The U.S. Cultural Impact upon Canada

Abstract

Introduction The extent to which the existence of an independent nation-state requires the support of a national culture is a subject that both academics and cultural types have been debating hotly. Some argue for the government-assisted protection of national cultures; others insist that national cultures can survive without such assistance; a third group insists that the idea is futile if not absurd--that in this age of globalization cultures are bound to blend into one another to produce one cosmopolitan whole. Since the 1950s, a majority of the Canadian elite and most Canadian governments have subscribed to the first point of view; that is, that governments have an obligation to help a national culture survive. Indeed, Canadians may be unique in considering a national culture as necessary as national defense to the survival of their nation--such support is part of the ongoing search for a Canadian identity. (1) This paper argues that Canadian efforts to protect and foster a national culture have been more successful t han have those of the governments of many other developed countries. It does so by examining a number of examples of the federal government's cultural policy in a comparative context. After several case studies of transborder cultural conflict, this paper will argue that Canada has succeeded better than Australia, Chile, or some small European countries in preserving its cultural autonomy. However, the battle never ends, and there are new challenges from the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. For Canadian cultural policies, the future may not be as rosy as the past. After the United States became an independent country (in 1783), what remained of British North America consisted of a territory that was larger in size but lower in population than the new country to the south. This reduced British North America, however, gained an English-speaking population as a direct result of the American Revolution. The arrival of the Loyalists meant that the country that later came to be called Canada was no longer predominantly French-speaking. As British North America became English-speaking, it also became subject to cultural influences from the new and vibrant country to the south. As a result, British North Americans, later called Canadians, have considered at least some measure of control over their cultural identity as essential to national survival. Illustrations of this abound. First, Canada's cultural institutions employ large numbers of Canadians as writers, editors, and performers. Second, they allow communication across provincial boundaries on matters of importance to Canadians: federal and provincial politics, medicare, eastwest transportation, and the roles and the size of the Canadian Armed Forces, to name only a few. CNN from the United States and The Economist from the United Kingdom are enlightening, useful sources of information, but they do not fulfil the same role as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or Maclean's. Third, a national culture and communications policy promotes national unity and a national political culture, factors which are of importance in a country that twice in the past twenty-five years has faced a real threat of disintegration. (2) The First Half of the Nineteenth Century Loyalists (or Tories) who fled the United States during and immediately after the War of Independence and then relocated in what is now Canada quickly rebuilt their bridges to the United States. Before 1800, the Nova Scotian Magazine made an effort to be objective in its coverage of American news. Ethnic and fraternal societies on both sides of the border established contacts, and family ties across the international boundary became stronger. (3) Immigrants continued to move northward from the United States, and American schoolteachers with American texts taught an American curriculum in British North America. (4) Protestant denominations in Upper Canada (now Ontario) were frequently outposts of ecclesiastical structures based in the United States. …