UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Portraying the Canada-United States relationship in social studies texts Seney, Bruce Everett 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 S46.pdf [ 5.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055738.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055738-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055738-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055738-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055738-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055738-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055738-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055738-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055738.ris

Full Text

PORTRAYING THE CANADA-UNITED STATES IN SOCIAL STUDIES TEXTS  RELATIONSHIP  By BRUCE EVERETT  SENEY  .Ed. ( S e c ) , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 19  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of S o c i a l and E d u c a t i o n a l  Studies)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1986 (c) Bruce E v e r e t t Seney, 1986  In  presenting  requirements  this for  an  of  British  it  freely available  agree for  that  I  by  understood  that  his  that  or  be  her or  shall  V6T 1Y3 Date  /an  the  be  shall  and  study.  I  copying by  allowed  Columbia  the  Library  publication  not  of  University  the  of  of  make  further this  head  representatives.  o f <d&£-t&i-~  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main M a l l Vancouver, Canada  at  granted  permission.  Department  fulfilment  the  extensive  may  copying  f i n a n c i a l gain  degree  reference  for  purposes  or  partial  agree  for  permission  scholarly  in  advanced  Columbia,  department  for  thesis  It  this  without  thesis  of  my  is  thesis my  written  ABSTRACT The is  the  relationship  f o c u s of many a c c o u n t s  textbooks. of  the  school  between Canada and  A variety  i n Canadian  However, with  atic  nation-centric  The enables  format  to textbooks.  multiplicity approach explain  a  in  term  sentative  of  the  framework  i s that  of  To  a topic  how  of  A second  A  a s s e s s each  perto  issues reprethe  assessment  issue areas c e n t r a l  to  three determinants  States relationship  rhetoric of  the  to analyse  describing  singular ii  thematic  the  i s por-  themes a r e : t h e e x i s t e n c e of a n a t i o n - c e n t r i c  the preponderance  of  to  multiple  and  used  are used  The  the usage of  The  helps  trayed.  spective;  the  i s s u e a r e a as b e i n g n a t i o n -  the Canada-United determinants  first,  multiplictic  f e a t u r e of  i t p r o v i d e s a more d e t a i l e d in five  of  them-  study.  themes t h a t  relationship.  relationship.  or m u l t i p l i c t i c ,  interpret  the  that  refers  d i v e r s e v i e w p o i n t s about  the p e r s p e c t i v e e v i d e n t relationship.  singular  approach  multiplictic  p r e s e n t s a number o f d i f f e r e n t the c o m p l e x i t y  secondary  p r e v a l e n c e of a  or a m u l t i p l i c t i c  The  themes  approach.  of the o v e r a l l  of p o i n t s o f v i e w a b o u t  method would u t i l i z e  centric  i n numerous  framework of a n a l y s i s  a binary decision thematic  different  the U n i t e d S t a t e s are  study develops  singular taining  and  studies  i t i s p o s t u l a t e d the accounts  Canada's r e l a t i o n s i n format  social  of t o p i c s h i g h l i g h t i n g  r e l a t i o n s h i p are exhibited textbooks.  the U n i t e d S t a t e s  the  single  or per-  relationship;  judgments.  Profiles  of  United  States  social  studies  al  issues,  ownership  nine  of  negative  in  The  five  autarkist  and  the  their  Canadian  survival  textbooks  concerned  ship  is  that  of for  and  Such  a  of  educators  developing  a  in  would  context  reveals  the to  CanadaCanadian  are:  issues,  cultur-  foreign  in  of  of  an  perspective. show  a  that  to  instead  variety  of  relations  and  in  the  the  an  on  enhancing issues. trend  States  in  relation-  audiences  including  study  teaching  publishers  classroom  be  rela-  focus  underlying  of  of  fosters  Canada's  appear  to  States  portrayals  textbooks of  Also,  tendency  Canada-United  Canada-United a  the  being  internationally-oriented  interested  appropriate  areas  fifty-two  perception  States  study with  fifteen  tendency  suggest  global  significant  Canadian-American  the  relationship  United  exploratory  of  findings  in  a  examined  description  understanding  The  have  that  nation-centric  mentality. the  indicate  textbooks  States  the  issues.  analysed  These  with  scholars  study  in  issue  environmental  trade  and  fifteen  tionship  student  issues,  profiles  Canada-United  represent  textbooks.  of  relationship.  that  evaluated  thematic the  areas are  issues,  fifty-seven  issue  relationship  defence  Results  singular  five  materials.  and  responsible  TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER  PAGE ABSTRACT TABLE LIST  i i  OF OF  CONTENTS  iv  TABLES  v i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I .  II.  BACKGROUND TO T H E  v i i PROBLEM  1  Introduction  1  The  Problem  6  The  Purpose  of the Study  6  Methodology  7  Limitations  7  REVIEW  OF  THE LITERATURE  OF  CANADA-UNITED  RELATIONS  9  Multi-disciplinary Notions  III.  of M u l t i p l i c t i c  THE CONCEPTUAL A  Selection Binary  Two  10 Studies  Assessment  of Textbooks  of Textbooks Decision  Approaches  the  9  FRAMEWORK  Multi-faceted  Significance  A  Nature  of Relationship  Promotion  Model  14 18 18 19 21 23  f o r Understanding  Relationship  Rhetoric  STATES  29  and the R e l a t i o n s h i p  A s s e s s i n g Judgments the R e l a t i o n s h i p  31  About 34  Explanation Legitimacy Issues  of the Five  39  of A n a l y s i s  42 44  of the Perspectives  Selected  of the  Textbooks  44  Examination  of C u l t u r a l  Examination  of Defence  Examination  of Environmental  Examination  of Foreign  Examination  of Trade  Interpretations of  Issues  AND  48  Issues  57 Issues  Ownership  Issues  Issues  about  66 73 84  the Rhetoric  Relationship  CONCLUSIONS  36  Selected  THE A N A L Y S I S Overview  V.  Approach  Areas  Framework IV.  of the P r o f i l e s  91  IMPLICATIONS  C o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e O v e r a l l View of R e l a t i o n s h i p Conclusions Related to the Five Issue Areas C o n c l u s i o n s about the R h e t o r i c of R e l a t i o n s h i p Underlying Approach Relationship  of  94 96 99  Teaching  I m p l i c a t i o n s and Recommendations for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY  ..94  1 00  101 1 06  v  LIST OF TABLES TABLE  I.  II.  III.  IV.  V. VI.  PAGE  A u t h o r i z e d Textbook L i s t s Ten C a n a d i a n P r o v i n c e s Original List Textbooks  of  24  Authorized 25-7  L i s t of Authorized for Study  Textbooks  Selected 28  I n d i c a t o r s of the R h e t o r i c Used t o Describe the Canada-United States Relationship  35  Original  38  List  Questions of  of Issue  Areas  for Analysing  the  Notion  Relationship  43  VII.  Profile  of C u l t u r a l  VIII.  Profile  of Defence  IX.  Profile  of Environmental  X.  Profile  of Foreign  XI.  Profile  of Trade  XII.  f o r the  Issues  56  Issues  67 Issues  Ownership  Issues  Issues  A n a l y s i s of the R h e t o r i c Used t o D e s c r i b e the Canada-United S t a t e s R e l a t i o n s h i p  vi  74 83 90  92  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There their  are  kind  study.  A  Donald  C.  a  large  Wilson, in  has  and  thank  who  deserve  support  you  who,  every  serious  result,  people  guidance  supportive moted  many  must  in be  the  my  mentor,  facet  of  this  enhanced  my  to  has  task and  singled  completion to  for  this  advisor,  consistently  Always  he  hand  and,  at  out  of  my  been  work.  the  personal  be  extended  as  commitment  to  professional  has as  proa  growth  and  development. To I  am  my  committe  grateful  for  members,  the  Don  Alper  constructive  and  Dennis  criticism  and  Milburn, positive  support. A  debt  Ponderosa when  and so  of  "H"  gratitude who  self-doubts  were  Finally,  my  to  J e f f r e y , who that  time,  often  I  give  sincere  to my  my  colleagues  spirits  and  in  confidence  evident. Loreen,  sacrificed  study  you  revived  wife,  this  Thank  i s owed  could  be  hours  and  my  and  hours  completed  children,  within  of a  Natalie  family  reasonable  thanks.  a l l for  your  support  vii  and  time  encouragement.  1  CHAPTER I BACKGROUND TO  THE  PROBLEM  Introduction  have  During  the  become  i n c r e a s i n g l y aware  cultural,  military  relationship In degree  the of  concern  ownership,  ticularly ence  at  and  of  Canadian  were the  a  the  1970s,  influence  of  United  included:  the of  Development  the  the  varied  United  nationalists  issues  of  which  affect  the  Of  trade,  in education  the  high  relations.  bi-lateral  in  the  States.  States  and  public  economic,  questioned  influence  level,  Canadian  issues  the  American  tary  State C-58  cautious of  American radio,  Foreign  on  and  in trade  Canadian  the the  to  the  to  Canada.  Investment  in educational the  led  designed  States  f o r e i g n ownership;  and  i n t e r v e n t i o n on  Canada  programs  Corporation,  of  Bill  and  "Third Option"  the  matters  of  the  culture; specifically  of  of  the  university  number  lishment  of  environmental  Canada  f e d e r a l government  tion  years,  par-  influ-  television,  publishing.  During the  the  in Canadian  music,  and  between 1960s,  twenty-five  i n t e g r a t i o n in Canada-United  particular foreign  past  National  counteract These  Radio,  and  of  Energy  the  of  the  programs  the  Agency,  involvement  matters;  part  implementa-  matters;  Review  the  estabthe  Canada  Program the  in  Secre-  implementation  T e l e v i s i o n and  Tele-  2  communications content  i n radio  During  was  negotiations, concerns  the  between  noted,  levels  interest.  Canadians  adversely,  States  want  and  closer  government  issues  The  and  relation-  been  government  but r e c e n t l y , the  public  awareness  recession  a popular  topic  Some  of concern  to  and  a f f e c t i n g many Canada  and the  for discussion,  i n t e r e s t groups  t h e two n a t i o n s  seek  whereas  others  i n September,  of the  Canada  concern.  t h e renewed  Canada  1984, t h e n a t u r e  and the United  to the posturing  Much  and n e g o t i a t i n g public  interest  and the U n i t e d  point  of view.  i n Canada  relationship.  States  States,  provide  new  Numerous greater  relation-  has emerged  of the awareness  of r e l a t i o n s h i p has assumed  textbooks  trade  Conservative  buted  educational  of  the e l e c t i o n of a Progressive  public  topic  sovereignty  i n Canada.  a serious  between  major  between  i n the areas  has always  greater  in public.  i n the  ties.  between  With  friction  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  segregration  Since  ship  With  h a s become  in private  further  ownership  has r e c e i v e d  political  both  issues,  of Canadian  Canadian  programming.  particularly  American  concerning  increased  t h e two c o u n t r i e s  relationship  United  1980s,  environmental  about  various  regulations  and t e l e v i s i o n  the early  relationship  ship  Commission  c a n be  of freer  as a  attri-  trade.  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p i t i s obvious  that  s i g n i f i c a n c e from new  social  coverage  the an  studies  of the t o p i c of  3  Many  of  the  Canada-United fashion.  ship  to  that  whereby is  States  Written  relationship refers  a  examines the  studies Canada's  i s the of  may  relations with  favour  nature  of  (Sigler  single the  and  absorption, hegemony,  be  themes  1985).  interdependence,  continentalism  and  client  state,  terms  and  in  229).  themes.  attempting  United more  Redekop  to  States.  facets  of  describe  the  contends  that  He  the  a  relationship in  picture  States  of as  the  such  may  does  or  tension  imperialism,  protectionism  use  of  of  help none  can  as  a  (Redekop,  are  Canada to  are  Canada]  these  terms  not  tend  harmonious  crisis  dependency" the  relations  domination,  its entirety.  theory  as  of  descriptions  they  to  clear  such  that  described  States.  r e l a t i o n s h i p , but  integration  referred  issue  social  cause  and  framework,  bi-lateral  r e l a t i o n s between  isolation  biased  relation-  Consequently,  benevolent  dismisses  believes  States  neo-colonialism,  are  state  explain In  the  States  Nation-centric  explaining  "Terms  descriptions,...[as  p.  terms  a  is  Canada-United or  satellite  what  United  a  similar  relationship  study.  r e l a t i o n s h i p or  Doran,  of  getting  the  of  or  the  common  1976,  image  of  of  seemingly  Canada-United  view,  not  Interpretations to  a  topic  Canada-United  perception  throughout  students  the  in  the  nation-centric.  the  Canadian  points  "multiplictic"  of  so  on  the' r e l a t i o n s h i p f r o m  Rarely,  multiple  focus  about  frequently  perception  only  that  r e l a t i o n s do  accounts  are  examined.  from  textbooks  single inadequate and  the  explain  one  be  to  used  Redekop present  a  (1976) clear  or  4  understanding does  the  of  theory  Canada-United  Canada-United of  States  they  include  from  incipient  "the  linkage  gamut  one  tion,  affiliation,  intrusion  in  (Redekop,  1976,  can  also  single  themes  or  be  Doran  different  very  large  of  that  dynamic;  that  of  and  in  maturity Within  absorption, and  various  this  integra-  outright combinations"  the  to  difficulties  explain  simple  the  paradigm  in  relying  relationship. of  interdepen-  development relations,  asymmetry,  national  a  a  high  and  (Doran,  a  new  model  revised which  model  integrates  intervulnerability,  offsetting  interests,  conduct  of  a  bargaining tradition  1984).  In  strengths, of  prudence  doing  more m u l t i p l i c t i c a p p r o a c h  to  so, the  study  relationship.  Lamy studying  integration.  characteristics:  power of  States  i s promoting  the  the  the  bilateral policy  Doran  believes  organizational  domination,  notes  terms  finds  promotes  five  in  constantly  nor  inadequate.  Canada-United  ambiguity  Redekop  either;  236-237).  (1984)  to  of  elements  degrees  Doran  dence  are  total  hegemonic  pp.  especially  of  find  varying  Doran  gamut to  relations  politics.  relations  whole  broad  upon  linkage  States  also  promotes  relations  a  between  more  m u l t i p l i c t i c approach  nations.  He  when  states:  "most f e e l t h a t g l o b a l e d u c a t i o n i s f i n e i f i t s c o n t e n t and p u r p o s e i s t o i n t r o d u c e s t u d e n t s t o a ^realistic' view of the w o r l d , a s t a t e - c e n t r i c p e r s p e c t i v e which stresses the i m p o r t a n c e of the c o u n t r y ' s i n t e r e s t s in international affairs" ( L a m y , 1983, p. 9).  5 Lamy of  dismisses  this  citizenship  paradigms  of  view  as  education.  global  counter-productive He  details  education,  idealist,  functionalist-internationalist, and  radical,  are  used  in  and  isolation  world.  He  global  paradigms  ed  outlines  concludes  (Lamy,  that  how  conclusion,  approach.  taking  By  relationship  educators  alike  different Only  clearer  five  i f one  interact  with  requires a  into  were  they  of  the  interestother  other"  within  a  should  be  may  context,  able  arrive  to  rather  than  have  a  students at  just  chance  international  one to  students  f o r an  not  be  realized.  Teaching  relations  point  of  view  not  for  creasingly  attitudes,  survival  allow and  the  skills  notions and  point  of  arrive  at  relations.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s , then  does  of  understandings  preparing  values,  teaching  multiplictic  of  appropriate  such  the  goal  may  denied  of  more  broader  students  understanding  that  consideration alternative  perspectives  then  seem  espoused  required  image  each  are  centric  when  aforementioned  students  world  each  n a t i o n - s t a t e s and  i t would  relations  view.  why  of  particular  considered  actors  international  of  internationalist,  18).  p. In  of  be  the  goals  geo-political,  trade  one  the  different  deficiencies  a l l of  and  nonstate  free  promote  "should  in understanding  transnational  to  the  five  to  the  a  If often  inter-dependent from  a  nation-  cultiva-tion that  in a  world  which  interdependent,  where  international  may  i s becoming  of  be in-  relations  6  must  be e x a m i n e d  popular The  self  or n a t i o n a l  relationship  increasingly, tions.  In the past  by b u s i n e s s  public  concerns crease is  interest  than  points  the currently  of  view.  between  Canada  and the U n i t e d  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a m u l t i p l i c i t y decade,  in the b i - l a t e r a l  terest er  context  Problem The  est  i n a broader  noted.  adequately  such  cultural  The problem  between  portrayed  There  issues  of defence,  in interaction  has been  relationship.  i n economic  awareness are also  there  Canada  i n Canadian  States  of  connec-  a growing  i s growing i n as trade.  and  Great-  environmental  i s whether  thei n -  and the United social  inter-  States  studies  text-  books. The  Purpose  of the Study  The  purpose  of the study  tionship  between  Canada  in  school  tionship  textbooks.  underlying  and the United  The  i s portrayed  i s t o examine  study  will  and address  perspectives  how  States  analyse  the  rela-  i s portrayed how  the  rela-  the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the  f o r educating  students  about  the  relationship. The  study  will  answer  these  questions:  1) What m e a n i n g o f r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i n h e r e n t of C a n a d a - U n i t e d S t a t e s r e l a t i o n s ? 2) How a r e t h e s e n o t i o n s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p social studies textbooks? 3)  i n the  portrayed  teaching  in  What u n d e r l y i n g p e r s p e c t i v e a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s exposed j n the p o r t r a y a l of the'Canada-United States relationship?  7  Methodology Understanding framework  of  study  ferent  images  and  the  at  notions  of  same  the  thematic  thematic  portrayal  one  trayal  alternative The studies the a  to  tends  be  to  the  about  the on  focus  textbooks  that  mention  to  selected  concentrate  relationship.  on  It  examine  what  primary  emphasis  specifically,  Moreover,  has  i s not been i s to  what  has  portrayals  A  singular  and  is  reduced  multiplictic and  examines  p r e s c r i b e d secondary Canada's  the  and  that  will  be  characterize of  the  evaluate  has  about  the  study  to the  included,  and  Canada-United  relationship.  Limitations An  analytical  limitations. nature  of  an  One  study obvious  of.text  limitation  interpretative  ological  references.  analysis  i s based  more  m a t e r i a l has  work  that  C o n s t r u c t i o n of on  the  writing  i s the has a of  certain  exploratory  few  method-  framework social  by  issues  Rather,  been  the  with  guided  contemporary  excluded.  what  social  relationship  analysis  intention  said  por-  relationship.  effectively  been  dif-  being  A  i t s approach  events the  broad  textbooks, as  in nature.  historical  major  in  nation-centric  in  a  e v a l u a t i o n of  relationship.  will  demands  portrayed  the  be  bi-lateral  States.  f o r the  multiplictic  analysis  United  States  allows  assesses  viewpoints  reference  that  or  p e r c e p t i o n of tends  relationship  relationship  time,  singular  to  that  of  for  scientists  8 than the  of  Canada-United  tween this an  educators.  other study  analysis  books  studies has  to  study. but of  of  not  selected  ministries  with  The  at  i s an  textbooks  the  concerned  interpretation  portray .relations  of  or  adopted  findings  that on Text-  by social  limitation of  the  generalizability,  how  between  relies  Another  with of  study  on  be-  conclusions  education"for  level. of  only  a l l textbooks.  recommended  generalizing  or  the  not  departments  focusses  Relationships  Furthermore,  secondary  i s not  study  models  textbooks,  or  the  the  study  instead,  f i t the  i n c l u d e those  courses do  may  the  relationship.  generate.  selected  provincial  addition,  States  dyads may  In  a  two  selected  number  particular  countries. The related  next to  the  relationship. the  framework  relationship. Chapter reported  4.  chapter study  is a and  Chapter needed The  to  the  analyse  5.  and  review  teaching  attempts  analysis  Conclusions  in Chapter  3  selected  to  of  the  the  literature  notion  conceptualize  textbook  itself  of  portrayals  is highlighted  implications  of  the  of further of in  study  are  9  CHAPTER REVIEW OF  THE  LITERATURE OF  Multi-disciplinary Before ship to  in  review  cussed  in  Equally the  American  United  the  the  l i t e r a t u r e on  of  i t  is  varied  Canada-United of  the  of  it  and  imperative  that  States  literature  study  relation-  is  relationship  are  dis-  relations.  that  examines  teaching  a  of  and  it  is  a  only  of  interdisciplinary  and  of be  to  be  inter-  a  of  situation  to  different  cause  a  study  of  disciplines,  thought,  but  no  specific  match  study  relationship  in  thesis; studying  nature. that of  a  the  This  of  the  and  the  realm  analysis  with  characteristic  a  must  is in  relationship  to  lead  of  partic-  m u l t i p l i c t i c approach can  in  and  of  the  is within  to  specific  school  Indeed,  one  Canada  of. r e l a t i o n s  has  the  framework  between  The  by  Canada-  may  formulate  analysed.  Canadian-  overwhelmed  descriptions  interaction  of  the  strand  seemingly  discipline.  the  and Such  variety  one  easy  impossible  could  particular  relationship  to  l i t e r a t u r e about  strands  States fits  often,  teaching  the  relations.  that  relations  mental  in  portrayal  textbooks,  of  review  interpretations  States  United  ular  a  inherent  reviewing  the  one  notions  relationship,  conclude which  studies  various  is  the  relations.  When  variety  assess  the  strategies  national  to  social  important  CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS  Nature  attempting  Canadian  II  be  fundathe a  10  greater single  understanding theme  Notions  of  One  the  more  relationship  Clarke  (1983)  tion and  of  tions"  states  (Clarke,  fit  a  special Uncle  will  intergovernmental  He  civilized the  and  unrelated  and  under Dickey  the  His be  this  provided  a  totality  i f we  there  is a  both  is  of  deal  "life  can i t  be-  be calmly  refers  of  "pushing  quiet  on  that  He  to and  diplo-  (Holmes,  quite  1981,  normal  reasonable  nations  few rela-  that  take  105).  as  resolu-  concentrates  but...it  dealing"  have  remarkably  theme  great  activity  that  pragmatic  hollering,  and  States  institutions  profitable  as  a  (1981)  p.  relationship.  United  the  major  1981,  Canada-United  are  strenuous  counter  provided  (1975)  relationship" to  any  between  balance  avoid  in  linkages  of  issues.  Dickey  effort  and  on  government  wheeling  considers  states,  outcome  Holmes  relations  m a c y ,.. . b a r g a i n i n g , p. 106).  can  special  that  ix).  (Holmes,  hollering  based  "affect  always  comfortable  pragmatically"  pulling,  than  the  the  never  relationship.  Sam  reasonably  is  and  irritants,  and  of  rhetoric  Canada  that  1983,p. culture  notions  the  that  troublesome,  diplomatic  and  uses  disagreements,  the  with  popular  relationship  while  relationship  Relationship  of  special  the  approach.  States  a  of  give  believes  reached the  rubric  concludes:  of  that  i t s zenith  concept  the in  greater  partnership"  rhetoric the  of  "special  mid-1960s  functional  (Dickey,  1975,  with  "the  significance p.  181).  11  " p a r t n e r s h i p i n any m e a n i n g f u l s e n s e i s b a s i c a l l y unacceptable to Canadian n a t i o n a l i s t s [since] true p a r t n e r s h i p i n v o l v e s a d e g r e e o f common i n t e r e s t , mutuality of o b l i g a t i o n , and p r e s c r i b e d b e h a v i o r t h a t simply i s not r e a l i s t i c , at l e a s t a t p r e s e n t , as a comprehensive conceptual framework f o r these two sovereign nations" (Dickey, 1975, pp. 183-184). Doran accepts  Dickey's  rhetoric others have  (.1984) b o t h  was  (Cuff  gone  tionalism  at  1970s,  Doran  believes  also  sped  autarkist  to  the  led  and  the in  Granatstein,  further with  that  i t s heighth  and  early  was  point  agrees  explain  disagrees  special the  imposition  of  Mahant the  the  the  erosion  that  the  demise  the  proliferation  up  by  mentalities.  He  of of  the the  Doran  and  demise Nixon  to  Dickey.  He  relationship  mid-1960s.  1977; that  with  and  Mount,  of  1984),  exemp-  Doctine  in  the  special relationship. special of  relationship  integrationist  and  explains:  " A m e r i c a n s p e r s i s t i n f a v o r i n g an i n t e g r a t i o n i s t mentality that argues that e v e r - c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s are better relations. W i t h o u t b e i n g f u l l y aware of this tendency themselves, Americans equate bigness with v i r t u e and i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h harmony....The consequence i s t h a t Americans u n w i t t i n g l y t e n d t o deny Canada i t s own i d e n t i t y . . . - . C o n v e r s e l y , C a n a d i a n s c l i n g more and more t o an a u t a r k i s t m e n t a l i t y t h a t t e n d s t o s h u t o u t e x t e r n a l r e a l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y r e a l i t y t h a t has anything t o do w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . . . . T h e u p s h o t i s t h a t the American i n t e g r a t i o n i s t mentality feeds Canadian paran o i a and the q u e s t f o r g r e a t e r a u t a r k y i n Canada and t h e C a n a d i a n s e a r c h f o r more o p e r a t i n g room, e x a c e r bates the American penchant f o r s e l l i n g closeness and h a r m o n y " ( D o r a n , 1984, pp. 5-6). Doran  believes  autarky is  an  is partnership.  plausible.  possess  that  three  Doran major  a l t e r n a t i v e to He  believes  perceives  that  either  integration  that  genuine  such  a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : sense  partnership  partnership of  or  purpose,  would  12  acceptance Unlike  of  i n t e r v u l n e r a b i l i t y , and  Dickey,  Doran  acceptance  of  limits.  believes:  "the c o n c e p t of p a r t n e r s h i p l i e s at the h e a r t of Canadian-American r e l a t i o n s . Partnership involves at a m i n i m u m , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f two s e p a r a t e and sovereign e n t i t i e s , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y o f t h e same s i z e , h a v i n g a common a g e n d a a n d s h a r i n g a s e n s e o f p u r p o s e . I n t e r e s t s may d i f f e r ; power s u r e l y w i l l . But the v i s i o n of s h a r e d purpose overcomes t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h o u t t h r e a t e n i n g e i t h e r a c t o r ' s autonomy or the v i a b i l i t y o f h i s own i n d i v i d u a l g o a l s " (Doran, 1984, pp. 10-11). Doran's  concept  grationist special prior  and  to  the  negate  theory  autarkist  criticism  the  (Lyon,  1974,  theories  ranging  to  pairs  of  a  those Nye,  United  to  1977;  to  States  Axline,  dyads  erode and  the  Canada  the  of  she  1974;  Black,  to  integrative  Canadian  that  integra-tion  dependency, hegemony  resistance  close  notes  1974;  Integration  integration to  helps  integration  1974).  (1974) comes when  level  support  Pentland,  explain  Black  the  who  continental  (1984) a l s o  useful  1973;  help  inte-  integrationist mentality  those  disparate  Only  paradigm.  who  the  that  the  to  to  explaining  there  between  is  an  unequal  countries.  Doran  is  from  counter-phenomenon limit  dence  of  1974;  adequately  upper  by  the  1976,  Molot,  asymmetrical  integration. this  mentalities  of  arguments  1977;  neglect  counterbalances  1970s.  Clement,  from  partnership  r e l a t i o n s h i p enjoyed  Doran's to  of  helps  Doran  metaphor  support Beigie,  the  (1984,  but  to  dismantle  p.  hardly  53) a  says,  sufficient  interdependence  1977;  Legault,  the  1985;  model  interdepen-  "interdependence one."  Some  (Keohane  Leyton-Brown,  of  and 1985,  13  McCann, it  1982)  explains  Redekop  seem  t o use  a l l facets  (1976)  of  i s quick  the  term  the  relationship.  to point  superficially,  out  as  though  However,  that:  " i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e f a i l s t o r e f l e c t t h e h i g h l y asymm e t r i c a l n a t u r e of the Canadian-American r e l a t i o n s h i p , m i s t a k e n l y assumes t h a t a magnitude of i n t e r a c t i o n c o r r e l a t e s w i t h i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , and o v e r emphasizes the e x t e n t of American dependence on Canada" ( R e d e k o p , 1976, p p . 229-230). Continentalism assess  Canadian-American  Stairs,  1981),  but  relationship. usefulness  of  subsystems. that  can  Canada  and  However, a model  used  useful  Consequently, one  that  the  above  major the  terms  mentioned  workings  continental  of  of  model  different  outcomes  none  States  utilizes  explains:  since not  explain  framework between  adhere  the  i f not  framework, a l l of  suggests that consists  "the of  non-governmental  pp.  i t allows  models  relationship.  affairs  1976,  the  continentalism  many,  mainly  the  dependence,  conceptual  Redekop  discernable,  does  can  to  and  found d i f f e r e n t  Canadian-American  i s workable  Redekop  has  (Redekop,  out  systems  absorption,  approaches.  and  point  i n t e g r a t i o n , and  perhaps,  used 1978;  relationship  d e v e l o p s h i s own  sub-systems"  1976,  i n f i n d i n g one  Canada-United  clearly  suggested  paradigm.  the  unwittingly  He as  does  continental  degrees, but  Redekop  components  such  hegemony,  of  work  overall  States.  i s often  (Redekop,  difficulty  study the  that  to adequately describe  Redekop's  has  in various  quality  fails  utilizing  the United  interdependence,  central  to  various  relations  i t too,  Redekop  be  utilizing  are  i s another concept  234-235).  This  for a variety  t o one  of  all-inclusive  14  "because the v a r i o u s s e c t o r s and sub-systems d e v e l o p e d a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s as w e l l as u n e v e n l y and because they are c o n s t a n t l y dynamic, Canadian-American relat i o n s i n c l u d e t h e w h o l e gamut o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m a t u r i t y from i n c i p i e n t l i n k a g e to t o t a l i n t e g r a t i o n . W i t h i n t h i s b r o a d g a m u t , we f i n d e l e m e n t s o f a b s o r p tion, integration, affiliation, vicarious identific a t i o n , i m i t a t i v e r e p l i c a t i o n , hegemonic d o m i n a t i o n , and o u t r i g h t i n t r u s i o n i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s and i n v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s " ( R e d e k o p , 1976, pp. 236-237). Redekop  and  Doran  come c l o s e s t  ceptual  frameworks  that  various  notions  r e l a t i o n s h i p that  United a  States  more  ship  of  relations.  multiplictic  and  In  of  his  analysis  clarifies  single  concepts  explain  the  challenges such  as  His  of  the and  much  of  domination,  proposed of  in  nature,  the  as  i t s c e n t r a l theme, the  States  relations.  of  of  study of  of  the  Canada-  writers the  promote  relation-  the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  subsystems,  have  been  many  of  the  developed His  to  work  neo-  continentalism,  i n t e g r a t i o n and subsystems  strategies. on  Redekop  international relations  continental  More  benev-  linkage. is  an  multiplictic  continental  incorporates,  different  of  interdependence,  focusses  but  these  relationship.  hegemony,  various  approach  existence  States  dependence, of  of  failings  that  language  framework these  and  absorption,  protectionism,  capture  characterize  the  continental  imperialism,  to  con-  Studies  paradigms  the  works to  developing  enough  teaching  problems  assemblage  for  the  Canada-United  colonialism, olent  The  Multiplictic  (1976)  broad  approach  consequently,  Promotion  are  to  subsystems  or  at  least  allows  perceptions  of  Canada-United  15  Both approach oration  Redekop  and Doran  to the study with  Sigler,  encourage  a more  of r e l a t i o n s h i p .  multiplictic  Doran,  in collab-  suggests:  "a p l u r a l i s t a p p r o a c h p l a y s d o w n a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s which seek t o i d e n t i f y t h e key a c t o r s and t h e key issues and reduce explanations of behavior to a small set o f p r i n c i p a l p r o p o s i t i o n s , . . . U s u a l l y a good case c a n b e made f o r t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f e a c h p a r t i c u l a r source of i n f o r m a t i o n , but not as a s o l e or even predominant explanation" ( S i g l e r a n d D o r a n , 1985, p p . 232-233). Furthermore, theme  or factor  hand"  which  (1984)  explanations  often  ment  of a broader  all,  of the s i n g l e  (Lamy, 1976;  and Doran  leads  themes  1983; W i l s o n Hyndman,  argues States,  that  practices  single  system  short-  Doran's  i s h i s develop-  c a n encompass  many,  i f  not  or f a c t o r s .  reflect  Doran's  and A l p e r ,  1974; P e n t l a n d ,  f o r comparative  that  use "nation-state  common  framework  scholars  are concerned  to overgeneralization.  a l t e r n a t i v e t o such  Other  •  Sigler  and Redekop's  1982; Anyon, 1974; P r e s t o n ,  studies  o f Canada  concerns  1979; L y o n , 1972).  and the  Preston  United  but contends:  " s u c h s t u d i e s s h o u l d n o t be a i m e d . . . a t internationalist c o n t i n e n t a l i s m , a n d s h o u l d n o t be a l l o w e d t o d i v e r g e t o o n e - s i d e d s t u d i e s o f Canada....What i s needed i s s t a t i s t i c a l and a n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s of i d e o l o g i e s , a t t i t u d e s , i n s t i t u t i o n s , and behavior i n both c o u n t r i e s , and i n v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s , t o d i s c o v e r the r e a l extent and nature of American i n f l u e n c e " (Preston, 1972, p p . 2 3 - 2 4 ) . Pentland of  supports  Preston's  a multi-dimensional  tion,  he a t t e m p t s  concerns.  perspective  "to escape  In h i s development  of continental  the unilinear,  integra-  teleological  16  models  so  cal  social  or In  ship, ing  tempting  of  change"  dealing  Lamy  describes  the  common  the  one  values  that  affairs"  and that  (Lamy,  [a]  (Lamy,  1983,  to  priorities.  to  only  be  as  only  p.  19).  education,"  plictic  approach  the  Lamy's  of  used  politi-  relation-  in  the  well Lamy  of  when  Such that  as  states, that  approach  i t is to  coun-  a l l need  i s wrong on  the  ideologies a  "we  how  is  the  what  is calling  he  for  relationship.  she  which  an  support  promoting  Lamy  teaching plea  9).  perspective In  teach-  interests in  students  perspective  perspective  (1979) p a r a l l e l s  of  57).  argues  expose  "global  in  p.  He  As  the  1983,  study  aspects  country's  challenge  the  p.  approach  view.  educators  that  the  state-centric perspective  of  i n Lamy'  of  claims  operates"  "a  importance  assumptions  remember  1974,  educational  responsibility  to  (Pentland,  in  the  inappropriate  try's  prevelent  with  international  and  so  r e l a t i o n s h i p as  stresses  is  and  the world  calls a  multi-  Anyon  states:  " d i v e r s e p e r s p e c t i v e s can p r o v i d e genuine a l t e r n a t i v e s to s t a n d a r d i z e d knowledge. The p r e s e n t a t i o n and c r i t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n i n c l a s s r o o m s o f many i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .. . p r o v i d e s c o n c e p t u a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l o p t i o n s . T h i s kind of classroom work f o s t e r s i n s t u d e n t s an awareness of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of s o c i a l change and f a c i l i t a t e s c o n s t r u c t i v e a c t i v i t y " (Anyon, 1979, p.386) . Wilson  and  Alper  (1982,  p.  143)  state:  " t e a c h i n g about a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e o p l e of two n a t i o n s i s a complex t a s k and d i f f i c u l t t o p l a n f o r , [ b u t i t c a n be d o n e t h r o u g h ] a n i n - d e p t h s t u d y o f the v i e w p o i n t s a n d i n t e r e s t s o f p e o p l e who, through d i s c u s s i o n and c o n t r o v e r s y , c r e a t e a c o n t e x t in which i s s u e s a r i s e " ( W i l s o n a n d A l p e r , 1982, p. 189).  17 It  would  are  many  their of  from  can  of  tionship  are  ation- of  relationship.  arguments  arguing  One i s to  are  way  to  study  to  there  of  the  through  understand  the  educators  and  that as  f o r the  these  none  support  Only  with  contend  multiplictic But  and  that  which  on  teaching a  the  multi-  intricacies  relationship.  and  nation-centric  more  classroom?  start  concerned  relations,  are  literature,  relationship,  explain  States  relationship  scholars  the  relations.  one  scholars  States  pedagogy  Many  can  Canada-United sum,  of  n o t i o n s of  States  approach  In United  review  adequately  Canada-United  the  a  different  own,  plictic of  seem  textbook  the  most are  i n the  with  and study  effectiveness of  of  the rela-  inadequate.  filtering  portrayals  Canada-  studies  development  arguments  of  concerned  such  approaches  assess  study  implementof  into of  to  the  these  relationship.  18  CHAPTER I I I THE A  Multi-faceted This  analytical United  Assessment  chapter  establishes  questions  States  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  a  framework  and a  f o r interpreting notions  relations portrayed  in social  set of  of  Canada-  studies  textbooks. In study  the previous  of Canada-United  various  notions  Canada-United approach.  opment  multiplictic  States  i n nature,  when  indeed,  encourage  of theme o r  singular the devel-  and implement A  first portray  p u t t o be  writers  achieving  f o r educators  textbooks  States.  academic  difficulty  materials.  o f how  the United  They  of  of r e l a t i o n s h i p are hard  to successfully develop  with  single  are  interpretations.  tremendous  i n teaching  on a  i n the  there  the study  see the p r o l i f e r a t i o n  i t i s possible  the examination  tions  of l i t e r a t u r e  relations reveals  r e l a t i o n s i s based  portrayals  are having  Nevertheless,  is  review  of r e l a t i o n s h i p and o f t e n  of m u l t i p l i c t i c  approaches  a  t o be u n s u b s t a n t i a l .  Textbook  selves  States  Some w r i t e r s  explanations  alike  chapter,  and  them-  this  goal.  academics  multiplictic step,  therefore,  Canada's  rela-  19  Significance  of  Textbooks tionship. the  Textbooks play  Anyon's  social  a  pivotal role  explanation  studies  in  the  capsulizes  teaching the  of  rela-  importance  of  textbook:  " S o c i a l s t u d i e s textbooks,...are g e n e r a l l y acknowledged t o be t h e m o s t common m e t h o d o f t r a n s m i t t i n g s o c i a l s t u d i e s knowledge. T h e y a r e more w i d e l y u s e d , f o r example, than e i t h e r teacher-made m a t e r i a l s or nonp r i n t media. Thus, s o c i a l studies textbooks are very often a students' only sustained exposure to d i s c i p l i n e d t h o u g h t " ( A n y o n , 1978, p. 41). Numerous forty  textbook  years  that  studies  have  substantiate  been and  undertaken  lament  in  Anyon's  the  last  conclu-  sions . The Schools  Study of  of  of  the  the able  the  of  It  a r r i v e at  1966  States  omission,  States  is critical  of and  Used  1947  of  these  these  errors,  in  a  clear  understanding  of  the the  misinterpret-  trends  that,  in  shows  r e l a t i o n s h i p on  of  Report  Anglo-American  alistic  United  Textbooks  both  and  regrets  students the  sides  are  not  Canada-United  relationship.  The  sions,  the  History  distortion,  implications  States  and  Canada-United  border.  to  National  Canada  preponderence ation  of  but  more  bias  in  of  History  a  Committee  Textbooks  importantly, history  on  National  a r r i v e s at  reveals  textbooks.  the  Bias  similar  presence  Billington  of  in conclunation-  states:  " T h i s b i a s i s p o t e n t i a l l y more d a n g e r o u s b e c a u s e i t i s l e s s easy to d e t e c t . U s u a l l y i t a p p e a r s to stem not f r o m a n y d e l i b e r a t e o r c o n s c i o u s p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t of the a u t h o r , but from the u n c o n s c i o u s s e l f . He w r i t e s a g a i n s t a b a c k g r o u n d t h a t a l l o w s him t o see o n l y o n e s i d e o f a n y s t o r y , no m a t t e r how h a r d he s t r i v e s f o r o b j e c t i v i t y " ( B i l l i n g t o n , 1966, p. 2).  20  In  his classic  history, of  Hodgetts  the classes  national  observed  version  verdicts"  (Hodgetts, says  preferred Pratt  of  that  method  of  that  "the textbook  issues  and  in  that  and  that  of  that  gray,  i t s ] ready-made  27).  Moreover,  textbook  content  textbooks  f o r many  simply  any  i s the  constitute  s t u d e n t s , and book;  promoted  (Pratt,  by  1975,  the p.  their  first  i t has  of  been  the textbook  legitimized  by  official  school,  102).  introduction  the laments  i t i s an  for authorized textbooks  influence  Jain  study  the  which  Like  i s that to  they  social  may  be  the  author-  concludes  "hidden  that  comparative  of  teaching i s centred  content  i s retained that  study  rather  than  by  student.  the  textbooks  play  a  on  the  powerful  agents.  socialization  espouses  say  illustrates  socializing  i n the  in their  i t i s textbook  also  also  (1970)  textbooks  commentary  Anyon  about  the  history  teacher's  role  24,  government,  concern  in that,  textbooks,  as  "eighty-nine percent  power.  Canadian  role  p.  p.  the teacher"  that  Trudel  Their  1968,  i s not  students with  decisive, ities  by  Pratt's  provide  [with  recitation  a u t h o r i z e d by  Anyon,  the textbook  reading material  acknowledged  that  Canadian  unquestioningly followed the  believes  bulk  book,  teaching  of teaching.  (1975)  the  of  (1968) c o n c l u d e s  consensus  Hodgetts  study  that of  textbooks  students.  curriculum" in social  a certain  ideological  play She  a  significant  i s concerned  studies  viewpoint.  textbooks She  believes  21  that  "when  tive  or s o c i a l l y  acquire less  an  likely  Anyon attitudes does  ies,  t o be  with  subjected points  believes  that  and b e l i e f s .  mating  some  (Anyon,  ideas,  is clear  from  will  be  in classrooms  or  (Anyon,  content  She c o n t e n d s  numerous  a  Textbooks  that  utilize  than  significant  1979, p . 3 6 3 ) .  can a f f e c t  that  a hidden  curricu-  of ideological  boundar-  and not others,  and groups,  student  by  and not  legiti-  others"  thinking  can lead  international  role  approaches  perspectives does  to a greater Textbooks  textbook tions.  of  years,  accounts Many  portray  only on  belief  the kind of  understanding that  a  one  of i n only  one  particular  the students'  under-  States relationship.  Textbooks  recent  geographical American  boundaries  of the Canada-United  Selection In  impose  are promoting  not encourage  of r e l a t i o n s h i p and emphasize  standing  that  s i n g l e theme u n i l i n e a r  relations.  of the world  studies,  teaching.  multiplictic  that  textbook  i n classroom  r e l a t i o n s h i p that  image  textbook  activities,  play  notion  of view"  some c h o i c e s  textbooks  about  objec-  1979, p . 3 8 4 ) .  It  rather  to scrutiny  "by t h e i m p o s i t i o n  by p r e d i s p o s i n g  as  i t i s more c o n v i n c i n g . . . . i t c a n  of t r u t h , and the i n f o r m a t i o n  other  exist,  description i s presented  neutral,  the status  compared  lum  ideological  that  of these regions  context.  there  has been  focus  portray  or s o c i e t a l texts  i n c r e a s i n g number o f  on C a n a d a - U n i t e d  accounts  Some  an  issues  focus  States  historical in a  entirely  rela-  events,  Canadianon  issues  22  associated Alper,  with  1982,  numerous  Canadian  social  to  peruse  time  of  to  at  provincial  an  the  of  these  sufficient  analysis  aspects  being  of level  of  the  taught.  secondary  textbooks  and  study.  to  i n Canada,  authorized  of  secondary  what  are  (Wilson  this  access  assess  use  for  that  selection  classroom  selection  and  relationship the  relations  problem  determined  detail  that  representative  of  a  studies textbooks  States  ensure  States  choose  obvious  been  enough  Canada-United  To  confines  i t has  supply  To  143). i s an  the  textbooks,  will  p.  texts  Given  Canada-United  textbooks  there lists  is a (see  be  need Table  I). Lists  of  authorized  provinces  have  textbooks  are  Ontario's  Circular  After selection before often  1970  have  to  indeed,  many  the  of  topic  the  and  topic the  Many  content in a  titles,  of  of  than  related  of  Also, three  books to  theme  scattered fashion.  books  None  lists.  for  final  published  selections  their  daily  in  the  relations; reference  than  the  to  three  relationship of  are  content  no  more  use  a l l of  of  have  of  the  early  States  have  of  textbook  almost  books  that  the  many  strategy  pages  Canada-United  Canadian  listing.  the  These  non-selected the  a  A l l of  likelihood  i s remote. less  ten  extensive  discarded. the  the  provincial  most  fifty-six  been  have  of  i s the  established.  schools  books  related  pages  been  out-of-date  topic.  14  for  Surprisingly,  c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d on  has  discarded  examined.  gathering  contemporary  the  been  textbooks  handle  discarded  books  have  study  of Canada-United  forty-one The  of  fifteen They  the books  To United  for analysis  at the very  entirely  least,  These  the data  fifteen base  many  entire  States  method, II).  common-  sections  relations.  of  examples  deTwo  Canada-United  of p r o v i n c i a l  f o r the analysis States  this  (see Table  have  on t h e theme  of the Canada-United  Decision resolve  States  multiplictic faceted. adequately  of the  r e l a t i o n s h i p (see  Model  whether  textbook  approaches  Only  then,  requires  a process  To  impose  a  of t h e Canadathematic that  unsuccessful  Single  conceptual  i n producing  models  have  r e l a t i o n s h i p be  single  paradigm  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a narrow  Canada  framework  textbook  a meaningful  n o t been  images.  would would  be be  evaluation.  effective  in explain  and the United  would  or  i s multi-  t o i t si n t e n t i o n and f u r t h e r ,  likely  in assessing  singular  can the b i - l a t e r a l  assessed.  Consequently,  portrayals  relationship utilize  counter-productive  ful  eliminated  to the  III).  Binary  ing  left  devoted  r e l a t i o n s . Using  of Canada-United  focus  form  portrayals  A  have,  relations.  textbooks  Table  of the text  States  books  to the study  States  sections  selections are easily  alities. voted  specific  be e q u a l l y  States. unsuccess  24  TABLE I AUTHORIZED TEXTBOOK L I S T S FOR THE TEN CANADIAN PROVINCES 1.  A l b e r t a A n n u a l P r i c e L i s t and O r d e r Form. Edmonton: S c h o o l Books B r a n c h , A l b e r t a D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , 1 985  2.  A n n u a i r e de L ' E n s e i q n e m e n t S e c o n d a i r e . Quebec: M i n i s t e r e de l ' E d u c a t i o n , Gouverment du Quebec, 1 978  3.  Approved Textbooks. Winnipeg: Department P r o v i n c e o f M a n i t o b a , 1976  4.  A S t y l e f o r Every C h i l d . Charlottetown: Curriculum D i v i s i o n , D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , 1974  5.  Catalogue of L e a r n i n g Resources. V i c t o r i a : P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , 1985  6.  C i r c u l a r 14: T e x t b o o k s . T o r o n t o : E d u c a t i o n , 1984  7.  Handbook f o r J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l s . F r e d e r i c t o n : New B r u n s w i c k D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , 1978  8.  L i s t of A u t h o r i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s of J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l L e v e l s . H a l i f a x : Nova S c o t i a Department o f E d u c a t i o n , 1977  9.  L i s t of A u t h o r i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s of Senior H i g h S c h o o l L e v e l s . H a l i f a x : Nova S c o t i a D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1977  of E d u c a t i o n ,  O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of  10.  1984 T e x t b o o k s C i r c u l a r . R e g i n a : S a s k a t c h e w a n D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , May, 1984  11.  Programme o f S t u d i e s . S t . J o h n ' s : The D i v i s i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n , N e w f o u n d l a n d M i n i s t e r o f E d u c a t i o n , 1976  25  TABLE II ORIGINAL L I S T OF AUTHORIZED TEXTBOOKS A m s t r o n g , M u r i e l , The C a n a d i a n Economy and I t s Problems. Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1977 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t Nova S c o t i a and P r i n c e Edward Island] B o y d e l l , C r a i g L . , C a r l F . G r i n d s t a f f a n d P a u l C. W h i t e h e a d , C r i t i c a l Issues in Canadian S o c i e t y . Toronto: Holt, R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1971 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t Nova S c o t i a ] C o l l i n s , P a u l and Norman S h e f f e , E x p l o r a t i o n C a n a d a . Toronto: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C. and Ontario] C r u x t o n , J . B . a n d W.D. Wilson, Flashback Canada. Toronto: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978 [authorized in at least Ontario] D e i r , E l s p e t h , P a u l D e i r and K e i t h Hubbard, Canada: Years of C h a l l e n g e . T o r o n t o : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1981 [authorized in at least Ontario] D o u g h t y , H.A., D.R. S k i d m o r e , A . J . C . K i n g a n d I.R. Munro, C a n a d i a n S t u d i e s : C u l t u r e and C o u n t r y . T o r o n t o : Wiley, 1 975 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and Ontario] E v a n s , A.S. a n d R.E. M o y n e s , N o r t h A m e r i c a n N e i g h b o u r s . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1977 [authorized in at least Ontario] G a r r o d , S t a n , F r e d McFadden and Rosemay N e e r i n g , Canada: Growth of a N a t i o n . T o r o n t o : F i t z h e n r y and Whiteside, 1980 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t O n t a r i o and Nova S c o t i a ] Hamelin, Louis-Edmond, Canada: A G e o g r a p h i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e . Toronto: Wiley, 1969 [authorized in at least Ontario] H i l d e b r a n d , W i l l i a m , North America: I n t r o d u c i n g the C o n t i n e n t . T o r o n t o : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1974 [authorized in at least Ontario] Howard, R i c h a r d , S o n i a R i d d o c h and P e t e r Watson, Canada S i n c e C o n f e d e r a t i o n . T o r o n t o : Copp C l a r k Pitman, 1976 [authorized in at least Ontario] I n n i s , D o n a l d Q. C a n a d a : A G e o g r a p h i c S t u d y . Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1966 [authorized in at least Manitoba] J a r m a n , F . E . a n d A.D. Hux, P o l i t i c a l D e c i s i o n s i n Canada. Toronto: Wiley, 1980 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and Ontario] K i r b y s o n , R.C., P . L . M c C r e a t h a n d A. S k e o c h , D i s c o v e r i n g Canada, S e t t l i n g A Land. Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1982 [authorized in at least Ontario]  TABLE II (continued) K i r b y s o n , R.C., CM. B a i n , P. D r e y e r , K. M c C u t c h e o n , a n d A. S k e o c h , D i s c o v e r i n g C a n a d a , D e v e l o p i n g A N a t i o n . Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1983 [authorized in at least Ontario] K r e u g e r , R a l p h a n d R a l p h C o r d e r , C a n a d a , A New Geography. Toronto.: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1974 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, O n t a r i o , New Brunswick, P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d and Newfoundland] Lower, J.A. A N a t i o n D e v e l o p i n g . T o r o n t o : Ryerson P r e s s , 1970 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C. a n d S a s k a t c h e w a n ] M c l n n e s . Edgar, Canada: A P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l History. T o r o n t o : C l a r k e , I r w i n a n d Company, 1956 [authorized in at least Saskatchewan] M a r s h , J a m e s H. a n d D a n i e l F r a n c i s , New Beginnings: A S o c i a l H i s t o r y o f C a n a d a . (2 v o l s . ) , Toronto: M c C l e l l a n d a n d S t e w a r t , 1981, 1982 [authorized in at least Ontario] M a r t i n e l l o , I . L . C a l l Us C a n a d i a n s . T o r o n t o : McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1976 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t S a s k a t c h e w a n and O n t a r i o ] M o i r , J o h n S. a n d R o b e r t E . S a u n d e r s , N o r t h e r n D e s t i n y , A H i s t o r y o f C a n a d a . T o r o n t o : J.M. D e n t a n d SONS, 1 970 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d ] Molyneux, John and M a r i l y O l s e n , Canada In View. T o r o n t o : McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1978 [authorized in at least Ontario] M o r c h a i n , J a n e t a n d M a s o n Wade, S e a r c h F o r A N a t i o n . T o r o n t o : F i t z h e n r y and W h i t e s i d e , 1984 [authorized in at least Ontario] P a t e r s o n , J.H. N o r t h A m e r i c a , A G e o g r a p h y of Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960 (1979) ~ [authorized i n at l e a s t Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova S c o t i a ] P u t n a m , D . F . a n d R.G. Putnam, C a n a d a : A R e g i o n a l A n a l y s i s . T o r o n t o : J.M. Dent and Sons, 1970 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t S a s k a t c h e w a n and O n t a r i o ] R a w l y k , G.A., B.W. H o d g i n s a n d R.P. Bowles, R e g i o n a l i s m In Canada. S c a r b o r o u g h : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1979 [authorized in at least Ontario] R i c k e r , J . , J . S a y w e l l a n d A. S k e o c h , How A r e We Governed?. T o r o n t o : C l a r k e , I r w i n a n d Company, 1980 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C., A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan, M a n i t o b a , O n t a r i o , Nova S c o t i a and P r i n c e Edward Island]  TABLE II (continued) R o a l d , Bruce, P o l i t i c a l L i f e In Canada. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1983 [authorized in at least Ontario] R o g e r s , S. J o h n a n d D o n a l d H a r r i s , B o l d V e n t u r e s . T o r o n t o : C l a r k e , I r w i n a n d Company, 1962 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C., O n t a r i o and Nova S c o t i a ] R o g e r s , S. J o h n , D o n a l d F . H a r r i s a n d J o h n T. S a y w e l l , N a t i o n of the N o r t h . T o r o n t o : C l a r k e , I r w i n and Company, 1967 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C., O n t a r i o and Nova S c o t i a ] S c a r f e , N e v i l l e V., G e o r g e S. T o m k i n s a n d D o r e e n M. Tomkins, A New G e o g r a p h y o f C a n a d a . T o r o n t o : G a g e , 1963 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t Saskatchewan and O n t a r i o ] S h e f f e , Norman ( e d . ) , Many C u l t u r e s , Many H e r i t a g e s . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1975 [authorized in at least Ontario] S t e w a r t , R. a n d N. M c L e a n , F o r m i n g A N a t i o n : T h e S t o r y o f Canada and C a n a d i a n s . (2 v o l s . ) , T o r o n t o : G a g e , 1978 [authorized in at least Ontario] T h e x t o n , J a m e s D. M a d e I n C a n a d a , E c o n o m i c s F o r Canadians. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1981 [authorized in at least Ontario] T o m k i n s , D o r e e n M., V . R o u t , C. V i n c e n t , D. W a l k e r , a n d V. L a s t , C a n a d a : The L a n d a n d I t s P e o p l e . T o r o n t o : Gage, 1975 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t M a n i t o b a and O n t a r i o ] T o m k i n s , G e o r g e S., T h e o L . H i l l s a n d T h o m a s R. Weir, A Regional Geography of North America. Toronto: Gage, 1970 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t B.C., Sask. and Manitoba] T r i m b l e , W. U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e C a n a d i a n E c o n o m y . T o r o n t o : Pitman, 1975 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and Newfoundland] V a s s , Ben, Roy A l d e r d i c e a n d G e o r g e S l e d , C o u n t d o w n C a n a d a . Toronto: Macmillan, 1977 [authorized in at least Ontario] W a s h i n g t o n , J . , A . B u r g h a r d t , G. H i t c h c o x a n d P. Christian, F o c u s On C a n a d a . T o r o n t o : M c G r a w - H i l l R y e r s o n , 1978 [authorized in at least Ontario] W i l e y , W., M.B. F r y e r , H. G i r t , D. K i n g , N. M c L e a n , G. T h o m a s a n d A. W e l s h , C a n a d a : T h i s L a n d o f O u r s . T o r o n t o : G i n n and Company, 1976 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t O n t a r i o , New Brunswick, Nova S c o t i a and P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d ] W i l l o w s , D. a n d S. R i c h m o n d , C a n a d a : C o l o n y t o C e n t e n n i a l . Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1970 [authorized in at least Manitoba]  28  TABLE I I I LIST  OF AUTHORIZED TEXTBOOKS SELECTED FOR STUDY  B o w l e s , R.P., J . H a n l y , B.W. H o d g i n s , a n d G.A. Rawlyk, C a n a d a a n d t h e U.S.: C o n t i n e n t a l P a r t n e r s o r Wary Neighbours?. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1972 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t Saskatchewan and Nova S c o t i a ] C l a r k , B r u c e W. a n d J o h n K. W a l l a c e , C a n a d a : L a n d o f D i v e r s i t y . Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1983 [authorized in at least Ontario] C l a r k , R . J . , R. R e m n a n t , J . P a t t o n , G. C o u l s o n a n d E . F o r s , C a n a d i a n I s s u e s and A l t e r n a t i v e s . T o r o n t o : M a c m i l l a n , 1974 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and S a s k a t c h e w a n ] C r u x t o n , , J . B . a n d W.D. W i l s o n , S p o t l i g h t Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1980 [authorized in at least Ontario] E v a n s , A l l a n S. a n d L a w r e n c e A . D i a c h u n , C a n a d a : T o w a r d s Tomorrow. T o r o n t o : M c G r a w - H i l l Ryerson, 1976 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a , Sask. and Ont.] E v a n s , A.S. and I . L . M a r t i n e l l o , C a n a d a ' s C e n t u r y . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1978 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o ] H e r s t e i n , H.H., L . J . H u g h e s a n d R.C. Kirbyson, Challenge and S u r v i v a l . T o r o n t o : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970 [ a u t h o r i z e d f o r u s e i n B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, O n t a r i o and P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d ] Hux, A l a n and F r e d Jarman, Canada: A Growing Concern. Toronto: Globe/Modern C u r r i c u l u m Press, 1981 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o ] Kirbyson, R.C, I n S e a r c h o f C a n a d a . (2 v o l s . ) , Toronto: Prentice-Hall, 1977 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o ] Kirbyson, R.C, CM. B a i n , P. D r e y e r , K. M c C u t c h e o n , A . S k e o c h , D i s c o v e r i n g C a n a d a : S h a p i n g An Identity. Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1983 [authorized in at least Ontario] M c D e v i t t , D a n i e l J . , Angus S c u l l y and C a r l F. S m i t h , Canada Today. Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1977 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan and Ont.] M c F a d d e n , F r e d , Don Q u i n l a n a n d R i c k L i f e , C a n a d a , T h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y . T o r o n t o : F i t z h e n r y and W h i t e s i d e , 1982 [authorized in at least Ontario] M u n r o , I.R., H.A. Doughty and A.J.C. K i n g , Canadian S t u d i e s : S e l f and S o c i e t y . T o r o n t o : W i l e y , 1973 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o ] Skidmore, D a r r e l , Canadian-American Relations. Toronto: W i l e y , 1979 [authorized in at least Ontario] S k o l r o o d , A.H. N e i g h b o u r s : T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d C a n a d a . Toronto: Globe/Modern C u r r i c u l u m Press, 1982 [ a u t h o r i z e d i n a t l e a s t A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o ]  29  To binary  assess  how  decision  is  to  as  singular  model  determine  needs  to  has  whether  thematic  be  accurately  textbooks  the  relationship  developed.  context  of  multiplictic  broad-based identifying  been  the  or  portray  enough  to  singular  Its  the  in  simple  book  is  nature.  accomplish  thematic  task  portrayed  The  the  and  a  model  task  of  multiplictic  approaches. Two  Approaches What  is  the  1)  or  theme  the  not  expressed  a  2)  whether  acceptance  single  tionship,  of  a  and  only  interpretation trayal  of  the  interpreted the  other  lateral a  of  as  different  approach  the  descriptions  or  relationship, States  textbook  uses  perceptions  terms of  the  of and  a  the  is  to  a  single are  found  that  study  the  If  to  of  a  be  the  the  rela-  of  only  textbook can  one  por-  be  i t s approach.  bi-lateral  or  includes  representative  relationship,  and  has  On  multi-  relationship,  phrases  the  encourages  portraits  in  of  States.  relationship  if a  i t s study  used  opinions  is  then  thematic  different  or  United  singular  in  relationship  language to  variables:  interpretation  being  hand,  of  the  one  the  assess  reinforces  relationship  Canada-United  approach  variety  the  and  descriptive  includes  and  and  Canada  can  rhetoric  judgments  between  has  the  not  relationship  nation-centric,  not  of  or one  of  that  different  supports  support  portrait  Relationship  portrait  or  to  particular  three  textbook  whether  the  framework  of  relationship  3)  and;  is a  existence  nation-centric; describe  Understanding  required  adequately whether  for  a  of  variety  30  of judgments from d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of view about the t i o n s h i p , then multiplictic The  the t e x t can be determined as having a format.  first  u t i l i z e s one  rela-  step i n e s t a b l i s h i n g whether or not a t e x t  n o t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to determine whether  or not the t e x t p o r t r a y s the r e l a t i o n s h i p from a n a t i o n c e n t r i c p o i n t of view to the e x c l u s i o n of any  external  commentary. If i t does p e r c e i v e the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n a n a t i o n - c e n t r i c manner, i t u t i l i z e s a s i n g u l a r approach.  However, i f the textbook  viewpoints  w i t h i n a m u l t i - l a t e r a l or even a  framework, whereby opposing f a i r and equal o p p o r t u n i t y geared  to.a m u l t i p l i c t i c  thematic  attempts to show v a r i o u s  o p i n i o n s and  bi-lateral  i n t e r e s t s are  f o r e x p r e s s i o n , then  given  the t e x t i s  avenue.  For example, the P u b l i c Issues  i n Canada booklet  series  has a number of examples of m u l t i p l i c t i c approaches to the study of b i - l a t e r a l  issues.  Doggett  (1986) u t i l i z e s a  m u l t i p l i c t i c approach i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of a c i d r a i n because classroom  teachers are encouraged to get students  to assess  t h e i r p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n about the i s s u e , the i n t e r e s t s of environmental  groups and  the U n i t e d S t a t e s , and and  lateral border  Such an approach i s m u l t i p l i c t i c  because i t g i v e s a balanced  approach to a b i -  i s s u e whereby p o i n t s of view on both s i d e s of are given equal b i l l i n g .  multiplictic  and  the p o l i c i e s of p r o v i n - c i a l , s t a t e ,  n a t i o n a l governments.  in nature  i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r s i n Canada  the  Another example of a more  s t r a t e g y i s the issue booklet on f r e e trade  by  31  Seney  (1985).  multiplictic ify  This  approach,  arguments  for  give  and  designed  to  Canadian  sentiments  Rhetoric  and  The  a  the  second  portrayals  booklet  of  against  balanced for  and  the  terms  or  phrases  are  exclusion  of  others,  then  a  different plictic  of  of  language  to  has  to  be  be  McDiarmid tive  report highly  that  The  chart  is  of  free  American  and  trade.  assessment  States  of  be  of  the  relationship is the  the  or  easily  to  the  s a f e l y presumed However,  that  the  i f there  expressions a  of  exposing  multi-  objectivity  rhetoric  influence  i s the  as  i t s very  and  non-  effective  others.  classified  Canada  use  Therefore,  being  nature,  neutral i t  or  almost  evaluative. Pratt to  (1971), describe  r h e t o r i c used  in  is  occur.  illusion  by  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p . If  r e l a t i o n s h i p , then to  textbook  to  in  their  study  particular build  up  of  evalua-  minority  groups,  stereotypes  is  negative.  Rhetoric between  trade.  approach.  definition,  used  the  the  i t can  Indeed,  and  assertions  class-  d e s c r i p t i o n s and  persuade  non-prejudicial. always  a  helps  c o n s i s t e n t l y repeated  thematic  give  by  cannot  in  i s presumed  can  However,  of  that  d e s c r i p t i o n of  various  approach  rhetoric  the  perceptions  Rhetoric bias.  in  singular  multitude  examples  chart  against  Canada-United  key  a  free  of  Relationship  of  has  number  assessment  determinant  rhetoric  a  including a  use  text  has  textbooks  and  the  describing  United  States  the can  relationship also  be  stereo-  32 typical, It  is  although  possible  that  theme  or  be  positively  to  nature  the  entation  content  between  The  is  in  to  describe  presumed  books  can  are  and  be  will  that be  about  positive  the  will  the  negative  the  portrayal  of  the  developed  tool  the  accurate  negative  of  positive  or  relationship  of  the  writer's  With of  the  help  rhetoric  relationship,  McDiarmid  criteria  The  and  be  pre-  relationship  point.  positive  differ-  in  it text-  identifiable.  pre-determined  in  a  assessor.  if  the  States  startin  selective  as any  will  the  values  a  a  of  just  qualitative  relationship.  from  be  a  use  Examples  to  be  States  relationship.  accepted  process. helpful  positive  nullify  rhetoric  polarity  Canada-United  of  to  be  (1971),  describe  the  easily  the  may  established.  to  and  can  States  consistent  indicating  more  Development  a  tone  judgments  firmly  or  rhetoric  accept  model  easily  tone.  Canada-United  negative  the  rhetoric  sentiments  predetermined  used  Pratt's  involving  connotated  underlying of  and  to  in  approach  writer's  reader  differentation  criteria  helpful  negative  Canada-United  positive a  a  the  the  negative  single  of  case,  a  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  negative be  the  its validity  determined  can  of  Such  analysis  However,  this  a  reader  convince  McDiarmid's  undertaken.  the  Conversely,  aspects  Using  intention  in  to  necessarily  promoting  influence  implemented  positive  the  topic,  relationship.  always  when  stereotype  of  easily  not  evaluative  and  Pratt  i s an (1971)  process  is  arbitrary serve  expected  identification  assertions  as  of  characterizing  33  the  rhetoric  describing  the  Canada-United  States  relation-  ship. It United a  i s presumed States  used  Many to  listed  as  of  indicators  States  Terminology positive "great the  taken  the  and  terms  positive or  can  context  positive  be  friendship  Derivatives  good  will,  border  negative  rhetoric are  stand the  as  harmony  and  been  is  own  Canada-United indi-  used.  undeniably  terms,  pleasant  i n the  their  positive  have  these  on  such  as  relationship,  world"  can  only  be  upon  the  context  neutral  and  terms  essence can  be  of  they  are  used,  interdependence  statements.  d e s c r i b e the such  i n which  However, a  when  can they  p a r t n e r s h i p or  construed  in a  be  more  are  an posi-  vein. Negative  such  or  statements.  be  tive  can  they  of  happy  to  then  establish  relationship  towards  and/or  considered  alliance,  Canada-  help  f o r the  States  i n which  intervulnerability  help  to  positive  determined  as  to  a  values  values  such  used  has  feelings  l o n g e s t undefended  Depending  that  positive  in nature.  as  utilized  Canada-United  given  like  trust  be  d e s c r i b e the  IV.  of  given  that  pre-determined  relationship  cators,  and  the  in Table terms  can  relationship  d e s c r i b e the  The  terms  relationship  p e r c e p t i o n of  tone.  those  as  dependence,  autonomy, Indeed,  terminology  do  they  branch  i s not plant  not  necessarily  may  be  a  neutral  have  as  easy  to  economy, to  be  descriptor  defend.  and  even  negative of  an  in  Terms loss  of  tone.  actual  situa-  34  tion.  However,  writer  i s bemoaning  branch  plant  must  when  Therefore,  t o take  which  these  these  and  be u s e d  can  potentially be g i v e n  about  always  assist  what  a r e used.  these  terms  i n the  a r e used.  Only  should provided  then  values f o r  remain  constant  that the  the context  The assessment  in  of the r h e t o r i c  i n an a n a l y s i s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g  c o n s t i t u t e s the Canada-United  in  value.  and negative  to determine  one  the context  or negative  fashion,  terms  relationship,  in assessing  of the p o s i t i v e  a  connotation.  States  a positive  i s careful  then  the use of r h e t o r i c  neutral  in a consistent  t h e words  also  a negative  care  i n which  of dependence, or  d e s c r i b i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p  evaluator which  of reference  o f autonomy,  evaluating  tremendous  Determination terms  or loss  as having when  terms  the  frame  of the Canada-United  needs  can  in a  the consequences  economy,  be a s s e s s e d  description  used  States  beliefs relation-  ship. The negative  terms  and phrases  values  The  values  who  work  were  i n Table agreed  i n the f i e l d  h i g h l i g h t e d and given  IV have  upon  been  carefully  by t h e a u t h o r  of Canadian-American  positve or selected.  a n d two  scholars  relations (see  Table I V ) . Assessing  Judgments  Finally, about then  About  on a n o t h e r  the relationship i t c a n be s a f e l y  singular  thematic  the Relationship level,  reflect presumed  method.  i f judgments one view that  However,  that  of the  the text  a r e made  relationship,  has used  i f any o p i n i o n s  a  exist  35  that  espouse  then  a m u l t i p l i c t i c formula  tion  c a n be  portraits explicit tic is  further  enhanced  description  with  then  viewpoints  there  of the  an  States  i s highlighted,  i s presumed  to exist;  would  be  about  the  i s in existence.  of the Canada-United  routine used,  a m u l t i p l i c i t y of views  relationship, This  examination  of  explicit  relationship. then  a  I f one  singular  i f a multiplictic  evidence  revela-  available  of  themastrategy alternate  relationship.  TABLE IV INDICATORS OF THE RHETORIC USED TO DESCRIBE THE CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONSHIP POSITIVE RHETORIC  PREDETERMINED VALUE  friendship partnership harmony cooperation ally protection longest undefended border close t i e s intervulnerability interdependence special relationship unique relationship similarities continental  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1  NEGATIVE RHETORIC  PREDETERMINED VALUE  dependence l o s s o f autonomy colony satellite junior partner unequal partner branch plant economy penetration domination control takeover absorption annexation vulnerability retaliation extraterritoriality i n f e r i o r i t y complex inevitability integration continentalism Americanization American i n f l u e n c e  -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1  36  For  example,  Seney's  highlights  two  relations:  interdependence  two  explicit, versions  ship be  different  rather  than  classified Given  as  the  opinions United  United  the  on  binary  relationship.  and  in  relationship  superimposed  approach focusses  to A  the  relation-  booklet  can  an  as  a  and  Canada  either  of  a  negative  judgments  textbook  being  the  as  entire  specific  of  between  and  and the  portrayal  of  singular  p o r t r a y a l s of  being  textbook  approach  should  not  account  i s more  various  topics  the  Canada-  s i n g u l a r thematic  d e c i s i o n model  profiles  determination  nature.  i n t e g r a t e s tha on  presenting  States  positive  that  discerned  accurately determine  a  By  in  the  existence  i t i s presumed be  by  of  relationship  multiplictic  States  approach  provided  the  or  trade  multiplictic.  and  can  free  transnational  dependence.  the  rhetoric,  multiplictic  This  one,  of  about  Canada-United  study  relationship  To  the  the  States,  thematic  and  view,  about  booklet  perceptions  of  evidence  nation-centric connotated  just  (1985)  or  be  of  the  appropriate.  parameters  representative  of of  analysis the  relationship. Explanation The textbook into  five  of  study  the  Profiles  proposes  p o r t r a y a l of profiles  relationship.  to  the  which  Approach sub-divide  the  Canada-United focus  on  issues  assessment  States arising  of  the  relationship from  the  37  The profile must  selection is a  logical  consider  The  would  be  lateral  of  an  and  of  view  focal  and  must  national,  interactions  by  primary  i t s nature  an in  the  regional,  for  the  any  could  each one  case  of  the  various and  two  study  be  of  issue,  examine  between  point  focus  studying  relationship,  important  issue,  the  When  points  including  such  as  choice.  States  groups,  variety  issues  multiple  Canada-United interest  of  sectoral. nations  of  a  bi-  multiplictic  in  approach. Table acterize ty  the  years.  books (see  V  lists  these  of  some  I).  are  Most  narrow  the  the  have in  an  focus.  the  issue  The  (1982) more  five  reduce  manageable  issue the  topics to  areas  of  twen-  of  text-  education  perspective are  and  indicative  strong  the  rela-  focus  for  i d e n t i f i e d by  Wilson  list  issue  profiles.  many  relationship.  characterize  of  char-  and  examination  States  a  that  hundred  ministries  provide  lengthy  five  two  topics  A l l , however,  of  need  an  historical  each  analysis.  past  provincial  Canada-United  is a  issue  i d e n t i f i e d from  the  there  a  for  of  of  tionship,  to  by  range  facet  Although  Alper  were  prescribed  of  broad  relationship  They  Table  a  fifty  the  and topics  38  TABLE V ORIGINAL L I S T OF ISSUE AREAS 1)  the American  Revolution  a n d Canada  2) t h e a r r i v a l o f t h e L o y a l i s t s i n C a n a d a 3) t h e t h r e a t o f M a n i f e s t Destiny 4) t h e War o f 1812 5) t h e M a i n e b o u n d a r y d i s p u t e 6) t h e R e b e l l i o n s o f 1 8 3 7 7) t h e O r e g o n b o u n d a r y d i s p u t e 8) t h e A n n e x a t i o n Manifesto 9) t h e R e c i p r o c i t y T r e a t y 10) t h e A m e r i c a n C i v i l War a n d C a n a d a 1 1) the Fenian raids 12) , t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f t h e R e c i p r o c i t y T r e a t y 13) t h e T r e a t y o f W a s h i n g t o n 14) a n n e x a t i o n i s t s e n t i m e n t a t R e d R i v e r 15) a n n e x a t i o n i s t s e n t i m e n t i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 16) t h e N a t i o n a l P o l i c y 17) t h e 1891 e l e c t i o n 18) t h e A l a s k a b o u n d a r y d i s p u t e 19) t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t C o m m i s s i o n 20) t h e 1911 e l e c t i o n 21) W o r l d War I a n d C a n a d a - U n i t e d S t a t e s r e l a t i o n s 22) c u l t u r a l r e l a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e R o a r i n g ' 2 0 s 23) e c o n o m i c r e l a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e D e p r e s s i o n 24) t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e C.B.C. r a d i o n e t w o r k 2 5 ) W o r l d War I I a n d C a n a d a - U n i t e d S t a t e s r e l a t i o n s 26) N.A.T.O. 27) t h e M a s s e y C o m m i s s i o n 28) t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e C.B.C. t e l e v i s i o n n e t w o r k 29) t h e S t . L a w r e n c e S e a w a y 30) NORAD 31) t h e A r r o w a f f a i r 32) t h e C u b a n m i s s i l e c r i s i s 33) t h e BOMARC m i s s i l e c r i s i s 34) t h e e l e c t i o n o f 1 9 6 3 35) t h e A u t o P a c t 36) t h e C o l u m b i a R i v e r P r o j e c t 3 7 ) N.A.W.A.P.A. 38) W a l t e r G o r d o n ' s b u d g e t 39) t h e N i x o n Doctine 40) P i e r r e T r u d e a u ' s T h i r d O p t i o n 41) t h e C . R . T . C . r e g u l a t i o n s 42) B i l l C - 5 8 43) F.I.R.A. 44) t h e F o o t h i l l s P i p e l i n e p r o p o s a l 45) t h e N . E . P . 4 6 ) t h e 1980 O l y m p i c s ' boycott 47) R o n a l d R e a g a n ' s N o r t h A m e r i c a n Accord 48) t h e G a r r i s o n R i v e r a n d S k a g i t R i v e r issues 49) t h e a c i d r a i n dispute 50) t h e f r e e t r a d e t a l k s  39  Leqitmacy The (1982)  five  foreign  these  tative  issue  issue  Selected  areas  are:cultural  issues, of  of the Five  investment  of a t l e a s t  Areas  identified  issues,  areas  Issue  by W i l s o n  defence  issues,  Alper  environmental  and trade  c a n be e a s i l y  one s t r a n d  issues,  and  issues.  l e g i t i m i z e d as  Each  represen-  of the Canada-United  States  relationship. The  cultural  Canadians ence the  throughout  of American  many  concerted  formation network  periodicals  effort  t h e 1930s, then,  grammes,  commissions  cultural  issue  have  n o t been  satellite Canadian  Canadian context be  i n which  the issue a  with  this  issue  Therefore,  of t h i s pro-  focussed  the Canada-United  e f f e c t i v e l y assessed.  on  Contemporary  the onslaught  States  this  concerns  of  influence  on  discussion  of American issue  The  radio  studies,  have  and  saw a n e e d f o r  identity.  for public  this  influ-  the Roaring  Corporation  of American  topic  the  p o r t r a i t s of the Canada-United  highlight  survival.  reports,  influence.  Indeed,  i s often  during  the beginning  and r e g u l a t i o n s  abated.  Textbook  just  f o r many  of the century  the Canadian  numerous  technology,  relationship  was  With  anglophones,  Broadcasting  of American  culture  scrutiny.  mostly  concern  century.  and radio  to preserve  of the Canadian  Since  an o n g o i n g  a t the turn  films  Canadians,  during  process.  has been  the twentieth  i n f l u x of American  Twenties, a  issue  area  and  States  influence provides  and a  r e l a t i o n s h i p can  40  The that It,  defence  issue  i t i s another  i s similar  example  of American  too, i s set in history.  between  t h e two c o u n t r i e s  American  Revolution  to the cultural  Indeed,  goes  back  and continues  issue i n  i n f l u e n c e on  the defence  relations  to the period  into  Canada.  of the  the twentieth  with  t h e two W o r l d  Wars a n d t h e f o r m a t i o n  This  early  context  i s influential  underlying  premise  f o r the p o r t r a y a l of the Canada-United  States the  relationship.  nuclear  relations  Certainly,  age p r o v i d e  between  a broad  Canada  o f NATO  century  a n d NORAD.  i n the development  t h e more context  and the United  recent  of an  events  f o r the study States  of  of  in a global  context. Environmental lateral many The rain the  relationship  water  pollution  problem United  Dam  Project  central  problem  on t h e S k a g i t  are controversial teaching  to student  United  States"  Foreign  region  issues.  of environmental understanding (Wilson  ownership  writers  f o r the past  history  dating  back  international  of Canada's  and A l p e r ,  i s s u e s have  twenty  years,  t o the times  boundary  River  problems  borders.  Canada and  raising  As a  since  and the a c i d  of Eastern  or the Garrison  border  States,  Lakes  as the proposed  River  of the b i -  do n o t r e c o g n i z e  of the Great  do n o t r e s p e c t  p r o j e c t s , such  i n terms  and the United  problems  of the i n d u s t r i a l  States  Dam  "classroom  the  o f Canada  of the environmental  lines. Ross  i s s u e s c a n be s t u d i e d  of the Diversion  result, will  remain  relations  with  1982, p . 1 6 9 ) .  preoccupied but they,  many  Canadian  t o o , have  of the National  Policy  a when  41  American plants  firms  i n Canada.  Canadian and  the  1970s,  the  subsequent  and  the  under  close  illuminate tween  trade  However,  between  the  agreement to  teh  two  in  the  of  Reciprocity  United quite  1891 in  1986.  relationship  between  The  issue  profiles  approach  of  area  was  helps  i t has  of  to  be-  selected  legitimate  issues  during  i s a major  the  the  United  of  the  since  the  signing  tested  the  issue  profile  as  to  subsequent  Trade  countries  and  importance  States  the  and  trade  central  and  the  discussions  been  1846  with  economic  free  United  1854.  combined  paramount  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  areas  Foreign  Corpora-  governmental  are  textbook  Canada  are  rubric  the  two  Any  the  With  relationship  and  in  1911,  in student  five  issue  relationship  be  to e s t a b l i s h a  in  of  issue  the  could  the  issues  the  the  this of  formal  Indeed,  and  of  easily  under  Treaty  campaigns  relationship  public  States.  the  Laws  between  assist  profile  trade  relationship of  1960s  Development  Program,  perception  given  Corn  creation  Canada  Energy  between•Canada  of  will  the  countries  repeal the  government  A  relationship.  relationship  the  relationship.  issue  1986,  during  States  issue  issues.  economy  branch  against  Canada-United  the  investment  out  a major  Agency,  foreign  American  establish  became  textbook  and  b a r r i e r to  ownership  scrutiny.  Canada The  the  National  the  tariff  n a t i o n a l i s t s spoke  Canadian  Review  tion,  on  foreign  affected  Investment  the  When  dependence  the  which  jumped  the  election in  the  trade  issues  overall States.  the  focus  choices.  Each  for  the  issue  area  42  characterizes  a  relationship. shaped the  the  different Each  that  others  how  textbooks,  i t i s contended  States  Framework The  of  each  Each  evaluating  United  framework  textbooks  portray  three  American issue  VI the  help  been  tionship  factors  be  that  a  will  emerge.  a  States  that  have  perspective  able  issue areas  to  are  do.  of  of  By  portrayed  conception  and  the  or  according  two-level  the  in  Canada-  the  type  to  more the  of of  Finally, a  The  a n a l y s i s of six  States  rhetoric judgmental  two  scholars  profiles detailed  three  or  not  relationship The  existence  the  analytical  whether  multiplictic.  v a l i d a t e d by  provide  a  Canada-United  orientation  studies.  areas  not  determine  determinants:  the  relationship, have  Canada-United  expose  relationship.  s i n g u l a r thematic  centricism,  can  may  these  provides  States  in Table  reflect  the  Analysis  questions  They  of  relationship  Canada-United  being  of  i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of  relationship.  relationship  facet  of  used  as  questions nationto  describe  the  interpretations. in  Canadian-  identified  by  p o r t r a y a l of  determinants  (see  the  the  five  rela-  Table  VI).  TABLE VI  QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSING THE NOTION OF RELATIONSHIP  SINGULAR  THEMATIC  MULTIPLICTIC  -Is a nation-centric perspective u t i l i z e d in, d e s c r i b i n g t h e i s s u e area?  -Is a b i - l a t e r a l or m u l t i l a t e r a l approach used i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the i s s u e area?  -Is there a consistency in the use of s i n g u l a r terms / p h r a s e s t o describe relations between C a n a d a and t h e United States i n a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e area?  -Is there a consistency i n t h e use of m u l t i p l e terms / p h r a s e s t o describe relations between Canada and t h e United States in a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e area?  -Are t h e r e d e s c r i p t i o n s and j u d g m e n t s a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f one and o n l y one v i e w o f t h e Canada-United States relationship?  -Is there a p o r t r a y a l of t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of b i - l a t e r a l views c o n c e r n i n g t h e CanadaUnited States r e l a tionship?  44  CHAPTER V THE This  chapter  als  of  the  the  framework Each  Canada-United  of  the  the  profiles  brief  books  are  of  the  the  concentrate  Continental  issue  in analysing  relationship,  a  nation  States.  The  "to  sides  take  ments,  and one  their must  the  given  in  in Table  of  the  VI.  the  Before  to  fifteen  can  that  be or  inclination  or  present text-  that  differ.  Canada  Wary  attempt views  to of  used  give each  to  not  Canada  but  when  use  make  of  the  They a  balanced  issue.  describe The  will  dominated  i t i s not  and  Neighbours?  distinguished.  their to  in  Textbooks  relationship.  i t i s -so  debate,"  perspective,  to  Selected  Rawlyk  language  claim  this  beg  and  States  i s whether  authors  nation-centric uage,  through  i t i s prudent  the  alternate  pattern  book  of  t o p i c s and  However,  sep-arate  listed  Partners  Canada-United on  the  to  chapter.  is evaluated  perspectives  Hodgins,  in presenting  of  area  however,  Perspectives  approach  theme  previous  issue  portray-  relationship according  questions  the  Hanley,  States; on  the  textbook  for analysis.  Bowles,  focus  of  a n a l y s i s of  States  in  an  an  examined,  overview  Overview  of  analytical  chosen  United  outlined  profile  use  a  provides  ANALYSIS  their  the overall  survive by  the  descriptive thematic  a  United  intention  evaluating  singular  as  their langjudg-  45  Clark diversity  and of  landscapes,  Wallace  the  Rather, United  Canadian  including  relationship.  The  a  an  of  Diversity  physical,  study  book  i t produces States  i n Land  of  seldom  cultural,  the  and  and  utilizes  an  chooses  issues of  not  the  to  the  economic  Canada-United  agreeable portrait  relationship  f o c u s on  States approach.  Canada-  dwell  on  any  conflict. Canadian approach, plictic stand  and  as  style.  on  stance  I s s u e s and  any  issue,  Spotlight relationship light. does  in a  singular  and  the  domestic  1970s. tionship  an  Diachun  scene,  cooperation  not  to  not  singular  different  of  the  issue  as  Canada-United well  as  an  multitake  a  thematic areas:  approach.  Rather,  be  unlikely  approach  dominates.  to  foreign  issues  studied  As  relationship  that a  i t uses  a  students  result,  a  prominent.  i n Canada:  the  historical  the  i t would  is  States  presenting  authors' conclusions.  Controversial are  at  issues  style  multi-disciplinary the  looks  whereby  thematic  Evans  three  issues  economics.  i t s method  method  challenge  of  an  to adopting a  authors present a  contemporary  incorporate  consensus would  and  Canada  However,  not  the  on  although purporting  portrayal  defence,  takes  i s much c l o s e r  However,  in their  culture,  such,  Alternatives  the  Towards study  scene  and  Tomorrow of  concerns  representative  in-depth,  and  a  three  of  single  the  feature topics: of  the  rela-  theme  of  a  46  Canada's understand  Century  the major  are  shaping  (p.  i i i ) .  One  the  United  States.  but  always  within  relate  present  ing  touches  throughout addresses  some  about  twentieth  lateral  about  Canada,  century  Many  issues approach  opinions  are rarely  perception  Today  authors  own  a  singular  different  i t identifies  a r e few a t t e m p t s these  concerns.  the authors'  at A  key present-  consensus  singular  short  Canada-United  thematic  references  States  relations  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  Shaping  An  and f e a t u r e s  definite  Canada  area,  of t o p i c s  The  but t h e i r  has numerous  of the i s s u e s  incidents.  in this  States.  "should"  and  albeit,  in  Identity concentrates  on  n o n - c o n t r o v e r s i a l and s i n g u l a r thematic  the  i t sf u t u r e "  challenged.  of Canada  Discovering  which  framework.  utilizes  There  whereby  a r e seldom  the text  shape  on a m u l t i t u d e  viewpoints,  Concern  viewpoints  Search  and issues  a r e dominant.  i s developed  conclusions  [will]  i s the influenece of  and the United  and concerns.  approach  a  and S u r v i v a l  A Growing  opposing  In  forces  In a c h r o n o l o g i c a l manner,  incidents  "students  and w i l l  s i n g u l a r thematic  conclusions  approach.  as  issues are explored  alternative  Canada:  goal  present  major  Many  t o Canada  some  thematic  of these  a  i t s  forces, personalities  the country's  Challenge that  states  many  way.  accounts  questions  i s promoted.  ofb i -  are asked,  However,  and a  diverse  expressed.  uses  of Canadian  an  interesting  studies.  issues  approach  The C a n a d a - U n i t e d  in  States  i t s  47  relationship lengthy trayal  i s repeatedly  introduction features of  the  stimulating  union  start  of  a  form  fictionalized  of  variety  examined.  This  of  examination,  single  theme.  Canada, events  of  actual  fact,  The  the  any  but  neglects  to  Canada-United  to  of  of  with  tionship.  The  his  into  short  obvious..  a  the  any  view,  often  in  of  but  betrays  over  the  are  multiplictic  the  about  This  orientation  studies,  examine  surface  depth  Self  number  and of  Society  social  relationship However, to  on  its  the  major  i s s u e s , when  controversy common  the  in  with-  terminology  issues  of  from  result,  nation-centric single  of  an  science  is a  expressed  the  uses  i s looked  there  those  study  excerpts a  of  glances  It mentions  documentation  As  issues  case  por-  states.  an  be  to  Canadian-American the  United  the  of  the  relationship.  opposite  concerned  is  go  purports  i t .  States  Skidmore's  always  of  angles.  opinions  to  Century  over  Studies,  Canada-United  and  appears  Twentieth  study  points  futuristic  i t s nation-centric bias  States  Canadian  the  establish  composites  i t skims  touching  Significantly,  fictional  and  opposing  1900s and  out  approach  to  textbook  closer  a  Canada  helps  whereby  variety  highlighted.  topics. at  by  the is  Canada-United  chosen  readings.  i t i s not themes.  opinion  The  from  noticeable  Relations  diverse  issues  a shortage  authors. entirely States is  rela-  almost  Skidmore's  difficult  to  input  recognize  Skolrood's presents  issues,  attention.  As  relationship thematic  a  are  but  result,  not  United  give  most  of  States  any  the  s u p e r f i c i a l and  fifteen  textbooks  Canada-United  purport  does  The  and  topic  sufficient  portraits  written  in  Canada  of  a  the  singular  style.  All the  Neighbours:  to  However,  focus  States on  contain  relationship.  issues  some  of  the  The  next  section  of  five  issue  sufficient  central  books  do  not  to  Most the  detail of  about  the  books  relationship.  maintain  this  focus  on  issues.  terms  overall United  impression States  Examination Every sufficient between  first the  of  single  to  relationship  describe  textbook  in  depicting  the  the to  and  analysis  refute  portrayals  issues  the  of  in  the  the  Canada  cultural  and  language  portrayal  expose  book's  the like  the  of  mentality,"  used  cultural  on  to  is  a  the  establish  the  singular  "absorbed,"  "client  are  text  used  cultural penetration,"  of  exhibited relationship  Rawlyk  textbook's  phrases  has  States.  The  "Americanization"  the  or  analysis  Hodgins,  "inundated," "U.S.  for  United  analysed.  helps  Terms  and  detailed  Issues  Hanley,  for  influence,"  tion,"  the  more  substantiate  chosen  and  be  "undermined," al  to  text  content  framework  approach.  of  Cultural  Bowles,  book  areas  a  relationship.  Canada  The  provides  cultural thematic  "threatened," "U.S.  cultur  "U.S.  domina-  regular  basis  relationship.  The  to  49  overall  account  concentrating culture.  on  Since  pedestal their  can  in  a  be  the the  assessed  issue authors  repeated  approach  in  of  as  the  portraying  this  issue  i t can  the  singular  s u r v i v a l of  place  fashion,  being  be  thematic  the on  Canadian  a  high  assumed  cultural  also,  that  relationship is  nation-centric.  ence  Land  of  of  distinctive  a  D i v e r s i t y presents  argument  by  Canadian  culture.  say  Canada  that  very  focussing  from  an  issue  conflict solutions  cultural  including theless, it  supply  the  the  This The  easy  the  account  attempt  answers  is  not we  remains  to  focus  address  and  on  Canadians  influences  to  its  influence  culture  fail  exist-  undermines  "Although  that  authors  prove  American  cultural  320).  own  this  Alternatives  diverse  textbook  points of  and  relationship in  several  statements preamble  the  thematic.  their  Issues  establishes  Canadian  to  but  conclude:  culture,  (p.  because  i s predominantly  uage  of  singular  of  to  on  any  quick  instead.  Canadian the  i t s own  culture  issue  authors  U.S.A."  i s weak and  the  compared  the  overwhelmingly  on  The  has  significant  receive  Canadian  evidence  a of  cultural  more  opinions  account  single view  help  but  theme.  about  focusses to  The  language  used  the  Words  on  examine in  the  reader's  like  of by  Neverbecause  its descriptive  neglects  relationship.  topic  issues.  multiplictic,  and It  key  but  influence  the  c o n t r o v e r s i a l manner  i s not  nation-centric  opinion.  cannot  a  addresses  lang-  different any  American  opening perception  "cultural  press-  50  ures,"  "brain  equally  drain  important  "special  and  difference  Spotlight  about  preserving"  between of  "faculty flood  references  worth  establishment  south,"  Americans  a  singular  Canada  neglects  controversial diverse  side  that  points  of  thematic United  view. study  terms  which  are  the an  identity, the  we  same  in  assignment  presentation  can  to  any  controversy.  centric.  Their  survival  and  Canada: to  the  "strong  cultural newly  discovered  Their  influence," typify  Evans culture  and may  side  "strong  the  by  alternate  a  They a  singular  asking  of  the  domin-  state  that  nation,"  students  "should the  writers  not  swamped  want  nation-  cultural expressed.  brief  references  "dependence,"  competition,"  also  emphatwo  do  is  Canadian  language  to  Canadian  between  like  the  and  separate  numerous  Words  be  stand  approach  Diachun  in  approach  is emphatically  has  the  as  the  with  Tomorrow  can  exist  domination  issues  students  that  relationship.  reaction" issues.  deduce  pre-occupation  Towards  American  "Canadian  only  American  cultural  the  relations that  One  an  used.  exist  that  used  influence  time,  say  real  r e l a t i o n s h i p with  to  authors  are  present  cease  friendly  up  authors  repeatedly  being  is a  themselves  on•"American  nations." stir  for  could  audio-visual the  take  cultural  an  "there  the  framework.  opinions  the  Canada's based  produce  size  of  to  and  culture  Canadians,"  assess  Instead,  one  "culturally, at  can  States,  ation,"  yet  students  that  thematic  whereby so  Canada's  and  and  north,"  used  to  state i n an  and  describe that  "our  avalanche  of  51  Americanism"  (pp. 363-364).  the  concern  authors'  ation  in a clearly Key  include "loss  words  about  nation-centric  and ideas  of independence,"  embrace,"  "talent  "powerful  influence."  singular  Canadian the  "loss  "go s o u t h  The a u t h o r s  there  fashion  Otherwise,  roll  us" (p.  The of  over  authors  the United  market,"  "the constant  "Americanization,"  "American  "brain  t o name  lar  thematic Hux  bias  issues.  in their  they  ask a  into  thinking  Century  that,  "American  woman/man," a n d  conclude  in a  nation-  "on t h e s u b j e c t i n Canada.  cares.'  We  else's  of  There a r e  must  be  nationalism  and S u r v i v a l  will  reader  [ i n Canada],"  "profound  effect,"  influence,"  few, i n t h e i r can mistake  "the p u l l  of the Canadian  for survival  domination,"  a  mention  capture  "unmistakable  just  seemingly  description  i n Canada:  t h e word  way.  and  description of  the authors'  singu-  intent.  and Jarman  Canadians use  No  thematic  387).  struggle  influence,"  cultural  young  "the American  "considerable drain"  someone  of Challenge  States,"  exposes  and domin-  influence,"  a r e two g r o u p s  nationalistic.  influence  i n Canada's  "considerable  drain,"  metaphor  of c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y , "  n a t i o n a l i s t s and t h e *I don't  right  strong  singular  presented  thematic  culture,  a  the American  "Americanization,"  centric  Such  of American  A Growing  "influence"  They  own  continually  no c o n c l u s i o n s .  intended  about  any of t h e i r  c u l t u r a l a f f e c t s on  Concern.  b u t make  set of questions critically  do n o t e x p o s e  to stimulate  the Canada-United  Rather, students States  52 cultural  relationship.  Canadians not  becoming  oppose  of  this  to  be  and  Canada's  question  ultimately  phrases:  In  Issues"  joining  a  Search  American  influence  His  account  lar  thematic of  Discovering  influence,"  Canada,  "overwhelmed"  to describe  singular  thematic as  protect  Canadian  expressed  a  of  the  absorbed,"  the  an  seem  cultural  a  section of  he  calls  terms  and  "Americanization," "threat  Canadian  concern  to  Canadian  affects  of  sovereignty. and  f o r the  Identity  singupreser-  " t o o much  "U.S.  culture."  and  This  that  States  "invasion  of  the  The  United  the  may need  n a t i o n - c e n t r i c ism  nationalistic  tone.  of  domination,"  authors,  "Canada  promote  as  American  cultural  imitation  judge  i s more  expressions such  invasion,"  relationship.  fashion,  almost  authors  Canadian  number  a u t h o r s use  separate nation"  i n an  the  Canada-United  "peaceful  "merely  States,"  survive  a  An  "Americanization,"  and  open-endedness  is nation-centric  Shaping  The  invasion,"  "becoming  would  identity.  relationship.  ways,"  uses  issues  cultural  American  he  has  w o r r i e s about  in i t s portrayal  American  some  they  Kirbyson questions the  explicit  "the  Canada  i t s over-powering  Canadian  The  about  " c a p t u r e d , " and  cultural  with  the  and  "are  that  However,  concern  of  autonomy."  of  U.S.A.?"  influence,"  "dominated,"  and  ask  sovereignty.  i n which  identity  they  to Americans  the  single  "overwhelming  "flooded,"  vation  similar  political  Kirbyson's  example,  i s commendable.  highlighting  "Cultural  so  For  in a  not "to is  53  Canada issues. "too  Today  Terms  much  "immense  Canadian  "flooded  "continental  that  help  cultural  students  to  work  on  influence."  culture  nation-centric;  by  whole the  cultural  the  by  intent  entire  survival  and  is a  has  a  by  of  the  threat  to  encourage  problem  this  "problems  held  American  behind  unit  and  of  introducing  reducing  Canada's  Americans,"  authors  "to  "American  struggling  bias  influence  culture,"  affected  country,"  The  Americanized,"  culture,"  becoming  i d e n t i f y the  solutions  too  "swamped  own  sovereignty. out  The  "strongly  cultural  Canadian  Canadian  our  cultural  influenced,"  American  "quickly  to  American  Canadian  Canadian  "strongly  scope,"  in  to  "becoming  with  in  strangers  influence,"  "help  like  spelling,"  counterparts,"  influence  references  "Americanization,"  "practically  authors  numerous  phrases  American  dominated,"  U.S.  and  impact,"  culture,"  has  a  U.S. goal  to  cultural  approach  is  pre-occupation  i s , therefore,  with  singular  thematic. Canada, superficial emphasize and  Or  the  different?"  nor  do  and  (p.  make a n y  presents  "sameness"  the an  just  about  89).  the  at  from  Canada  something  Century  a  brief  cultural connection."  but  suffer  "Is  and  they  "the  cultures  questions there  at  "sharing"  "Canadians  is  Twentieth  look  American  some the  The  same  time,  inferiority the  United  Canadian  They  noticeable  do  not  of  The the  they  culture answer  judgments.  authors Canadian  note  complex"  States  is  that  and  moved  that the  and  ask north?  special  questions;  However,  they  do  54  conclude  their  exclaiming  singular  that  " i f i t means  Canadian,  Canadians  identity"  (p.  Studies,  tional  as  well  tative  of  Canada's  shaped  The by  in  look  upon  as  the  discover  to  their  be  by  a  national  educa-  the  United  typified  by  experience," and  "owned  do  that  artists,  i s narrowly  issues  on  c u l t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with is  arts  focusses  represen-  authors  with  Society  are  United  occasionally, belief  special  account  that  proclaim  ourselves  to  and  performing  American  The  They  something  work  Self  influence,"  Americans." view.  as  rhetoric  the  "unhealthy  must  nation-centric  89).  Canadian  States.  thematic  "now  and  that  with  controlled  we  and  own  have  thematic  fear  by  point  some  musicians,  such  "unduly  drain,"  their  hostility"  singular  following:  "brain  hide  actors  States  such  not  the  and  (p.  229).  and  highly  of  confidence  we  no  awe  longer and  Such  a  nation-  centric . Skidmore's involves plays  a  an  in-depth  makes.  used  are:  penetration," "significant survive," Skidmore  The  the  invasion,"  of  and  relationship issues.  judgments  phrases  "disturbing  that  "foreign  the  affects  a  mixed  that  are  most  "heavy  situation,"  "difficult  and  gives  Language  "cultural penetration,"  "inhibiting,"  about he  various  terms  effect,"  dominated,"  However,  of  cultural  i d e n t i f y i n g the  "threatened,"  i s concerned  influence.  in  types  "profound  "U.S.  of  analysis  significant role  Skidmore often  portrayal  to  domination." of  American  message.  He  alludes  55  that  "freedom  threatened" not  become  benefits well  as  message  of  but so  is  concludes  insular  that our  c u l t u r a l expression  can  own"  singular  Skolrood then  of  mentions  on  that  differences  between  our in  a  danger  with  terms  centric  in  their with  is unity  relationship. are  used,  Canadian  (see  from  our  the  of  the  affects Table  of  American  as mixed  of  issue:  (p.  88).  are  of  textbooks face  about  and  should  Not  much  of  on  done  in  issues  relationship.  American  the  are  nation-  and  pre-occupied  textbooks  is  thematic  clearly  cultural  we  revelations.  cultural aspects  are  keep  [because]  singular  states  this  ultimately,  thematic  are  and  striking  "We  culture  the  influence  an  cultures  concerned  Americans  an  of  two  number  Thirteen  four  culture  provides  different descriptors  additional  VII).  a  texts  in  do  many  seemingly  Canada  singular  portrayal  this  the  are  Canada-United  Although  An  of  identity"  presentation  in  American  and  American  and  of  we  cultural relationship.  and  showcase  cultural survival  domination. the  to  issues.  the  eleven  on  Canadians  a l l fifteen  cultural  the  "sameness"  nation-centric  associated There  losing  review,  of  about  that  nation-centric.  States  focusses  different  of  these In  then  dichotomy  culture  and  is  hoped  ourselves  the  some C a n a d i a n s  He  up  from  be  Nevertheless,  United  the  Canada  " i t must  deprive  thematic  The  situation.  sets  93).  statements  dwells  to  enjoyed  (p.  Neighbours: abundance  be  as  that  in  are  of  the  examples with  cultural concerned  Canadian  with  identity  56 TABLE V I I PROFILE  OF CULTURAL  ISSUES  AUTHOR OF TEXTBOOK  NATION-CENTRIC?  Bowles et a l .  nation-centric (but d i v e r s e )  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  C l a r k and Wallace  non-definable  generally negative  American influence  singular thematic  Clark et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  Cruxton and W i l s o n  non-def i n a b l e  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  E v a n s and Diachun  nation-centric  highly negative  American dominance  singular thematic  E v a n s and Martinello  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  Herstein et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  Hux and Jarman  nation-centric  neutral  American influence  singular thematic  Kirbyson  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  Kirbyson et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  McDevitt et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  McFadden et a l .  nation-centric  neutral  American influence  singular thematic  Munro et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  Skidmore  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  Skolrood  nation-centric  highly negative  cultural survival  singular thematic  RHETORIC  JUDGMENTS? PORTRAYAL OF RL'SHIP  57  Examination Only the  of four  profiles  issue  area  sity,  Canada  of  Today,  distinct and  close  appear  to  to  be  tive  The  encourage ment.  the  in  with  Canadian  depict  authors  national  a  of  the  they  of  presentation  issue  on  They  is a  whether  or  not  Canada  is  section concerning that, there  with  the  i s no  of  close once  viewed  a  as  the  exception  American  in  to  the  the  which argu-  language  preoccupation  a  emerges.  threat  to  military  They  American  of  does  being  question  satellite"  issue  and  alterna-  each  Canadian  military  or  relation-  the  integration.  of  others  there  military  "mere m i l i t a r y  the  but  defence  comes  and  documents,  sides  juxtapose  "part  Diver-  Partners  language  American be  military  Canada  of  i s analysed,  the  the  thinking skills  However,  NORAD c a n  full  on  of  relationship.  presenting  different  area  not  Declaration,  focus  of  A l l the  approach,  job  in  Society  Continental  good  analysis  Land  and  defence  certain  assess  "why  Self  variety  to  sovereignty."  in  a  ask  or  centric,  wide  of  are  Canadian-American  dependence  with  the  the  content  Canada.  States:  do  whether  entire  and  i t s approach. the  ask  independence  Studies:  a  in  books  multiplictic  authors  method  to  The  United  used  sufficient  four  States  contains  students  used  These  Canadian  questions  multiplictic  exhibit  s e c t i o n s about  The  This  texts  c o n s i s t e n t use  viewpoints  ship.  to  using  a  commentary.  fifteen  United  Wary N e i g h b o u r s ? comes  Issues  defence.  the  Canada  the  neglect  of  Neighbours: feature  Defence  and  Empire."  is  The  nation-  Hyde-Park  documentation.  A l l of  the  58  references tionship ican  a r e Canadian;  with  the United  perception  readings still  in  thematic  comments  address  sense  the defence  issue.  from  of view  between  Canada  and the United  and phrases  interest  in this  of this  authors Canadian  attempting  ask  the students  the  attempts issue.  military.  one  leads  that  must  the authors leaning  document  hearted  written  nature  does  by A m e r i c a n not question  i n that  present  Even  they  do  cooperation  i s a  single  Their though  A r t Buchwald, seriously  authors  a n d 1940s, b u t  domination.  has a nation-centric perspective.  of the  to the  formilitary  t h e 1930s  conno-  that the  domination  approach,  towards  arms f o r  the students'  be g i v e n  continually  status,"  diplomacy,"  on t h e n e g a t i v e  t h e need  t h e two c o u n t r i e s d u r i n g  image  "one  on A m e r i c a n  the American  a balanced  use  "satellite  t o an e v a l u a t i o n  Some c r e d i t  to assess  relationship  state,"  to stimulate  Focussing  about  to give  theme--dependence, also  stamp  to present  The a u t h o r s  orbit,"  and " r e l i a n c e  language  for  between  "rubber  a r e concerned  States.  format  of capsulized  a r e used  the m i l i t a r y  "American  defence,"  in their  tation  about  like  satellite,"  defence"  i s  a similar  A number  readings  points  "continental  but there i s  the t e x t ' s account  and A l t e r n a t i v e s uses  and excerpts  "military  t h e Amer-  Some o f t h e s e l e c t e d  of dependence,  that  various  terms  b u t none  rela-  i n i t s approach.  Issues  presenting  States,  the notion  an overwhelming  Canadian  on C a n a d a ' s  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  challenge  singular  a l l are focussed  its  work  there i s light-  the military  59 relationship. perspective,  Therefore,  and i s another  nation-centric Spotlight Canada-United used  ation" sion  like which  that  There  Canada States  controversy.  the  military  the  leaning  Canada:  ental  defence"  disproportion worded have upset  Evans  emphasize  i n the following  allowed many  i t does  nuclear  Canadians"  using also  lacks  areas of  presents  States  a  make  do  as  some  of opposing "the fact  t o be p l a c e d  a n d "some p e o p l e  aspect  of  "coor-  "contin-  alternate A  definite  views i s that  on o u r s o i l ,  began  rela-  military  superficially.  exposure  rather  statements  such  include  a  defence  t h e words  of close  t y p i c a l manner:  weapons  slant.  present  the partnership  value  but only  Their  of the authors.  on t h e i s s u e  Tomorrow  They  and Diachun  exists.  the impres-  relationship  to the r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  issues,  "cooper-  partnership.  Towards  and "continuing  and  gives  concern  However,  by c o n t i n u a l l y  directly refer  rhetoric  a nation-centric  not focus  and "cooperation."  of defence  times,  of the  terms and  command"  of the Canada-United  which  views  thematic  The  including  towards  of cooperative  The a u t h o r s  association."  account  of the defence  relationship.  NORAD a l l i a n c e  dination"  American  relationship.  i s the central  I t does  depiction  tionship.  a brief  numerous  account  contrast,  explicit  military  partnership  any  In  presents  i s repeated  theme  an  of singular  "fully-integrated joint  the text  singular  lacks  example  the relationship,  i s no o b v i o u s  Indeed,  text  ism.  to describe  phrases  this  we has  to question  the  60  very  basis  concerns Diachun the  of  are do  NORAD" quickly  attempt  defence  (p.  344).  In  dismissed.  to  explain  relationship,  both  To  the  cases,  their  credit,  American  especially  these Evans  perceptions  concerning  the  and of  issue  of  consultation: " A s a member o f NATO a n d NORAD, C a n a d a e x p e c t s t o be c o n s u l t e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a b o u t a n y d e c i s i o n s o r a c t i o n s t a k e n by t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The Americans do n o t d e n y t h i s c l a i m , b u t i n p r a c t i c e , t h e y somet i m e s o v e r l o o k i t . The n a t u r e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n tends t o be t h a t t h e y i n f o r m u s r a t h e r t h a n c o n s u l t us. T h i s i s p a r t l y b e c a u s e t h e y f e e l somewhat r e s e n t f u l a t h a v i n g t o s h o u l d e r most o f t h e burden o f d e f e n d i n g both Western Europe and N o r t h America. Moreover, the Americans can argue that i n a c r i s i s i n v o l v i n g n u c l e a r superpowers, t h e r e w o u l d be i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o a d v i s e t h e i r a l l i e s u n t i l t h e d a n g e r was p a s t . N o n e t h e l e s s , the U n i t e d S t a t e s e x p e c t s c o o p e r a t i o n and assist a n c e f r o m i t s a l l i e s when w a r r a n t e d " (p. 362). The  authors  go  perception  of  crisis  the  and  on  to  the  give  consultation  Arab-Israeli  balanced  approach  not.  consultation  The  legitimate Although the  singular  continuing  thematic  Canada's "Most  of  us  have  the  world"  of  the  chapter. language  military  a  Century  in  tated  of  (p.  allies,"  as  the  Cuban  Although  this  close  missile more  is i t multiplictic?  inform  as  rather  nation-centric,  approach,  this  military  time  being than  about  the  l o n g e s t undefended  and  significant  image  Martinello  "trust  and  "strong military  repeat the  partnership.  in a  strong  is  consult.  emphasizing  off  This  It quite  i t does  starts  341).  such  to  i s not  heard  Evans  substantiate their  is rationalized  Americans  textbook  value  war.  issue  to  issue:  i s commendable,  f o r the  this  examples  good  use  border  pervades positive  feelings,"  ties,"  fashion:  the  rest  conno"strong  "coordination,"  61  "cooperation,"  "Canadian  "shared  and  values  beliefs"  Canadians  should  country's  r e l i a n c e on  tensions  over  strained." nuclear action  the  cannot They  in Viet  afford  use  a  the  has  United  so-called Canadian present Although not  we  NORAD"  more  we  (p.  355).  written  nation  with  within  centric  to  in  a  What  written  state  extraEvans  that (p.  by a  i s the  not  American  i t s perspective,  "the  on costs  aspect of  have of  and  point  an  the  omission  this  an  United  as  towards  context,  their  Canadian  more money  point  them  Evans,  Canada  authors  "we 358).  towards  that  with  and  insignificant  would  unfortunate  the  American  far"  they  enough  Canadian  Diefenbaker's  substantiate  spend  The  the  slightly  being  alongside  paying  approach  only  being  of  behaving  happy  should  not  balanced  issue  358)  authors  are  that  ceased  i s presented  counter-argument. an  know  textbook  that  describe  and  too  that  They  Canadians  States  previous  feel  as  and  their  tensions.  caution  United  completely  ties  alert,  these  (p.  the  about  criticism  East  country"  been  defence....that  "close  tensions  States  example,  not  NATO a n d  the  claim  missile crisis,  Middle  these  action,"  military.  Pearson's  "Canadians  perspective  ally....they  of  push  the  For  as  of  their  concerned  Cuban  examples  quote  Like  view.  States  the  American  support  r e l a t i o n s h i p and  civilized  American of  as  to  i f the  cause.  the  for  American  issues  debate,  Nam,  to  overly  the  rationalize  overall  survive like  use  warheads  Martinello  be  military  territoriality  to  not  They  support  of  this  any  done,  is  view. obviously  method  of  62  handling  the issue  relationship, singular  United  States  the  relationship.  areas:  lation  warheads  addressed  missiles  over  authors,  t h e Cuban  Canada  1963,  States  of these  i s seen  industry.  in this  missile  crisis  t o Canada"  perilous position  t o draw  ental  United  m i s s i l e s that States"  nation-centric,  "There  makes  give  (p. 424). credence  The c a n c e l blow"  missile valid  i n obsolete  evident  To t h e  the fact  and Washington  i s not  aware o f  age....The  Canada  real  campaign o f  Canadians  otherwise  Such  "serious  blow."  (p. 422).  i n the nuclear  the  and  i n NORAD.... t h e  "made many  would  as  was no  The e l e c t i o n  was n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n C a n a d a ;  decoy  them  T h e BOMARC-B  States  (p. 423). words,  the  crisis,  issues.  partner  the United  the Canada-  a s "a d i s a s t r o u s  manner:  "a s u b o r d i n a t e  i n the authors'  Canada's  describe  s h e h a d no c o n t r o l "  rests with  accountable  missile  t o invest a d d i t i o n a l funds  which  was  with  a n d "a d i s a s t r o u s  each  project  aircraft  f o r Canada  decision  being  o n t h e BOMARC m i s s i l e s ,  o f 1963, a n d  about  o f t h e Arrow  question.is  that  as  of t h e Arrow, t h e  t h e Cuban  tensions,"  a r e made  the Canadian  reason  defence  singular  It highlight  the scrapping  of nuclear  federal election  Judgments  to  defence  "serious  y e t another  but i t i s n o t enamoured  of c o n s u l t a t i o n during  crises,"  be c l a s s i f i e d  and S u r v i v a l presents  issue  installation lack  can only  States  thematic.  approach,  following  of the Canada-United  nevertheless,  Challenge thematic  area  United  was t o b e t h e land  conclusions,  to the singular  in continobviously  theme b e -  63  moaning  the subordinate  role  Canada  plays  in continental  defence. Judgments made  about  i n Canada:  the defence  A Growing  counting  on t h e U.S.A.  future,"  "Canada  alliance," help,"  a n d "Canada  Written  centricism  suggest  t h e American  acceptance  superficial  In Search  examination  relationshio  entitled  "Issues  presents  a bland,  t h e "mutual  i s predominant  junior  of North  coordinated continental  "cooperation"  and "mutual  the  section.  Only  is  mentioned:  defence  system"  of-fact  that  little  of  partners,  area  The n a t i o n -  status.  of Canada's The  unequal  section  America:  NORAD"  o f Canada's  which  role  necessitates  Key buzz-words are sprinkled  judgment  These  Canadian  surprisingly  account  interest"  one o b v i o u s  (p. 286).  (pp. 90-91).  partner  America"  system.  f o r defence  defence and  i n North  "By t h e e n d [ o f W o r l d  S t a t e s were  i n t h e NORAD  the United States.  non-controversial  the  A l l of the questions  has a  Canada  in  i n the questions  on C a n a d i a n  o f Canada  of defence:  defence  partner  assessed.  as well.  was  its territory  way, t h e i s s u e  of the issues  with  a s "Canada  partner"  b u t never  affect  are repeatedly  on t h e U.S.A.  a junior  of Canada's  military  United  defend  count  i s s t i l l  of the account  Kirbyson's  a  s t i l l  i squestioned  such  and junior  a t t h e end of t h e u n i t  emphasize  in  to help  i n a non-controversial  independence  asked  Concern,  i s a weak  "Canadians  relationship  such as throughout  of the relationship  War I I ] , C a n a d a ones,  statements  in a  andthe  continental  a r e so-matter-  c o n t r o v e r s y c a n be c o n s t r u e d  to exist,  64  yet  Kirbyson  situation  calls  have as  Canadian a voice  military ation" authors ed  at i n only  The  authors  o n e way,  mention,  seriousness  o f many  present  different  defence  each  alternative  this  method  dependence  entirely at  t h e "warm  being  with  affecting  the issue  States  does  the American  position.  The T w e n t i e t h  Century  defence  "occasional  relationship.  look-  the  the o v e r a l l States.  to reflect  They  upon  allow  seems  how  Although  of Canadian  military  foralternate because  There  i t  i s no  t o focus  i s  attempt  entirely  of the Canadian-  Controversy  disagreements,"  The  f o r the future of  simply  relations"  domin-  c a n be  the relationship.  i t i s not m u l t i p l i c t i c ,  and f r i e n d l y  "minor  of dependence.  of occasions,  nation-centric in perspective.  assessing  American  affect  such  relationship.  a notion  options  should  cooperation,"  relationship  and ask the students would  questions  a n d "U.S.  and the United  policy  on t h e U n i t e d  Canada, on  Canada  of d e a l i n g  viewpoints,  being  controversies  between  Canadian  the military  on a number  relationship five  that  ask  "dependence," role,"  the military  not gloss  Key words  "unequal  States,"  "junior partner  that  This  o r not Canada  matters.  control,"  to describe  conclude  I d e n t i t y does  and whether  by t h e U n i t e d  a r e used  of Defence."  repeatedly  i n defence  American  partner,"  An  The a u t h o r s  o f i t s own  "overpowered  Shaping  sovereignty  "overwhelming  "Issues  t o say the l e a s t .  Canada,  any c o n t r o v e r s y .  about  section  i s confusing,  Discovering over  this  i s explained  "moments o f t e n s i o n a n d  as  65  concern," so  h e a v i l y dominated  The in  a n d a s "many  tensions  lar  whatsoever.  of this  thematic  positive tone the  issue  idea  Skidmore being  presents  installation  the tensions  to the anxiety  ment  that  decision lenge  pacify  under  Canadian  to being  are featured,i n Unfortunately,  onto  t h e BOMARC-B  o f t h e NORAD  agreement.  issues produce.  o f t h e BOMARC-B  warheads  sovereignty"  as being  i s h i s state-  control  as being  of the a  (p. 74).  a positive  "chal-  occurence  of a l l Canadian a i r  of a i r bases  concerned  multiplictic,  refer-  ( p . 7 3 ) . He r a t i o n a l i z e s t h e  "putting control  who w e r e  to concentrate  His only  situation  saw t h e A m e r i c a n  missiles  In h i s des-  i s s u e s , he n e g l e c t s  these  sovereignty"  close to  warheads  the responsibility  the people  i n a manner  a t two i s s u e s : t h e  the nuclear  that  The g e n e r a l  of f r i e n d s h i p and  viewpoint.  o f t h e 1975 a g r e e m e n t  he s t a t e s  space  close  to deploy  singu-  look  Canadians  t o Canada's  signing when  many  of a  a cursory  of these  ence  relationship.  viewpoints  American  that  examin-  and sharing.  of nuclear  of both  example  with  to highlight the  the issue area  only  are not dealt  to the notion  Various  t h e 1975 r e n e w a l  cription on  presents  the i l l u s i v e  Skidmore  and  returns  multiplictic.  cluding  utilized  t o be  (pp. 107-108).  superficial  i s y e t another  being  of cooperation  States"  relationship  of the overall  of the account  i t i s dangerous  The a u t h o r s '  area  approach  nature  feel  by t h e U n i t e d  of the defence  any depth  ation  Canadians  about  Although  Skidmore's  i n Canada  would  the v i o l a t i o n of  appearing account  t o come  lacks sub-  66 stance  and  real  discussion selected result,  of  for  to  profile  again,  classified  As  viewpoints. present  a  the  veniently  i s another  as  a l l of  singular  bi-lateral  the  dominant  themes,  into  camps:  two  on  the  dependence  Canadian  subsequent  Examination Only  accounts  of  of  of  has  fifteen books  of  reasons the  the  a  As  a  singular  that  selected d i d not  books  have  were  environmental  that  placed  con-  focussed  four  military  idea  and  VIII).  chosen to  for  the  any  of  textbook  include  and  1978.  one  1980s.  of of  the  environmental Only  Spotlight  published in  sections  day  dates  A l l but  i t was  present  relationship  publication  reference to  1970  analysis  environmental  environmental  frame;  is a  approach.  and  number  p u b l i s h e d i n the issue  did  the  for analysis.  p u b l i s h e d between  issues  textbooks  with  time  books  promoted  (see Table  lower  do  been  Issues  fifteen  to  be  American  for this  something  the  the  Canadian-American  books  can  profiles  upon  two  nation-centric  pertaining  is outside this  mental  vivid  a n a l y s e d have  sections  Canada  of  a  books  autonomy  the  were  bulk  the  Environmental  issues  The  of  i f i t is disparate;  identifiable The  seven  loss  eight  issues.  the  view.  However,  than  seven  even  perhaps  a  various opinions  example  textbooks  rather  partnership,  contain  The  generate  consensus  thematic.  of  the  a  not  style.  Once  present  opposing inclusion  this  thematic  c o n t r o v e r s y . I t does  about  environ-  Perhaps  concern  1980.  of  then, educa-  67  TABLE  VIII  PROFILE OF DEFENCE  ISSUES  AUTHOR OF TEXTBOOK  NATION-CENTRIC?  Bowles et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  dependence  singular thematic  Clark et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  domination  singular thematic  Cruxton and W i l s o n  non-def i n a b l e  neutral  cooperative partners  singular thematic  E v a n s and Diachun  bi-lateral  highly positive  positive partnership  singular thematic  E v a n s and Martinello  bi-lateral  highly positive  positive partnership  singular thematic  Herstein et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  subordinate partners  singular thematic  Hux and Jarman  nation-centric  generally negative  necessary partners  singular thematic  Kirbyson  non-def i n a b l e  neutral  cooperative partners  singular thematic  Kirbyson et a l .  nation-centric  highly negative  dependence  s ingular thematic  McFadden et a l .  non-def i n a b l e  neutral  disparate partnership  singular thematic  Skidmore  non-def i n a b l e  neutral  l o s s of autonomy  singular thematic  RHETORIC  JUDGMENTS?  PORTRAYAL OF RL'SHIP  68  tional  writers.  attention  this  Possibly important  this  explains  the relative  issue  received  during  lack  of  the early  seventies. Land  of D i v e r s i t y h i g h l i g h t s  pollution,  hazardous  controversial any  issue  synopsis of  fashion.  concerns; of f a c t u a l  agreements  Only  a brief  when  the authors  severe,  why  United  have (p. this  brief  over  States,  Great  to the acid that  and that  issue rain  rain  Tommorrow  and  any  sub-  pollution.  i s broached problem  i s so lies  originates in  and American on  governments  the matter"  c a n b e made  and Wallace  from  accept  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d assume  t h e two c o u n t r i e s  the environmental  Towards  water  t o an agreement  of the environmental  bland  of the d i f f i c u l t y  of the a c i d  Clark  on  t o mention  tensions  rain  Part  rather  omit  " i f the acid  i s that  between  i n a non-  a  Lakes  interpretation that  revelation  Canada;  half  t o come  The o n l y  cooperation  prevail,  They  and the Canadian  able  interdependence that  concerning  of water  do n o t c o n c e n t r a t e  of the b i - l a t e r a l  state  that  rain  present  information.  reference  n o t been 356).  they  i s i t not stopped?  the fact  the  and a c i d  The a u t h o r s  indeed,  the controversies  sequent  in  wastes,  the problems  will  problems  devotes  will  be  solved.  one page t o  environmental  issues,  controversial  stance.  This  text  exhibits  rhetoric  describ-  the environmental  issue  in a  singular  thematic  manner.  ing  There For  is a  symmetry  example,  but the p o r t r a y a l  only  ultimately  i n the terms  the following  have  of the issue  and phrases similar  that  negative  takes  a r e used. connota-  a  69  tions:  "vulnerable,"  ences," ent  " p o t e n t i a l l y harmful  "problems,"  "danger  damage," a n d " h a r d  ronment."  Canadian Also,  the authors  "wind  cator  c a n be  i s stated  theme--the  hint  a r e no  recipients when  Evans  of acid  any  rain"  cooperative  to deal  (p. 363).  point  effort  as  indicates the  influence. of the  envi-  the r e a l i t y  that  of boundaries,...and  and Diachun  problem  envi-  v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the  too" (p. 363).  e f f o r t s are required  nation-centric  words  address  respectors  perman-  the Canadian  at the interdependence they  influ-  "serious  i n r e l a t i o n t o American  erative  very  to defend  descriptive  r e l a t i o n s h i p when  and water  Americans  pressed  o f one s i n g u l a r  environment  ronmental  of p o l l u t i o n , "  The use of t h e s e  development  American  explain  that  indi"coop-  e f f e c t i v e l y with the  However,  of view  Another  that  when  the authors  noting  i s evidenced  by t h e  take  the lack  a  of  following  quote: "By 1973, C a n a d i a n s p e n d i n g h a d a c t u a l l y gone a h e a d o f s c h e d u l e , b u t m o n e y was b a r e l y t r i c k l i n g o u t o f Washington. One o f t h e p r o b l e m s was c r e d i t e d t o President N i x o n h i m s e l f who h e l d u p some o f t h e f u n d s a l l o c a t e d by C o n g r e s s f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l . This same d e c i s i o n h a s h u r t o t h e r a c t u a l o r p r o j e c t e d plans for j o i n t Canadian-American a n t i - p o l l u t i o n measures" (p. 3 6 3 ) . This  account  ican  action  preted  neglects or lack  as being  Canada: pollution authors  environmental  any e x p l a n a t i o n  of a c t i o n .  As  such,  f o r t h e Amer-  i t c a n be  inter-  nation-centric.  A Growing  and a c i d  hint  to give  Concern  rain  focusses  in a non-controversial  at the interdependence matters  on G r e a t  when  they  Lakes  way.  water  The  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n  state  that  "Canadians and  70  Americans  h a d dumped  that  "both  help  the companies  countries  pollution," are  Garrison  disputes  The Shaping  an  problem," the  United  felt  by  further nature  " a new  "problems  manages  between  positive  account  nations  i n environmental two  of acid  inter-  agreements. Canada:  rain.  and phrases  There  such  countries,"  "a  as "our mutual  c h a l l e n g e f a c e s Canada  and "the deadly  this  Dis-  an  in Discovering  the issue  of Canada  i ti s  Boundary  environmental  f o r both  of the  to present  of Canada  of terms  effects  and the U n i t e d  emphasis  of the environmental States,  the  interdependent  of the Alaska  environmental  substantiate  a  Interestingly,  by K i r b y s o n  colours  areas  water  i s no  Indeed,  t o promote  to  companies  There  f o r c o o p e r a t i o n between  used  States,"  large  United  ation  Project.  repetition  problem,"  here.  presents a brief  in negotiating  Identity  a distinct  joint  bias  of the issue  language  a i r and  (pp. 76-77).  of the v u l n e r a b i l i t y  nations  their  lakes,"  of d o l l a r s  and American  o f two  a description  and t h e need  dependent  the  with  and  agreement.  f o r Canada  The a c c o u n t  indication  Canadian  rain"  River Diversion  juxtaposed  c u t down  of the a b i l i t y  Search  rivers  billions  t o be a n a t t e m p t  to a positive  In  is  for acid  appears  interpretation  pute.  and c i t i e s "both  into  t o spend  of a n a t i o n - c e n t r i c  description  come  wastes  agreed  and that  responsible  indication  to  their  on  t h e two c o u n t r i e s  rain  States."  are  To  the interdependent  relationship  Kirbyson highlights  of a c i d  and  between  t h e need  a n d bemoans  the  Canada  and  f o r coopersituation  71  that  the  slowly  "U.S.  than  further  the  Canadian  seems  actions  supplies  three  i n combatting  American  Kirbyson's  handling  of  singular  thematic  the  excellent rain;  This  approach,  for  cooperation.  bi-lateral Canada,  The  relationship  rhetoric  used  of  "water  pollution  joint  authors  cleanup judge and  the  Although  shows  Twentieth i n what  flows  the  there  framework  text the  presents  a  (p.  and  be  a  issue  to  issue  one  As  singular be  a  con-  example  of  one  the  the  need  i t s p e r c e p t i o n of  for  side  to  each  relationship test  and  manner.  The  example, the  other,"  other."  in this  their  friendly" towards  The  manner:  skills  in  (p.  211).  nation-  attempt  at  result,  i t i s concluded  thematic based  on  a  s u b s t a n t i a t e s the  orientation  obvious  even  Kirbyson's  and  typical  "supported  open,  342).  c o n c e n t r a t e s on  exposes  from  caused  Canadian  i s another  interdependence;  fair,  to  of  leads  leaders will  either.  relationship  dependence .  the  blatant  i s no  has  more  n e g l e c t s to mention  which  to  environmental  i s no  he  Century  freely  political  examples  bi-lateral  seems  project,"  association  there  centricism,  this  the  c o o p e r a t i o n and  "Diplomats keeping  of  this  relations"  issue  one  in describing  notion  lateral  and  even  is nation-centric.  environmental  nature  moving  situation  account  interdependent  "a  be  government  acid  example.  clusion:  the  to  t e n s i o n i n Canadian-American  Kirbyson  one  government  presenting a b i -  approach, cooperative  one  that  that  inter-  72  Skidmore's the  inherent  cerns"  when  as  strand  responsibilities," this  he  judges on  that  either  t o one's  cooperation  erative  side  spirit  Project  lack can  when  the he  interdependence of  highlights  the  the  and  "mutual  concern  result (p.  successful describes  "mutual  Also,  He  envicon-  mentions  relationship  serious  Garrison  pol-  conse-  emphasizes  application  the  he  for controlling  in very 41).  Skidmore  environmental  environmental  of  cooper-  relationship.  responsibility,"  the  neighbour" and  the  interdependence. of  "a  and of  "mutual  intervulnerability  quences  sion  such  to describe  lution  for  in this  language  ronmental  the  c o n c e n t r a t e s on  environmental relationship  ation uses  book  of  the  this  River  need coop-  Diver-  issue:  "We c a n s e e t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e i r p o w e r , t h e A m e r i c a n s a r e not w i l l i n g t o i g n o r e Canadian i n t e r e s t s or C a n a d i a n p r e s s u r e s on A m e r i c a n d o m e s t i c p o l i c y . A l t h o u g h the A m e r i c a n s had an o b v i o u s need f o r the m a s s i v e p r o j e c t , t h e y w e r e p r e p a r e d t o a l t e r i t when i t became c l e a r t h a t i t w o u l d i n f r i n g e upon C a n a d i a n i n t e r e s t s " (p. 68). Although  this  compromise, centric, actions  on  ronmental  the text  acid  by  credit  overall  Canadian  to  the  environment  presents a However,  juxtaposing  tacit  American remains  least  ability  of  and  vica  not  s e t up two  of  the  to  nation-  affects  description  i t does at  the  account  i t f o c u s s e s on  issues.  controversy of  gives  Skidmore's  in that  Skolrood's  view  quote  American versa. envipotential  different  points  for of  rain:  "The O n t a r i o g o v e r n m e n t s a y s t h a t A m e r i c a n s h a v e c a u s e d t h i s b e c a u s e 70 p e r c e n t o f t h e a c i d rain comes f r o m t h e A m e r i c a n s i d e . The A m e r i c a n v i e w i s t h a t the f a c t o r i e s have t o keep working. Pollution  73  c o n t r o l s are may n o t want These able  statements position  relationship ters. the  with  of  the  similar  mental  issue  that and  obvious  be  matters of  only of  the  (see  fifteen  of  of  foreign  ownership  books  between  provide  Canada Neighbours?  and  underlying  theme  ownership.  The  selected  the  effectively  which and  survival  feature reflects  the  is  a  is necessary  also  spot-  environ-  of  the  the  this  economic  sections  about  upon  economic  United of  States.  Most  topic.  Partners  or  Canadian  used  single  life  the  this  issue  language  establishes the  a l l have  relationship  books  text,  Issues  Continental  descriptive  control  Almost  the  coverage  in addressing  readings  Skolrood  vulnerability in  textbooks  Canada  U.S.:  best.  IX).  extensive  the  uses  the  of  perspective,  cooperation of  mat-  descriptions  at  thematic.  Ownership  All  relationship  environmental  nation-centric  Three  Table  interdependent  inconclusive  Canadian  Foreign  in  explicit  bi-lateral  vulner-  its  environmental  that  the  in  tenuous  the  singular  for  of  American government t o change" (p. 86).  exhibiting  States  lack  problems.  concern  Examination  any  are  common  the  the  can  books  theme,  combat  light  the  with  as  possesses  United  exception  interdependent to  the  conclusions Wit,h t h e  interpreted  Canada  r e l a t i o n s h i p or  these  all  are  that  However,  very c o s t l y . The to force industry  of  of to  the  of  Wary  nation  as  its  American set  theme:  up  the  "Americans  this country,"  "our  74  TABLE  IX  PROFILE OF ENVIRONMENTAL  ISSUES  AUTHOR OF TEXTBOOK  NATION-CENTRIC?  C l a r k and Wallace  non-def i n a b l e  nondef i n a b l e  vulnerable interdep.  singular thematic  E v a n s and Diachun  nation-centric  generally negative  vulnerable interdep.  singular thematic  Hux and Jarman  non-definable  generally positive  cooperative interdep.  singular thematic  Kirbyson  nation-centric  nondef i n a b l e  vulnerable interdep.  singular thematic  Kirbyson et a l .  nation-centric  neutral  cooperative interdep.  singular thematic  McFadden et a l .  non-definable  generally positive  cooperative interdep.  singular thematic  Skidmore  nation-centric  neutral  cooperative interdep.  singular thematic  Skolrood  bi-lateral  nondefinable  inconclusive data  RHETORIC  JUDGMENTS?  PORTRAYAL OF RL'SHIP  I  inconclusive data  75  economic eignty The  well-being  i s threatened,"  authors  readings which  present  f i t the  contend  further  book's  within  a  of  Diversity  authors'  offerings.  1)  No  They  "the  of  of  and  "what  answer  Americans  an  happens  buying  rest  this  Canada's  are  determination,  issue  in  i t uses  a  i s set  Wallace  remains  can  its portrait singular alongside  spotlight  to  a l l three  are  to  of  reference.'  but  "what  most  relationship  diverse opinion  Clark  of  twenty-eight The  on  economy."  number  is vital  bent.  economic  A  sover-  thought,  the  Based  frame  i n d u s t r y ? " and  investment?"  s i x of  i n Canada  "concern":  the  the  view.  strain  establishes  investment  approach.  controls  of  political  branchplant  investment  only  thematic  thematic  of  is a  continentalist  portrayal  American  sources  But  "our  p o i n t s of  in perspective.  singular  Land of  American  this  nation-centric  "ours  continentalist  that  have  and  opposite  development.  articles  the  i s threatened,"  the be  three  major  profits?,"  done  about  the  "who  foreign  questions:  Canada  with  profits  earned  here!,"  Clark  2)  with  a  3)  with  examples  and  case  Wallace  study of  and  present  could  the  Canadian  interpreted  text  as  being  Canadian  Issues  i n which  the  a  extraterritoriality,  government  highlight  domination help  about  the  number record  actions.  disadvantages of  and  ways  the  industry.  of  American  govern-ment  This  portrait  is  nation-centric. and  study  Alternatives of  American  presents  ownership  a of  clear  con-  Canadian  76  industries  is carried  singular  thematic  document  analysis:  out.  questions  The  authors  use  to  establish  a  the  series  of  framework  for  " C r i t i c s c h a r g e t h a t Canada has p r o d u c e d an artificial p r o s p e r i t y , t h a t the c o u n t r y has been indiscriminately s e l l i n g i t s b i r t h r i g h t , a n d t h a t we n o l o n g e r h a v e a c o m p l e t e l y f r e e hand i n d e a l i n g w i t h o t h e r n a t i o n s . Is i t as bad as the c r i t i c s c o n t e n d ? If i t i s that s e r i o u s , w h a t c a n we C a n a d i a n s d o ? Is i t a l r e a d y too l a t e t o r e g u l a t e American e n t e r p r i s e s i n Canada? Would the U n i t e d S t a t e s u n d e r s t a n d such a p o l i c y or would i t r e t a l i a t e ? How c a n o u r p o l i c y - m a k e r s be fair t o Americans and honour our p a s t commitments w h i l e a l s o b e i n g f a i r t o C a n a d i a n s and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s ? To what e x t e n t i s o u r e c o n o m i c i n d e p e n d e n c e a l r e a d y threatened?" (p. 124). By  selecting  answer ments  pertinent readings,  these  seemingly  expose  issues  a  presented,  the  but  study  authors  nation-centric  multitude  in question,  the  of  opinions  given  is  the  questions. about  way  interpreted  attempt  each  i n which  as  being  to  The of  docu-  the  they  are  singular  thematic. Spotlight  Canada  spends  *Americanization'  of• the  rhetoric  "branch  i s used:  economy,"  "possibility  "when  American  the  "inevitable," domination," study  of  nationalist Canada.  plant  of  a  complete got  American  which  juxtaposes  arguments  Case  the  "real the  against Dennison  linked  suffered,"  danger." Canadian and  American Mines  thematic  takeover,"  i n Canada,"  continentalist  f o r and  s t u d i e s of  "closely  Canada  repercussions  "increasing  singular  economic  sick,  i n f l u e n c e on  the  Typical  economy,"  " s e r i o u s t h r e a t , " and  "the  undertaken  examining  economy."  economy  "serious  time  "American A  special  economy"  is  economic investment  case  and  the  in  77  "Energy  Crisis"  actions  are  they  section with  to  be  1970s and  three  the  text  are  options and  of  any  American  establishment  of  the  single  i t is nation-centric  thematic  in. i t s  pros  investment.  and  cription any  of  "what a  of  iously  harm  example  "nationalThis  multiplictic and  i t s scope  the  but  earlier  domination  and  on  and  singular  the  growth"  they  short  allude  [1976]  cautious  approach  of  singular  thematic  Century  investment  this  also in  previous  nation a  Canada." text,  as  of  can  hurt  the  the  desexpose state  fact  might  Evans  very  they  "the  that ser-  disCanada's  and  Diachun  public  prefers  government"  is attested  as  (p.  another  centricism.  long It  a  economic  Canadian  profile  has  to  about  of  not  until  i t would  341-342).  of  of  do  investment  regional  the  account  authors  run,  is  includes  issue  foreign  (pp.  and  account  section  unbiased  the  against  lengthy the  The  of  Here,  campaign  of  an  actions.  stand  in  part  a  majority  the  what  control."  American  investment  portrait  in  of  gives  feature  The  "American  being  the  Canada's  account  does  done."  the  "that  present  342).  be  economic  conclude  to  in  first  perceptions  Moreover,  overall  The  American  government  parity.  the  of  own  should  future:  perspective  Tomorrow  government  their  tough  but  cons  the  present  approach.  Towards  matter-of-fact  Wilson  for  theme  control,  foreign  and  Government  "government  comes c l o s e  lack  Canada,  presented.  Cruxton  "continentalism,"  of  the  the  outlined,  believe  ization,"  of  section i s very be  concerning similar  expected,  to  since  the  78  Allan  Evans  co-authored both.  revelation  of  concluding  paragraphs  However,  the.authors' perspective of  the  text  when  an  interesting  emerges they  in  the  state:  "We m u s t c o u n t o n A m e r i c a n i n v e s t m e n t a n d g o o d will. We s e e m t o be g r o w i n g m o r e d e p e n d e n t o n t h e s e t h i n g s . A few p e o p l e a r e t e l l i n g u s t h a t t h i s t h r e a t e n s o u r p o l i t i c a l independence. We s h o u l d n o t e t h a t t h e s e w a r n i n g v o i c e s s e e m t o be i n t h e m i n o r i t y . They have not r e a l l y c a p t u r e d p u b l i c a t t e n t i o n " (p. 338). This  conclusion  centric,, given American  sistently as  that  and  economic  penetration,"  hold  on  the  representative that  does  not In  of  one  focusses  i t s own  on  economy.  explore Canada:  capsulized  uses of  i n one  lack  This  the A  the  Growing  ownership  the  "loss and  nation-centric  the  wordings "American  of  polit-  "American are  relationship, Canadian  nation-centric  Concern,  con-  these descriptors  economic  of  terms  issue,  sufficient  point  any  control,"  bondage,"  of  is a  American  p h r a s e s and  A l l of  of  nation-  record  dependence,"  economy." notion  into  "American  "economic  is also  relationship.  key  the  "Canadian  Canadian  take  economic  domination,"  independence,"  of  the  not  Survival  ical  one  of  in i t s depiction  "American  t h e m a t i c and  i t does  perception  Challenge  such  i s singular  control  concern, as i t  view. ownership  issue  is  explanation:  "Many C a n a d i a n s a r e a f r a i d t h a t C a n a d a i s l i k e t h e l a n d l o r d who s o l d t h e r o o m s o f h i s h o u s e . They fear that Canadians are s e l l i n g their industries to f o r e i g n e r s and a r e l o s i n g c o n t r o l of t h e i r c o u n t r y . I f t h e U . S . A . c o n t r o l s C a n a d a ' s e c o n o m y , how long w i l l i t be b e f o r e C a n a d a b e c o m e s p a r t o f t h e U . S . A . ? " ( p p . 214-215). It  can  theme,  be  presumed  that  that  Canadian  Hyx  and  Jarman  independence  focuss  on  only  i s being threatened.  one  79  Kirbyson a  "Canadian  say  that  dilemna"  "Canada  investment," opinion" being  describes  has  and  about  in  control  In  of  Canada.  depended  heavily  Search  always  that  this  "American  "there  issue.  are He  four  faire," ideas  and  "continentalist."  about  the  multiplictic  issue,  route.  understanding  of  the  By  Kirbyson  But,  he  broad  describes  "radical nationalist," "liberal  and  does  not  s i t u a t i o n , and  He  goes  on  as  onto  foreign  categories  these  of  viewpoints  as  nationalist," "laissez  showing  comes  ownership"  these  close  to  alternate utilizing  spotlight  so,  the  any  a  American  account  is  nation-centric. There issue  i s no  area  in  Identity. trol,"  Kirbyson's  Typical  "branch  "domination," Canada's use  of  theme when  they  language  (nationalist, all  three  well.  both (p.  However,  of but  they  economy,"  made  influence  shows  that  implement three  the a  almost  writers the they do  an  the  consuffered,"  economy." a  and  about  of The  single  multiplictic  viewpoints  An  expense  have  the  model  the  issue  continentalist),  but  nation-centric. has  state  issue  the  authors  near  middle-of-the-roader, are  in  and  industry at  of  Shaping  "ownership  "Canadian  decisions  language  Canada,  are:  "U.S.  their  Today  The  sides 376),  They  viewpoints  Canada as  and  present  descriptive  Discovering  "corporate  mind.  the  descriptions  plant  needs,"  this in  mistaking  a  multiplictic  that  " i t is essential  c a r e f u l l y and  neglect  to  excellent  method  include job  in  take any  a  in  to  weigh  reasoned  American  objectively  place  stand"  input. presenting  80  the  Canadian  ownership textual  nationalist  issue  accounts, case  stories,  judgments  (p.  stated  and there  appears  have  been  True  to assess  assertions: partners,"  "Canada  Canadian  no  that  the authors allow  points  of view  i s too closely  than  into  anti-American  the  a n d come t o  that  "when  with  "we  nation,"  Self  and i n p a r t i c u l a r  these  the  "this some  our d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t spirit  economic American  c o u n t r y , " and However,  very  issue. way  inter-  The  the  first  i n part f o r  greet  (p. 221). with  they  concerns.  accounts  Canadians  of our n a t i o n "  the positive  real  fact  following  h a s some  the ownership  are i n a very that  own  control."  about  obser-  "Canadians a r e  and S o c i e t y  about  w i t h which  penetration  that  explicit  to the  in their  foreign  any d e t a i l  remarks  uncertainty  by  tied  dependent,"  landlords  Studies:  assert  h a s some  T h e a u t h o r s make  makes Canada  opening  combined  t o be  remark  a n d t h e U.S. a r e n o t e q u a l  c a n be h u r t  t o go  economic  The  linked economically"  relationship  question."  "Canada  this  "Canadians  authors  the opposing  t h e economic  rather  neglect  intention,  The T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y  "ownership  tenants  closely  and  conclusions.  about  economy;  to their  dialogues  and speeches.  two c o u n t r i e s  vations  state  fictionalized  documents  of the  There are  the matter-of-fact  Canada,  the  o f means.  than  own  esting  sides  other  students  the  studies,  i s factually  made  368).  their  a variety  and e x c e r p t s from  introduction  "these  through  and c o n t i n e n t a l i s t  the They  American go  the United  of Canadianism  [in  onto  States the  81  late  60s],  people  relationship. multinational of  Canadian  tion the  of  the  study.  ultimately, an  well"  (p.  lenged  corporation  his  They  mention  they  make o n l y  country, able  "serious  one  is  when  an  almost  of  American  tries  However,  he  Therefore, and  the  left  with  these  to  fails  of  the  include  that  thematic.  coloured  this  phrases  has  of  such  as  "American seemed  like  a  more  foreign  decision-  used  a  single  "costly contintheme.  side-by-side  is  sides  American  chal-  is  are  impression  as  issue  describing  different the  be  development,"  placed  statements  another  i t i s concluded singular  are  and,  thematic.  than  of  truly  singular  "loss  impression  be  lives  cannot  and  sovereignty"  the  our  of  but  economy  of  "Canada  and  rest  "to  control,"  States  research  present to  and  threat,"  assertions  number  terms  capsuliza-  exist  own  aspects  economy,"  of  our  symbol  the  that  the  the  the  This  statement  When  and  views  and  about at  pervades  ownership  United  "loss  investment,  Skidmore  other  the  economic  and  221).  control  "ownership  "limited  equal  of  plant  of  (p.  conclusion,  must  language.  "branch  power,"  one  look  source  nation-centric  analysis  extension  However,  centric  but  to  alternate  concrete  effects,"  consequences," ually,  a  the  perception  that  we  questions  began  both  control  Such  anything  country," making  to  descriptive  an  as  single  "far-reaching  like  people  authors'  be  dominance,"  probing  dependence"  Skidmore's by  ask  economic  224).  as  to  Inevitably,  independent  therefore,  began  the  with  benefits  created. of  this  issue.  perspective.  portrayal  is  nation-  82  Skolrood's The  United  image  States  of  and  Canada  controversial.  In  his  offers  as  well  be  American  commended.  ity  of  sive. tion  this The  to  account.  as  issue  in  i s to  point  and  the  look  Canadian  the  lack  Indeed,  redeeming  exhibit a  ownership  depthless  However,  only  the  balanced,  detail  whole  feature  of  albeit  the  too  which  affects  piece  this  non-  situation,  viewpoints,  of  the  at  Neighbours:  is  work  brief,  he  is  the  to  qual-  inconclu-  is  i t s inten-  view  of  the  situation. Yet accounts  again,  tic  are  Textbooks more  show  traits  is  a  noticeable  an  obvious  of  this  model.  deplore on  the  the  lack  of  the  of  the  economic  any  of  themes  a  link  books  ill-affects  of  decisions  (see  an  accounts  another  to of  However,  these expose  orienta-  multiplic-  ownership  issue  example,  exchange  textbook a  as  loss a  of  there  views  accounts  of  central  due  of  and  the  sovereignty theme.  domination.  vulnerability X).  a  has  theme.  American  Table  theme  pattern  using the  single  issues  i n each  bi-lateral single  towards  obvious  closest  dependence  i n e v i t a b l e Canadian  economic  However,  come  of  domination  Three  Canadian  to  trend  include  Five  Consistent  to  that  likely  approach.  issue.  overwhelming  is substantiated.  emerged. tion  the  to  Two  due  Six focus  American  83  TABLE X PROFILE OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP  ISSUES  AUTHOR OF TEXTBOOK  NATION- CENTRIC?  RHETORIC  JUDGMENTS?  PORTRAYAL OF RL'SHIP  Bowles et a l .  nation- centric  generally negative  economic survival  singular thematic  C l a r k and Wallace  nation- centric  nondef i n a b l e  l o s s of control  singular thematic  Clark et a l .  nation- centric  neutral  l o s s of autonomy  singular thematic  generally negative  l o s s of control  singular thematic  Cruxton nation- centric and W i l s o n E v a n s and Diachun  nation- centric  nondef i n a b l e  vulnerability  singular thematic  E v a n s and Martinello  nation- centric  nondefinable  vulnerability  singular thematic  Herstein et a l .  nation- centric  highly negative  l o s s of control  singular thematic  Hux and Jarman  nation- centric  generally negative  l o s s of autonomy  singular thematic  Kirbyson  n a t i o n -• c e n t r i c  nondefinable  inconclusive data  inconclusive data  Kirbyson et a l .  nation- centric  generally negative  l o s s of control  singular thematic  McDevitt et a l .  n a t i o n -• c e n t r i c  nondef i n a b l e  inconclusive data  inconclusive data  McFadden et a l .  n a t i o n -• c e n t r i c  highly negative  l o s s of control  singular thematic  Munro et a l .  n a t i o n -• c e n t r i c  highly negative  l o s s of control  singular thematic  Skidmore  n a t i o n -• c e n t r i c  neutral  l o s s of autonomy  singular thematic  Skolrood  bi-lateral  nondef i n a b l e  inconclusive data  inconclusive data  84  Examination The tionship the  of  Trade  Issues  trade  issue  is a  as  the  ownership  trade  issue,  ownership of  is  these  which free  as two  this  interest The issue  the  not  examined  is  surrounded  ownership the  Canadian  on  of  Canada, one  to  the  fines ship  both  and  separate  auspices  of  sides  the  Three  of  during the  personal  by  trade  and  study are  to  provide  become  a  last  excerpt  features  and  other  the  the  benefits  general  the  of  i s no the  remarks  outlined  in  the  the  about  the  previous  to  be  of favour-  doom  case  costs  but  the  totally  would  specific  issue,  cause  selection  two  and  concerning  to  integration  it  foreign  more  arrangements  There  perception  and  the  debate"  the  balanced  of  Rather,  presented  such  the  of  its potential  economies  authors  account  economic  that  were  foreign  times  preamble.  concludes  their  the  i s , during  Rawlyk  "the  documents  integration.  which  Hodgins,  trade  authors' of  indicative  unlike  subdivision  the  that  free  and  and  is  The  of  finds  showing  trade  the  free  The  readings--one one  with  reflective  i t s own  American  integrated.  trade  conducted,  also  Hanley,  have  issue.  and  and  However,  include  issues.  rela-  matter.  under  question  able,  i s being  issue.  address  economic is  economic  texts  of  here  the  the  examples topics  is  of  these  Bowles,  does  eight  of  talks,  in  only  of  ownership  many  study  trade  foreign  issue, and  derivative  studies,  of  freer  indication given  economic profile  the  as con-  relationanalysis,  85  it  i s assumed  that  they  promote  a  single  nation-centric  theme. Land a  of D i v e r s i t y  context  Wallace  also  presents  the trade  of the b i - l a t e r a l  economic  relationship.  give  a brief  that  " i f free  much  closer  study fit  trade  existed,  economically"  to illustrate  from  trade,  description  tariffs"  there  that  of free  Canada  trade  They  "not a l l Canadians  i s no m e n t i o n  In t h i s  brief  of American  within  Clark  and  a n d t h e U.S.  (pp. 314-315).  (p. 315).  issue  claim  would  use a  favour  be  case  or  analysis  opinions  and  bene-  of  free  a n d no  other  themes. Spotlight in  i t s outline  authors would  chooses  a political  States"  that  "English-speaking  over  by A m e r i c a n  about  held  of  the issue,  (p. 49).  students  other  than  This  Champ  War  II trade  takeover  go o n t o  taken  The  authors  of  view  role-playing  the diverse may  to u t i l i z i n g  positions  be an  famous  In t h e i r  indi-  a multiplic-  of any American  relationship,  of  conclude  t o be  points  exercise  Clark's  The  "reciprocity  (p. 50).  i s no m e n t i o n  r e c i p r o c i t y and annexation.  post-World  They  of their  are close  but there  that  d i d n o t want  determine  of people.  descriptors  1911.  at the multiple  i n the design  the authors  approach,  about the  that  claim  interests"  to look  i n which  by a v a r i e t y  cator tic  students  of  a s an e c o n o m i c  Canadians  economic  reciprocity  assignment  as well  interesting issue  the Conservative  by t h e U n i t e d  encourage  some  of the r e c i p r o c i t y  highlight  mean  Canada  Canada  view  declaration  description  Cruxton  of  and Wilson  86  use  the following  relationship," best  "each  customers,"  the  positive  and  1960s.  free  an  t o be  Canada's topic and  single  "Our T r a d e  statistical  "some  o f wood  advantages with tions on  This  full  These  nation-centric  because  to the  although  "main with  close  being a r e more  trade  thematic  they  graphs Key  and "there  singular  ties  percep-  focus  entirely  Canada. Hux  issue  and Jarman  i n Canada:  descriptive obvious  show  their  A Growing  language  inclination.  feelings  Concern.  in isolation The term  An  would  about  the  analysis  trade  of the  not reveal  "dependence"  show  area.  pages  c r i t i c i s m s , " "stuck  States."  and  i t does  "benefits,"  i n Canada's  section  prediction  of t h i s .  of water',"  the  [trade]  issue  twelve  expose  States  cheery  States,"  the following:  serious  this  the United  up t h e b u l k  disadvantages  the United are also  make  and drawers  than  and e x p l a i n  conclude  1950s  between  They  but, nevertheless,  the United  tables  customers," hewers  (p. 365).  a  indicate  the linkage  t h e theme o f e n e r g y  devotes  with  include  They  theme o f t h e t r a d e  Century  words  other's  r e l a t i o n s h i p of the  between  inaccurate,  descriptors  v  much  "each  o f t h e 1970s.  reaction.  "cooperation  be v e r y  overriding  These  examine  crisis  trading  customers,"  partners."  the authors  i n the future"  proven  "close  and n a t i o n a l i s t arguments  that  will  chief  of the trade  government's  relations has  "trade  and the energy  stating  Canada  and  benefits  continentalist  by  and expressions:  other's  Finally,  trade  Canadian  terms  any  i s repeated  87 numerous t i m e s .  However, e x p l i c i t  For  and  example, Hux  a neighbour  of  (p.  220).  enjoy  explain that  trade."  To  i t s industries  materials single  ship:  ly men  of  the  of  1854  of e v e r y  trade,  trade  do  mention  fearful  relationship, The  key  dependent  upon t h e  i n the U n i t e d  ities.  the  political  worried the  of  will  raw a  different  historical  and  the  the R e c i p r o c i t y  of  the  trade  relation"signifi-  flourished," "increasing-  account,  business-  retaliation."  there are  similar-  contemporary c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n  from  "best y  south  customers," of  " s t r o n g American retaliation  the  Kirbyson's  two  "particularly  line',"  "American  resentment," or p r e s s u r e . "  a b o u t C a n a d i a n d e p e n d e n c e on worst.  "Canada  two  contemporary  of A m e r i c a n  some  this section.  " s u s c e p t i b l e to  pressure,"  favour  Nevertheless,  S t a t e s , " and  to pressure  "possibility  that  d e c i s i o n s of g o v e r n m e n t s and  "interdependence,"  vulnerable  aspects  "trade  distinct  that  f o r Canadian producers,"  D e s c r i p t o r s i n the  include:  living"  a s u p p l i e r of  one  description  emphasizes  of  equally  of Canada p r e s e n t s  b e n e f i t s [to Canada],"  fears  they  not  that  three Canadians  i n d u s t r y " (p. 2 2 0 ) .  "a dream come t r u e  Compared w i t h  is  trade are  become s i m p l y  In S e a r c h  contemporary.  Treaty  standard  n a t i o n - c e n t r i c theme looms o v e r  pictures  cant  and  a high  clear.  " i f Canada were  i t is likely  free  credit, free  f o r American  Kirbyson's  other  such  "two  their  Canadians are a g a i n s t lose  States,  T h e i r views about  when t h e y free  Jarman b e l i e v e t h a t  the U n i t e d  C a n a d i a n s would not  a s s e r t i o n s are  American  s c e n a r i o s of  the  and Kirbyson  trade trade  and  88  relationship  uncover  h i s single  theme n a t i o n - c e n t r i c  perspect ive. McDevitt,  Scully  part  of t h e i r  ship  between  Canada  They  conclude  that  results of  pros do  three  not give  free  alism. with  each the  i n 1911.  assess  River  they  Canadian  of  concerns  and l o s s e s  study  cannot  i n each  American  viewpoint  However,  this  free  to being  version  trade  today."  In  t o expose  Indications of  The and  Yet,the  illusive  unpresented.  issues does  come  multiplictic.  trade  the notion  input.  thought  the F o o t h i l l s  a r e a l s o made.  of trade  issues  of continent-  of view  issue.  undiscovered  Canadian-American  with  points  multiplictic.  Skidmore's  depiction own  remains  textbook  each  scenario  be c o n s i d e r e d  t o adopt  o f 1961, w i t h  opposing  about  programme, b u t  t h e theme  "free  effects  expose the  of c o n t i n e n t a l i s t  1977, a n d w i t h  present  gains  close  Treaty  "good  agreement.  a t contemporary  introduce  the linkage  tariff  the failure  look  Today.  o f 1854 h a d  the authors  Policy's  In t h e i r  relation-  at the negative  plays,  about  issue as  i n Canada  of the r e c i p r o c i t y  role  the writers  proposal  case,  also hint  cancellation  the Columbia  Pipeline  They  any i n d i c a t o r s  They  States  the Reciprocity Treaty  of the National  trade,  the trade  of the economic  and the United  fictionalized  and cons  include  examination  f o r Canada."  reciprocity of  overall  the American  Using  and Smith  of economic  of the i s s u e , Skidmore Rather,  he  Relations  juxtaposes  does  incorporates  integration. not give  much  two d i a b o l i c a l l y  In h i s of h i s opposed  89 viewpoints.  In  pointing  energy,  he,  centric  perspective  nevertheless,  continental towards  a  American embargo  in  energy  more as  of  out  discussing  plan.  the  as  the  1970s  American  continues  the  cling  takes when  ongoing  issue  country," tive,"  "reciprocated,"  and  "the  portionate  American  amount  of  the  "the  text  devotes  of  a  step  the  beef  extraterriapproach:  "willingness  interests  perspective."  the  details  bi-lateral  economic  "reaction,"  aspects  of  "retaliatory," "countervailing," protect  nation-  the  "appealed,"  to  a  to  His  government  this  Canadian  necessary  he  reactions  enhances  for  to  the  toriality.  each  rhetoric  need  negative  approach  Canadian  and  to  the  Skidmore  multiplictic  well  the  of  Canadian  However, itself  to  of  its  own  perspec-  a  dispro-  the  Canadian  case. Four adopting anced  of a  the  accounts  multiplictic  inclusion  predominance  of  of  the  trade  approach.  of  Canadian  and  an  overriding  issue  Only  American  single  the  come lack  close of  a  viewpoints  theme  bal-  and  disallows  to  the  this  classification. Again, single between book  there  themes. freer  concerns  markets others lateral  and  trade  some c o n s i s t e n c y  Three trade itself  the  dwell  is  on  of  and  the  accounts  greater  with  economic  agreements  (see  in  the  on  linkage  s i t u a t i o n ; while  XI).  one  American  b e n e f i t s -to C a n a d i a n s Table  dominant  integration;  dependence  this  the  emphasize  economic  Canadian  v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the  shown  of  two bi-  90  1  TABLE XI PROFILE OF TRADE  ISSUES  AUTHOR OF TEXTBOOK  NATION -CENTRIC?  Bowles et a l .  n a t i o n -- c e n t r i c  nondef i n a b l e  problem of integration  singular thematic  C l a r k and Wallace  n a t i o n -- c e n t r i c  nondef i n a b l e  problem of integration  singular thematic  Cruxton n a t i o n -- c e n t r i c and W i l s o n  generally positive  close trade (cooperative)  singular thematic  E v a n s and Martinello  n a t i o n '- c e n t r i c  generally positive  benefits to Canada  singular thematic  Hux and Jarman  nation -centric  generally positive  benefits to Canada  singular thematic  Kirbyson  nation -centric  generally positive  trade i s vulnerable  singular thematic  McDevitt et a l .  nation -centric  nondef i n a b l e  inconclusive data  inconclusive data  Skidmore  nation -centric  generally negative  problem of integration  singular thematic  RHETORIC  JUDGMENTS?  PORTRAYAL OF RL'SHIP  91  Interpretations The  study  textbooks the An  to  United  form  the  to  of  the  the  the  the  The  study  of  rhetoric  Some  tionship  Reading exclamations rhetoric  used  to  provides  display  the  as  Three  of  of  a  the  are  connotation.  These  who  the  highlight  these  this  has  the  have  multitude  Skidmore's examples used  positive  or  process. the  of  and  study.  been  funda-  profiles  that  well of  as  three  of  and  the  to  judge  may  about  the  interpretations  the  negative  asserrela-  value.  the  rhetorical  a  towards  to  states American  that  a  for  have  a s s e r t i o n s ; and  exhibiting  to  books  preponderence appear  indicate  the  relation-  A l l fifteen  texts  tend  States  statements  negative  and  available  evaluative  show  i n t e r p r e t e d as results  items  read  of  Canada-United  books  been  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of  negative  the  outlined in  Canadian-American  cataloguing  Canada-United  concerned  of  studies  Canada  process  textbooks  t e x t s and  positive  textbooks  Further,  a  lengthy  statements;  personally  focus  contrasting information.  relationship.  balance  used  rhetoric  describe  positive  positive  of  given  fifteen is a  have  sixty-one  example been  has  example,  provides  has  between  nevertheless,  Fifteen  books  For  social  analysis.  chapter.  Each  in Canadian  primary  rhetoric  of  tions.  Relationship  relationship  basis  Relations  of  i s not  used  of  successful understanding  analysis.  near  the  the  evaluated.  ship  Rhetoric  rhetoric  States  previous  for  of  the  describe  assessment  mental  about  a nine  negative  those  writers  relationship  are  i n f l u e n c e on corroborate  Canada.  the  suspicions books, portray daries  held  by  although a on  Anyon  (1979)  appearing  strong  view  student  of  t o be  and  neutral  the author  attitudes  and  Pratt  (1975)  and  even  w h i c h may  beliefs  that  text-  objective,  impose  (see Table  boun-  XII).  TABLE X I I  ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC USED TO DESCRIBE THE CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONSHIP  AUTHOR(S) OF TEXTBOOKS  Bowles e t a l . Clark/Wallace Clark et a l . Cruxton/Wilson Evans/Diachun Evans/Martinellc Herstein et a l . Hux/Jarman Kirbyson Kirbyson et a l . McDevitt et a l . McFadden e t a l . Munro e t a l . Skidmore Skolrood TOTALS  NO. OF STATEMENTS  NO. THAT ARE POSITIVE  NO. THAT ARE NEGATIVE  48 15 14 25 58 32 32 15 44 23 36 17 21 61 46  16 9 2 13 23 15 5 3 18 1 15 12 5 22 31  32 6 12 12 35 17 27 12 26 22 21 5 16 39 15  21 15 3 24 40 30 7 5 31 1 26 21 8 36 48  -53 - 8 -21 -23 -54 -29 -42 -19 -36 -33 -27 -10 -23 -62 -15  487  190  297  316  -454  i  VALUE OF POSITIVE  VALUE OF NEG ATIVE  93  In summary, a n a l y s i s of f i f t e e n s e l e c t e d  textbooks  r e v e a l s a strong s i n g u l a r thematic n a t i o n - c e n t r i c to the understanding of the Canada-United ship.  approach  States r e l a t i o n -  T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e of understanding i s e v i d e n t , f i r s t ,  in the o v e r a l l examination of the textbooks, and second, i n terms of f i v e i s s u e areas c e n t r a l to the r e l a t i o n s h i p . a d d i t i o n , nine of the f i f t e e n t e x t s have a tendency language, that t i o n about  the  In  of u s i n g  i s i n t e r p r e t e d as having a negative connotarelationship.  S p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n s and p r e s e n t e d i n the next c h a p t e r .  i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study are  94  CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND Conclusions There to  the  of  the  are  O v e r a l l View  many a r e a s  forefront.  the  textbooks  the  Canada-United  As  rhetoric  in textbooks  of  In  in  the  States  support  the  permeates  Canada-United study  provides  development Each issue  area  ation  i n d i c a t e s the  which  are  a  been  an  judged  others  associated  with  These  a l l , of  the  to  As  a  the  that the  reveals  Canada-  subsequently  assumption  textbook  relationship.  about  judgment  findings  underlying  singular  that  accounts  of  consequence,  implications for  the  the  textbook  used  to  determine  s i n g u l a r thematic preponderance  whether  or of  or  not  multiplictic single  an inclin-  themes,  most  of  strikingly nation-centric.  Forty-four present  a l l of  being  approach  brought  research.  parameter has  an  significant  and  as  has  chapter,  addition, conclusions  of  i f not  States  areas  s u b s t a n t i a t e the  discovery  study  previous  relationship  relationship.  most,  this  issue  n a t i o n - c e n t r i c singular thematic  United  Relationship  concern  identify  States  in nature.  of  stated  examined  thematic  a  IMPLICATIONS  have  of  obvious as  the  fifty-seven  state-centric  profiles  point  portraying bi-lateral  been  classified  as  of  under  view.  viewpoints,  non-definable.  study Four while  have nine  95 The areas  descriptive  language  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p a r e more  towards  negative  rhetoric  profiles  analysed  assessed  as having  indicate  texts  while  eight  have a  have  exhibited  negative language reveal  connotation.  Twelve  profiles  descriptive  language  In t h e s e  as  non-definable.  being  Analysis relationship single  profiles  have  interpreting  Twelve  could  indicate  Although indicates that  a  issue,  incorporate  two  but i n every  Ten  having  a  positive enough  categorized  have  five due  have  been  lack some  of  diverse  The  sufficient that  analysis  single  theme  issue-oriented  viewpoints  s i t u a t i o n , the excerpted  are  approach.  approach,  a dominant  in perspective.  tendency  traits  to a multiplictic  retains  determin-  of the p r o f i l e s  shown  issues  of the  data.  a definite  to a  of  assessed  Five  of the three  indicate  States  a domination  inconclusive  Only  an  classifi-  judgments.  the r e s u l t s  o r more  neutral  the Canada-United  in their  adopt  profiles  has been  towards  of the  language  f o r an a c c e p t a b l e  t o have  of t h e books  trend  as being  of the p r o f i l e s  resemblance  but a  not presented  tendency  of the p r o f i l e s  i s nation-centric  texts  have  inconclusive  s i x textbooks each  language  thematic.  as being  data.  connotation.  of the p r o f i l e s  singular  classified  found  issue  descriptive  about  thematic  been  fifty-two  being  a  Fifty-two  singular  After  of  shows  the  Twenty-seven  the r h e t o r i c  judgments  also  themes.  being  ants,  of  cases,  balanced  evaluated  to allow  cation.  to colour  i s evident.  profiles  as  used  or  about  an  fictional-  96 ized  statements  inant  theme  different issue  of  is  trend  nation-centric examine allows  the for  issues. tive, dity  and  lar  when  six  of  Continental Spotlight  is a  (two  studies  single  themes  relationship.  For present  of  a  assessment an  by  is  that  a to  views,  bi-lateral  American  i t is buried  in  purport  of  of  the  the  viewpoints  books  of  totally  reflected  diversity  lack  a  condition  diverse  these  their  present  issues, are: or  (two  a  but  Canada  Wary  under  perspeca  profun-  of  different  nevertheless,  in a  viewsingu-  the  United  States:  Neighbours?  (three  examples),  Canada, (two  number  and  examples),  Today  to  five  the issue  textbooks in  their  Dominant  In  Search  Shaping  An  examples),  of  Canada  Identity  and  (two (one  Canadian-American  Five  Issue  areas  exhibit  portrayal themes  Areas  examined clear of  in  the  tendencies  the  Canadian towards  Canada-United  p r e v a i l and  link  many  States of  textbooks. instance,  a  for  dom-  examples).  the  social  different  that  Related  of  these  presenting  Discovering  Relations  serious  single  statements.  fashion  Canada  the  opportunity  more  noticeable  Partners  Conclusions  A  in  on  r e l a t i o n s h i p as  i t i s expressed,  example),  Each  by  focus  No  None  balance  Canada  examples),  the  manner.  specific  thematic  view  presenting  books  about  of  included.  Canadian  The points  any  of  relationship.  issues  There  of  point  perception  area,  definite  of  common  a l l fifteen  thread  in  of  their  the  textbooks  portrayal  of  analysed  cultural  the  97 issues Four of  reflective  of t h e books  the American  eleven  ation.  Some  Some  other  The defence  eleven  primarily  they the  and  unequal  the fear  that  already  theme  of Canadian  uncover describe  books,  a  then,  about the  and the United  versions.  i n a more  Seven  positive  relationship loss  denying  The four  lead  of Canadian  to maintain  States  v e i n , and  dependence may  an  of the  of the  without  an a s s o c i a t i o n .  appear  States,  other  o f Canada  t o ,and autonomy. underlying  survival.  a continuing  issues profile  trend.  the Canada-United  Although States  and encourage  environmental  views  leading  include a description  Canada  a  other  nation.  on t h e m i l i t a r y  such  than  the United their  domin-  American  identity  of partnership,  of such  environmental  interdependent solve  relations  has caused,  four  to interpret  with  other  cultural  devastating  union  between  to dwell  that  of a Canadian  that  the notion  These  The  more  two d i f f e r e n t  nature  choose  perhaps  appear  do n o t e s p o u s e  textbooks  see defence  concern,  of American  as a sovereign  present  encourage  books  political  relationship  the magnitude  of Canadian  see the loss  o f Canada  concerning  related  i n the midst  authors  relationship.  The  of the authors  an i n e v i t a b l e  future  a  States  i n f l u e n c e i n Canada.  i n f l u e n c e as being  writers.  whereas  on a theme  cultural  survival  cultural  books  focus  texts highlight  cultural  to  of the Canada-United  problems,  a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s .also seven  of t h e books  relationship  cooperation three  as  being  i n the attempts  of t h e seven  note  to  the  98 vulnerability matters.  of Canadian  Once  again,  experiences  t h e theme  i n environmental  of Canadian  survival i s  revealed. When file, an  i t comes  i t i s obvious  underlying,  concern  Canadian  trade  the  textbooks  and  eventual  United  Three loss  survival  of  economic  integration another  this  experiences  of  Canadian  Undeniably, these  of a  accounts.  trend.  Three  freer  Canada  focusses  because  Canadian  between  between  book  t o be  the v u l n e r a b i l i t y  pervades  continues  pro-  of the texts  the loss  two r e g r e t  profile  Canadian  examination  identifiable inclination  survival  of  trade  and the  on t h e v u l n e r -  of her dependence  single towards  of the five  of the p r o f i l e s Partners  Alternatives,  themes,  upon  of Canadian maintain  i n c l u d e Canada o r Wary  Challenge  areas  that  thirty-seven  clearly  theme o f  procedures,  profile  profiles  t h e theme  that  i s a common  of selection  Of t h e f i f t y - t w o  textbooks  Continental and  economic  or a consequence  conducted.  each  continues  to external pressures.  issue  whether  textbooks  vidual  s i x lament  ownership  markets.  assess  detailed  theme.  incorporate a connection  Canada  American  survival  the potential  and another  States, while  ability  To  with  economy  of Canadian The  Canadian  an a d d i t i o n a l  decision-making;  theme  that  i f not a blatant  themselves  sovereignty;  the  to looking a t the foreign  was  have  have  clearly  an  obvious  survival.  this  theme  and the United  Neighbours?, and S u r v i v a l ,  a' m o r e  Canadian and  Indithroughout States; Issues  Canadian-  99 American  Relations.  dominant  themes.  portray  the  exception Canada are  Both  Today  and  Neighbours:  the  to different  and  the  of  which  there  textbooks are  i n the  issue  against  Conclusions The  of  Canada-United  sightful show  a  Canada-United seven  are  classified  assists pervades  as  -454.  This  single  themes  of  i n the many  hundred  defining of  the  of  or  economic  and  and  the  the  between  most  profiles,  both  theme  economic  has  fifteen  In is  both  of  Canadian  influence.  Two  produced  of  some i n -  examined, of  hundred  ninety-  and  to the  the  statements  connotated, explain issue  with the  areas  u n d e r l y i n g assumption portrayals  portray  description  eighty-seven  helps  to  textbooks  in their  i n each  textbook  show  of  In  in textbooks  negatively  an  but  Relationship  used  trend  Canada,  both  textbooks.  dominant  States relationship.  assessed  of  and  relationship  negative  four  dominance  the  rhetoric  be  in either  the  theme.  theme  parallel  the  to  overall  to  textbooks,  dominant  overwhelming  the  seem  the  profiles.  R h e t o r i c of  the  value  one  cultural  of  of  clear  with  relationship  areas,  Nine  Two  single  in a l l fifteen  of  total  a  cultural  States  Evans  U n i t e d S t a t e s and  the  results.  tendency  The  portraits  American  about  study  area.  display  i s an  included  important  survival  issue  environmental  however,  of  texts  by  equally  favourable light  in determining  other  exhibit  textbooks  in a  cultural  defence  the  the  the  tendencies  these  textbooks  of  of  end,  of  relationship  inconclusive  Most  Other  of  a preand  that  relationship.  100  It  reveals  maintain  that  their  Underlying  of  the  the  United  ity  approach  States that  (1985)  connotated  rhetoric  the  in his  view,  of  specific  on  by  the  Canada  that  an  authors  they  relations  autarkist  in  tendency  the  with  mental-  textbooks.  describing about  to  interpretations  the  and  Canadian United  the  towards  the  Canada-United  particular  nearly  of  Canadian  these  that  trend  use  total  of  issues  Doran towards  Such of  a  per-  negative  nation-centric  domination  survival.  An  of  the  autarkist  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s because  a  nation  should  should  resist  any  nation-states,  by  attitudes  States.  general  perpetual  the  theme  belief  independence other  and  parallels  the  by  is characterized  of  the  seemingly  single  perspective  with  mentality,  supported  points  do  neutrality.  a l l of  in  nor  relationship.  description  the  the  statements  r e l a t i o n s h i p with is  used  examining  nearly  i s evident  rhetoric,  of  in  approach  autarkist  spective  approaches  i t i s apparent  exists  bias-free  Relationship  describe  r e l a t i o n s h i p and  An  based  to  not  o b j e c t i v i t y and  Teaching  the  used  States,  profile  their  of  are  r e l a t i o n s h i p , and  language  negative  stated  assessing  the  This  accounts  often  Approach  After portray  such  preserve  attempt  particularly  at  culturally  a  i t  is  degree  integration and  econ-  omically . An  autarkist  perspective  Canadian  survival.  textbook  writers  It  have  supports  the  helps  to  explain  the  chosen  to  highlight,  dominant concerns concerns  theme that about  of  101  the on  influence the  American  environment, omy.  of  An  the  of  and  by  the  Canada-United  Canadian States for  and  study social  trend  first  a  accounts.  with  the  tone  The  jaundiced  cluded the help  do  not  i n any  overwhelming impose  tivities  slant  limits  about  proliferation  the of  on  a  States  narrow  a l l of  the  relationship,  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  of  the  have  relates  to  strong  States  most  selected  Canada-United implications  preponderance  relationship. of  the  promotes  relationship  It presupposes i s not  They  the  the  indirectly  This  the  how  relationship.  permeates  textbook  nearly  examination  that  exist.  about  Research  to describe  eyes.  econ-  for Further  used  negative in nature.  conflicts  permeate  results  of  Canada-United  Canadian  Canadian  concern  textbooks portray  The  tendency  the  relationship.  implication  rhetoric  sets  which  does  exploratory  studies  dependence  of  the  overriding  Recommendations  i s an  of  Canada-United  States  classroom teaching  negative  is  the  relationship.  The  control  doing, provides students a  Implications The  of  Canadian  sovereginty.  mentality  accounts  the  vulnerability  American  Canadian  autarkist  so  the  encapsulates the  loss  textbook  culture,  military,  and  It also  possible  American  do,  that to  and  they  This  textbook a  mind-set  i s looked  the  say  tensions s h o u l d be  towards  negative orientation  connotated  relationship.  u n d e r s t a n d i n g s and  relationship.  In  language  o t h e r words, can  help  upon  and  of  student  in  relationship  portrayal a  of  to  in-  However, can  sensithe establish  1 02  an  underlying  tion  dogma  that  can  of  issues  relevant to  writers  should  be  more  descriptive  language  citly  state  bias.  would  a i d authors  diverse their  often  Portrayals Canadian  social  thematic.  As  construct  more  States  to  expressed  i s not  the  is  m u l t i - f a c e t e d look  each and  of  teachers  complexity Social States  the  the  at  of  the  the  be  able  students  access  tend  bi-lateral to  rely  States  relationship  possible  and  over-  undoubtely,  Authors  of  multitude  use  of  relationship of  the  needs  to  be  diverse  relationencouraged,  itself,  and  diverse viewpoints then,  to  a  itself.  view  Only  help  the  should  relationship  in  singular  understanding  a  on  can  understand  about  students the  relationship.  relationship of  assess  than  to  begin  s t u d i e s textbooks  spective  to  prone  what  many  to  them  rather  single  Rather,  expli-  approach  be  the  a  and  to  relationship.  alike  of  about  value-  tend  in which  about  ideal.  examination  aspect  are  further  approach  ship  an  forcing  relationship.  statements  then,  by  over-simplifications,  Conflicting  a  they  of  multiplictic  relationship  result,  choice  a  Canada-United  barriers  are  goal,  explora-  Textbook  implicitly  of  the  student  can  perceptions.  multiplictic  viewpoints  which  studies textbooks  a  Canada-United  in their  narrow  generalizations, to  in this  full  relationship.  Adopting  p e r s p e c t i v e s of  own  the  careful  laden  their  inhibit  not  that to  issues.  alternate  portray  display This  opinions  the  Canada-United  any  American  denies  Canadian  about  the  per-  ongoing  103  relations. of  It  does  understanding  tion.  Instead,  often  jingoistic  ment  a  more  from  Canada's  and  i t encourages reactions  should  Canada-United this  multiplictic  be A  Textbooks  go  a  wholly  where  expressed  tend  to  be  is  ity  greater  for  a  encourages  the  look  It  understanding prejudgments  Textbook  United  r e l a t i o n s h i p need  perspectives. encourage The lying  writers  Frequent  existence  approach  Canada-United  of  of  States  biof  way  and  a  the  in a balanced  American  of  As  States a  bi-lateral point  the  result, issues  of  students  rela-  from  view. the  opportun-  relationship.  It  and  perpetuates  who  focus  on  avoid  nation-centric  to  self-centred  the  Canada-  references  of  autarkist mentality the  textbook  as  do  not  the  depictions  r e l a t i o n s h i p i s another  a  Such  understanding.  an  most  at  nationalistic  international  imple-  nature,  Canada-United  denies  evaluations. States  Canadian  self-interest  regrettable.  myopic  study  i n c l u s i o n of  nation-centric. to  s t a t e - c e n t r i c or  both  and  arising  of  long  i t s very  the  educa-  equally.  include  encouraged  situation  By  in  American  examination  r e l a t i o n s h i p would  necessitates  that  States.  the  are  are  i n an  kind  should  issues  in  viewpoints  students  included  the  responses  Authors  United  p a r t i c u l a r dilemma. format  advocated  in addressing the  for  style  perspective  also  strongly  multiplictic  States  opportunity  issues.  approach  bi-lateral  tionship  an  narrow-minded  to  r e l a t i o n s with  tensions.  solving  promote  criticism,  balanced  perspectives lateral  not  trend  under-  of  the  open  to  a  question. about  An  autarkist  bi-lateral  greater  may  thinking  about  the  nature  Textbook the  develop  of  the  opposing  the  a  the  be  the  world-mindedness  possibility  relationship. of  view  issues  and  should  and  possible more  beliefs  that  a  result,  on  create  their for  format,  authors  r e l a t i o n s h i p and  address  issue  critical  awareness  r e s o l u t i o n of of  for  restricts  limits  aware  can  As  multiplictic  major  i m p l i c a t i o n of  thematic  States  multiplictic  portray  multiple  likely,  will  concerning  of  issues.  biases  and  students.  By  can  portray  areas  approach  can  more  through  standing  of  the  to  a  i s that  evident  adopt  having  an  and  issues  the  in  to  dominant  portraying  be  replaced  textbooks  students,  autarkist  States  shallow  bi-lateral  not  Canadian  Canada-United  lead  format  By  viewpoints, to  study  r e l a t i o n s h i p needs  approach.  continue  the  the  nation-centric  Canada-United a  resists  point  tensions  limits  viewpoints.  The single  of a  l i m i t a t i o n s such  openly  It  bi-lateral  writers  implementing  by  issues.  understanding  students  perspective  that  very  mentality  relationship.  Such  an  s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d underreflective  of  the  rela-  tionship. This books more the  study  portray  the  research analysis  relations thesis  of  how  be  Such  autarkist  examination  States  undertaken.  American  Canada. that  exploratory  Canada-United  must  with  (1985)  i s an  of  how  relationship.  An  obvious  first  textbook  portray  United  a  study  and  text-  may  confirm  integrationist  Much  step  is  States  Doran's mentalities  1 05  typify  the  Canadian  and  American  a t t i t u d e s about  the  rela-  tionship. An  equally  obvious  evaluation  of  ship.  preliminary  is  The  intended  to  determinants for  other  the  rhetoric  clarify  of  necessity  the  studies  used  is a  to  assessment the  focus  describe of  only  It  on  the  rhetoric  conclusions  relationship.  to  much more  based would  the  definitve relation-  in this on  the  seem  rhetoric  study  three  appropriate used  in  textbooks. An  historical  whether  or  not  certain  contexts  Finally, nature  of  portrayals different may  the of  study  textbook of  there study. the  or  be  initiated  p o r t r a y a l s of that  is a  clarify  need  Further  to  or  a  different  invalidate  may  evaluation States  the  to  assess  relationship  relationship  Canada-United  framework  corroborate  could  change the  of  over  textbook  relationship  findings  time.  exploratory  the  selection  reflect  of  using  textbooks  herein.  a  106  BIBLIOGRAPHY Anyon, Jean, "Elementary S o c i a l S t u d i e s Textbooks L e g i t i m a t i n g K n o w l e d g e , " 40-56 i n T h e o r y a n d i n S o c i a l E d u c a t i o n . V o l . 6, No. 3, 1978  and Research  Anyon, Jean, "Ideology and U n i t e d S t a t e s Textbooks," 361-386 i n H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w . V o l . 4 9 , N o . 3, 1979 Anyon, Jean, " S o c i a l C l a s s and the Hidden C u r r i c u l u m W o r k , " 6 7 - 9 2 i n J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n . V o l . 162, Anyon, Jean, 277-281  of 1980  "Educational E q u i t y and School I n s t r u c t i o n , " in Social Education. April, 1981  A p p l e , M i c h a e l W. " C u r r i c u l u m i n t h e Y e a r 2000: T e n s i o n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s , " 321-326 i n P h i D e l t a K a p p a n . V o l . 6 4 , N o . 5, J a n u a r y , 1983 Armstrong, W i l l i s C , L o u i s e S. A r m s t r o n g , a n d F r a n c i s 0 . W i l c o x , Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s : Dependence and D i v e r g e n c e . C a m b r i d g e : B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1982 A x l i n e , W. A n d r e w , " I n t e g r a t i o n a n d I n e q u a l i t y : N o t e s o n t h e S t u d y o f I n t e g r a t i v e H e g e m o n y , " 67-91 i n C o n t i n e n t a l C o m m u n i t y ? . T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d a n d S t e w a r t L t d . , 1974 B i l l i n g t o n , R a y A., T h e H i s t o r i a n ' s A m e r i c a n M i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . New C o m p a n y , 1966  Contribution York: Hobbs,  to AngloDorman a n d  B l a c k , Naomi, " A b s o r p t i v e Systems a r e Impossible: The Canadian-American R e l a t i o n s h i p as s Disparate Dyad," 92-108 i n C o n t i n e n t a l Community?. T o r o n t o : McClelland and S t e w a r t Ltd-., 1974 C a l d w e l l , L y n t o n K. " B i n a t i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r a S h a r e d E n v i r o n m e n t , " 203-230 i n Canada a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1985 C a r r o l l , J o h n E . a n d N e w e l l B. M a c k , "On L i v i n g T o g e t h e r i n North America: Canada, the U n i t e d S t a t e s and I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e l a t i o n s , " 35-50 i n D e n v e r J o u r n a l o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law a n d P o l i c y . V o l . 12, No. 1, F a l l , 1982 C l e m e n t , W a l l a c e , C o n t i n e n t a l C o r p o r a t e Power: E c o n o m i c E l i t e L i n k a g e s Between Canada and t h e U n i t e d States. T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d a n d S t e w a r t L t d . , 1977 Cooke, Goodwin, 1 983  Cultures  In C o l l i s i o n .  Toronto:  Praeger,  107  Cuff,  R.D. and J . L . G r a n a t s t e i n , A.M. Hakkert Ltd., 1977  Ties  That  Bind.  Toronto:  Dickey, John Sloan, Canada and the American Presence. New Y o r k : New York U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1975 D o g g e t t , Duane, A c i d Press, 1986  Rain.  Agincourt,  Ontario:  Dominie  D o r a n , C h a r l e s F. F o r g o t t e n P a r t n e r s h i p . B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1984  The  D o r a n , C h a r l e s F . a n d S i g l e r , J o h n H.( eds.), Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1985 Eraut, Michael, Curriculum 1 975  Len Goad and George Smith, A n a l y s i s of M a t e r i a l s . B r i g h t o n : U n i v e r s i t y of Sussex,  F i n k e l s t e i n , Barbara, "Private C o n f l i c t s in Public Schools: The s a b o t a g e o f E d u c a t i v e P o s s i b i l i t i e s ? " 326-328 i n , Phi D e l t a K a p p a n . V o l . 6 2 , No. 5, J a n u a r y , 1981 F i n l a y , John L. Canada i n t h e N o r t h A t l a n t i c Toronto: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1975  Triangle.  F o w l e r , R o b e r t H. " C a n a d a a n d G l o b a l I s s u e s , " 9 9 - 1 3 8 i n T e a c h i n g P u b l i c I s s u e s In A C a n a d i a n C o n t e x t . Toronto: OISE, 1982 G r a n a t s t e i n , J . L . " C o o p e r a t i o n a n d C o n f l i c t : The C o u r s e C a n a d i a n - A m e r i c a n R e l a t i o n s s i n c e 1945," 45-68 i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, 1985  of  H a u c k , A r t h u r A . Some E d u c a t i o n a l F a c t o s A f f e c t i n g the R e l a t i o n s Between Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Easton, Pennsylvania: Lafayette College Press, 1932 Hodgetts, 1968  A.B.  What  Culture?  What  H o d g e t t s , A.B. a n d P. G a l l a g h e r , Toronto: OISE, 1978 Holmes, John, Life Toronto Press,  With 1981  Uncle.  Heritage?.  Teaching  Toronto:  Canada  Scarborough:  For  OISE,  The  University  Hyndman, J . E . " I n t r o d u c t i o n : I n d e p e n d e n c e o r I n t e g r a t i o n Canada, 221-227 i n C o n t i n e n t a l Community?. Toronto: M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t , 1974  80s  of  for  K e o h a n e , R o b e r t 0. a n d J o s e p h Interdependence. Boston: Lamy,  S. N y e , Little,  Power Brown  And and Co.,  S t e v e n L. " D e f i n g G l o b a l E d u c a t i o n , " 9-20 in E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y . V o l . 8, No. 1,  1973  1983  L e g a u l t , A l b e r t , "Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s : The Defense D i m e n s i o n , " 161-202 i n C a n a d a and t h e U n i t e d States. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1985  -  Leyton-Brown, D a v i d , Weathering the Storm: Canada-United S t a t e s R e l a t i o n s , 1980-1983. M o n t r e a l : CD. Howe Research I n s t i t u t e , 1985 L i p s e t , Seymour M a r t i n , "Canada and t h e U n i t e d States: The C u l t u r a l D i m e n s i o n , " 109-160 i n C a n a d a a n d the United S t a t e s . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1985 L i p s e y , R i c h a r d G. " C a n a d a a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s : The E c o n o m i c D i m e n s i o n , " 69-108 i n Canada and the United S t a t e s . Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1985 L o r i m e r , Rowland OISE, 1984 Lyon,  M.  The  Nation  in  the  Schools.  Toronto:  P e y t o n V . " I n t r o d u c t i o n , " 1-9 in Continental Community?. T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t L t d . ,  1974  Lyon,  P e y t o n V. C a n a d a - U n i t e d S t a t e s F r e e T r a d e a n d Canadian Independence. Ottawa: Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, 1975  Lyon,  P e y t o n V. "The Canadian Perspective," 14-26 in C a n a d a - U n i t e d S t a t e s R e l a t i o n s . New Y o r k : The Academy of P o l i t i c a l Science, 1976  M c C a n n , L.D. ( e d . ) , H e a r t l a n d and P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1982  Hinterland.  Scarborough:  M c D i a r m i d , G a r n e t and D a v i d P r a t t , T e a c h i n g P r e j u d i c e : A Content A n a l y s i s of S o c i a l S t u d i e s Textbooks Authorized f o r Use i n O n t a r i o . T o r o n t o : OISE, 1971 M a h a n t , E d e l g a r d E . a n d G r a e m e S. Canadian-American R e l a t i o n s . Publications, 1984  M o u n t , An I n t r o d u c t i o n Agincourt: Methuen  to  Molot, Maureen Appel, "The Role of I n s t i t u t i o n s i n CanadaU n i t e d S t a t e s R e l a t i o n s : The C a s e o f N o r t h A m e r i c a n F i n a n c i a l T i e s , " 164-193 i n C o n t i n e n t a l Community?. T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t L t d . , 1974  i  109  " N a t i o n a l H i s t o r y Textbooks Used i n t h e S c h o o l s o f Canada a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , " 1-91 i n C a n a d i a n Education. A p r i l - J u n e , 1947 O s b o r n e , Ken, "The P o r t r a y a l o f W o r k e r s i n C a n a d i a n T e x t b o o k s , " 21-26 i n T h i s M a g a z i n e . N o v . - D e c ,  History 1979  Osborne, Ken, The T e a c h i n g o f P o l i t i c s : Some S u g g e s t i o n f o r T e a c h e r s . T o r o n t o : The Canada S t u d i e s F o u n d a t i o n , 1982 Pentland, Charles, " P o l i t i c a l Integration: A Multid i m e n s i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , " 42-66 i n . C o n t i n e n t a l Community?. T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L t d . , Pratt, David, Canada," Canadian Toronto:  1974  "The S o c i a l R o l e o f S c h o o l T e x t b o o k s i n 100-125 i n S o c i a l i z a t i o n a n d V a l u e s i n S o c i e t y . V o l . I , E . Z u r e i k a n d R. P i k e , e d . , M c C l e l l a n d a n d S t e w a r t L t d . , 1975  P r e s t o n , R i c h a r d A . "A P l e a f o r C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d i e s o f Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and o f t h e E f f e c t s o f A s s i m i l a t i o n o n C a n a d i a n D e v e l o p m e n t , " 3-31 i n T h e I n f l u e n c e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s on C a n a d i a n D e v e l o p m e n t : E l e v e n C a s e S t u d i e s . Durham: Duke U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972 R e d e k o p , J o h n H. "A R e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f C a n a d i a n - A m e r i c a n R e l a t i o n s , " 227-243 i n C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e . V o l . 9, J u n e 1976 R e d e k o p , J o h n H. " C o n t i n e n t a l i s m : T h e K e y t o C a n a d i a n Politics," 28-57 i n A p p r o a c h e s t o C a n a d i a n Politics. S c a r b o r o u g h : P r e n t i c e - H a l l o f C a n a d a L t d . , 1978 R o b e r t s o n , G o r d o n " T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d P r o b l e m s .of C a n a d i a n F e d e r a l i s m , " 9-44 i n C a n a d a a n d . t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1985 R o b i n s o n , P a u l , Where O u r S u r v i v a l L i e s : S t u d e n t s a n d Textbooks i n A t l a n t i c Canada. H a l i f a x : A t l a n t i c I n s t i t u t e o f E d u c a t i o n , 1979 S c o t t , G a r y F . T h e E n g l i s h E l - H i R e p o r t on C a n a d i a n E d u c a t i o n and P u b l i s h i n g i n Canada. Toronto: Pepper Wood I n c . , 1982 Seney, Bruce E., Free P r e s s , 1985  Trade.  Agincourt,  Ontario:  Dominie  S i g l e r , J o h n H. a n d C h a r l e s F . D o r a n , " T w e n t y Y e a r s A f t e r : Change a n d C o n t i n u i t y i n U n i t e d S t a t e s - C a n a d a R e l a t i o n s , " 231-249 i n Canada a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1985  110  S m i t h , B u r t o n M. " T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n R e c e n t Canadian N a t i o n a l i s m , " 195-205 i n W o r l d A f f a i r s . V o l . 140, W i n t e r , 1978 S t a i r s , Denis, "North American C o n t i n e n t a l i s m : P e r s p e c t i v e s and P o l i c i e s i n C a n a d a , " 83-109 i n R e g i o n a l i s m a n d S u p r a n a t i o n a l ism. M o n t r e a l : The I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1981 T o m k i n s , G e o r g e S. A Common C o u n t e n a n c e . P r e n t i c e - H a l l C a n a d a I n c . , 1986  Scarborough:  T o t t o n , S . J . "The M a r k e t i n g o f E d u c a t i o n a l Books i n C a n a d a , " 270-311 i n B a c k g r o u n d P a p e r s . O n t a r i o R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n on B o o k P u b l i s h i n g , T o r o n t o : Q u e e n ' s P r i n t e r , 1 9 7 2 Trudel, Marcel and Genevieve J a i n , Canadian History Textbooks: A Comparative Study. Ottawa: Royal C o m m i s s i o n on B i l i n g u a l i s m a n d B i c u l t u r a l i s m , 1970 von  R i e k h o f f , H a r o l d , J o h n H. S i g l e r , a n d B r i a n W. T o m l i n , Canadian-United States Relations: Policy Environments, I s s u e s , a n d P r o s p e c t s . M o n t r e a l : C D . Howe R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , 1979  Wasserlein, F r a n c i s J . Textbook H i s t o r y : Ideology and C a n a d i a n H i s t o r y T e x t b o o k s . UBC: H o n o u r s H i s t o r y G r a d u a t i n g E s s a y , 1980 W i l s o n , D o n a l d C. T e a c h i n g P u b l i c I s s u e s C o n t e x t . T o r o n t o : O I S E , 1982  in a  Canadian  W i l s o n , D o n a l d C. a n d D o n a l d F . A l p e r , " C a n a d a ' s R e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , " 139-194 i n T e a c h i n g P u b l i c I s s u e s i n a C a n a d i a n C o n t e x t . T o r o n t o : O S I E , 1982  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055738/manifest

Comment

Related Items