative events," combined with the historical waves of European and other immigrants to Canada, argues that immigrants demonstrated their formative and sustained influence in Canadian party politics by creating and supporting the political parties as they are known today.
In addition, Weisman distinguishes between five major waves of immigration that have the same impact on Canadian political culture as formative events, contrary to Weissman, so to speak.
However, it is almost impossible to agree with this straightforward and simplified assessment, and Canada's history tells a different story that runs almost throughout the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century.
The Franco Quebec family was actively involved in the liberal reform movement and the establishment of the Canadian political party system.
l.-J led the Patriot Party, which was founded inspired by the ideology of the French Revolution in the 18th century and British liberalism. French Canadians were actively involved in the founding of Canada and the establishment of the party system, and together with Anglo-Canadians, they formed a political tradition of alternating Anglo-Canadian and Franco-Canadian leaders at the federal level.
At the same time, the political development of Quebec was artificially delayed, and Anglo-Canadian nationalism sought to assimilate the French-Canadian population, limiting its cultural population. The national culture of the first half of the twentieth century led to a "quiet revolution", although there were other reasons as well.
Quebec can only survive if it distances itself from the Anglo-Canadian culture. However, this does not mean that the Franco-Canadian community wants to disengage from the country's cultural and political life.
Conversely, cultural and political participation has been limited in certain historical periods. As for the second wave (royalists), they exaggerated the influence of loyalists on the formation of the Communist Party of Canada in the first half of the XIX century.
In general, the conflict between French Canadians and Anglo-Canadians mainly concerned the executive and civilian elites of the United Kingdom, as well as the emerging British elites. Together, these factors have shaped the historical development of Canada and Lower Canada.
Loyalists were accepted in some settlements in Canada, not Ontario. They formed their own political elite and unique economic system in Canada. Weisman argues that the shifting ideology of American loyalists led to the liberal reformist uprising in Upper Canada.
However, this view can be questioned. In fact, it was the Papineau patriots of Lower Canada who were the first to propose reform, and they made clear the goals of the reform. The Anglo-Canadian reformers did not revolt, and they put up real resistance.
Their actions made the French even more worried about Great Britain**, which prompted the Unification Act of Upper and Lower Canada of 1840.