This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 22 October 2014, At: 16:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

American Review of CanadianStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rarc20

Introduction: SHAFR 2000 andNorth American Culture(s)Richard Dominic WiggersPublished online: 11 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Richard Dominic Wiggers (2001) Introduction: SHAFR 2000 andNorth American Culture(s), American Review of Canadian Studies, 31:3, 423-426, DOI:10.1080/02722010109481602

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02722010109481602

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

6:56

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Introduction: SHAFR 2000 and American Culture( s)

North

RICHARD DOMINIC WIGGERS

everal weeks after the academic conference where the five following S presentations were first made, the Canadian edition of Time maga- zine (10 July 2000) carried a cover story with the provocative title, “What Border?” The article described the economic links that were growing be- tween Canada and the United States, and the new political relationships that were being forged between states and provinces on both sides of the border. The statistics are certainly impressive: during 1999 Canadians in- vested more than C$91 billion in the United States and nearly C$118 billion of capital flowed the other way; each minute the two countries conduct more than C$l million in cross-border trade; and each year more than two hundred million Canadians and Americans cross the border for personal or professional reasons. There are probably no two nations that better symbolize the benefits of the current trends towards increasing economic integration and globalization. The 1 1 September terrorist at- tacks and their aftermath reminded us, as never before, of the costs.

National frontiers are disappearing in the realm of North American academic scholarship as well. In recent years, even U.S.-centric organi- zations such as the Center for the Study of the Presidency,’The Modem Language Association (MLA), the Organization of American Historians (OAH), and the American Studies Association (ASA) held their annual meetings in Canadian cities. During the summer of 2000, the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) joined that trend when they held their conference at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto. It was the first time in the organization’s twenty-six-year history that its members met outside of the United States.

Such organizations have been drawn north by more than the cheaper Canadian dollar or the opportunity to visit a popular tourist destination. Scholars recognize the growing sense that the academic communities in both countries are becoming consolidated into a greater North American whole. The steady growth of organizations such as the Association of Cana- dian Studies in the United States (ACSUS) is further evidence that the parochial frontiers of academic disciplines and nationalities are breaking down in the face of a broader and more dynamic and inclu- sive community of scholars.

The American Review of Canadian Studies (Autumn 2001): 423-426

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

6:56

22

Oct

ober

201

4

424 Wiggers

Anticipating the June 2000 meeting of SHAFR in Toronto, some of those involved decided that it would be a good idea to take the opportunity to highlight the topic of bilateral cultural relations. To that end, leading economists, sociologists, historians, government officials, consultants, and journalists from both sides of the border were invited to participate in a se- ries of four panels that examined the current state of Canadian-American cultural relations. As the recent Time article asserted, manufactured goods, investment dollars, and private citizens of both nations are intermingling at an ever-growing pace. Given this, a variety of questions seemed worth ex- amining: As national frontiers disappear as a barrier to commerce, what will be the impact upon the social identities and cultural institutions and distinc- tiveness of both nations? Have Canadians become too preoccupied with the growing influence of their closest neighbor, while ignoring the globalizing influences that are being exerted on both North American nations from overseas? Are there lessons to draw from the North American experience for other nations that also face the challenges of economic interdependence and globalization? Do the successes of Quebec diva Celine Dion and the acro- batic troupe Cirque du Soleil in both the U.S. and the wider global market indicate that French Canada has been able to develop a formula that actu- ally turns the table on the apparent omnipotence of American pop culture? Is there any remaining role for governments in a field of commerce that is so incredibly responsive to changing consumer tastes and market forces?

The first roundtable at SHAFR 2000 was an attempt to better define the terminology of the topic. What is meant when Canadians or other peoples around the world talk about “American” culture, pop culture, modernization, or globalization? The roundtable was inspired by the August 1999 issue of N a t i d Geographic, one of the best-selling issues ever of that popular U.S. photojournal. The cover story examined the topic of “Global Culture” and discussed the apparent “homogenization” of the world’s cultures. But the accompanying articles also noted that the growing influence of urbanization, technology, democracy, human rights, and the English language around the world is not necessarily an indication of the “Americanization” of the planet. Even the United States itself is being transformed by globalization, a process made more visible in recent years by the growing cultural influence of the Spanish-speaking minority within that nation.

We asked the participants in this introductory roundtable on global culture, including the author of the N a t i d Geographic article that inspired it, to attempt to more clearly define exactly what “globalization” means not only in terms of Canadian- American cultural relations, but in the broader

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

6:56

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Introduction: North A m k a n Cultures 425

context of the entire international community. We also asked the participants to consider whether the growing intermingling of peoples, including largescale im- migration from around the world into countries like Canada and the United States, will transform both societies to the point where the traditional na- tional culture and state structures and symbols will become outmoded. Are all of us, including those currently living within both Canada and the United States, becoming subsumed into a global culture where national policies have less and less influence over people and ideas? Is the blending of North Ameri- can peoples and cultures the harbinger of such a future? The moderator of the roundtable, Reginald C. Stuart, has ably summarized the findings of the participants and of the discussions that followed. A separate article written by one of the participants, Diane Pacom, focuses on the apparent versatility of Quebec culture in the face of the challenge posed by globalization.

After a generally optimistic examination of the apparently inexorable process of urbanization, modernization, and globalization, the discussion moved to the implications for national policies in both nations, but particu- larly for Canada. In fact, the roundtable discussing cultural policy ended up forming the core of the panels at SHAFR 2000, and of this special section of ARCS. Despite the North American Free Trade Agreement and the grow- ing standardization of Canadian and American trade and economic policies in a number of areas-and growing pressure to standardize customs and im- migration policy in the wake of the 11 September terrorist a t tacke the two countries continue to differ immensely in their approach to their cultural in- dustries and national cultural policies. What can Canada and the United States learn from each other’s past and current experiences and, given recent discussions about split-run magazines and federal subsidies for NHL teams based in Canada, what is the future likely to bring?

The panel on television, film, and national histories was inspired by the recently broadcast CBC series Ck.n&: A Peopk’s Hktory, as well as the success of and controversies surrounding recent films such as Saving Priwte Ryan, The Pantot and Pearl Hurbor. One of the most important purveyors of national c u l m is the mass media. We asked our panelists to discuss how the North American televi- sion and movie industry has pomayed the national history of each nation. What kind of historical images are currently being projected to the mass audiences within Canada and the United States, and in what manner-film, documen- tary, series? How do the audiences respond to those messages and what, if any, role does the government play in each case? How good a job has television done in both countries in maintaining principles of historical accuracy and objectivity? Most importantly, what role can and should scholars play?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

6:56

22

Oct

ober

201

4

426 Wiggers

Another aspect of popular mass culture that we sought to discuss at SHAFR 2000 was sports. As long as there have been international com- petitions like the Olympic games, athletes have been viewed as represen- tatives of their states. At the same time, success in international sports was viewed as a cultural representation of national progress and success- ful government policy. Certain sports even acquired national symbolism. But like so many other aspects of national culture, sports have also been transformed by globalization, particularly in North America. During the 1990s, the Toronto Blue Jays challenged the idea that baseball was ex- clusively “America’s sport”; at the beginning of 2000, increased fears were expressed about the disappearance of Canadian hockey franchises to cit- ies south of the border; and “Europe’s sport”-soccer-continues to make inroads in both countries. Barbara Keys of Harvard University helped us pull together an impressive panel to discuss these and other issues.

* * * Many individuals were responsible for the success of the panels at

SHAFR 2000 and the compilation of this special issue. Most important was the funding support provided by the Canadian Embassy in Washing- ton, D.C., through their Conference Grant Program. Additional funding support for the panels at SHAFR 2000 was provided by the United States Department of State, The Canada-U.S. Fulbright Program, and the Or- ganization for the History of Canada (OHC).

Numerous individuals also deserve thanks for assisting in various aspects of the planning of these panels. Margaret MacMillan of Ryerson Polytechnic University chaired the Local Arrangements Committee, and Geoffrey Smith served as chair of the Program Committee. David Biette and Joseph Jockel of ACSUS, as well as Richard Stites at the U.S. con- sulate in Toronto and Dan Abele at the Canadian Embassy in Washing- ton, provided important advice and encouragement along the way.

My deepest gratitude is reserved for Reginald C. Stuart of Mount Saint Vincent University, David Culbert of Louisiana State University, and Robert Thacker of St. Lawrence University. Neither the panels at SHAFR 2000 nor the contents of this special section would have been possible without their constant encouragement and advice throughout the past year.

..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 1

6:56

22

Oct

ober

201

4