P.S. There are more than one "United States". There is only ONE America.
Posted on 02/19/2008 2:46:42 PM PST by forkinsocket
Some scholars believe North America is forging a unique culture. They call it `l'américanité'
MONTREAL–The question, from an audience member, is asked in French. It is spontaneously translated into rapid-fire Spanish by the Québécois poet seated onstage and answered in faintly-accented English by the Mexican screenwriter.
The questioner, naturally enough, nods his head in understanding.
"I guess that question kind of answers why we're all here today," said Anai López, the Mexican screenwriter, a note of wonder in her voice.
Behold an extraordinary, idealized illustration of the North American dynamic, the by-product of a discussion on the unwieldy, ephemeral and weirdly sensitive subject that is culture.
The exchange took place this week in a hotel ballroom across from the stately campus of McGill University, whose Institute for the Study of Canada was considering a provocative theme at its annual conference: Are We American?
Among the questions being considered at the wide-ranging cultural symposium was a mildly subversive idea: Is the conventional wisdom regarding U.S. cultural imperialism wrong? What if the "American" identity were being nudged toward a trans-national, continental one by the influence of Canadian and Mexican cultural factors?
French-language scholars in Quebec and elsewhere refer to it as "l'américanité," an idea that beyond national boundaries, linguistic differences and divergent histories, the countries of North America have forged a distinctive continental culture.
"Are we American? In my eyes, yes," said Université du Quebec à Montreal sociology professor Jean-Francois Côté. "But that's not the same thing as being United States-ian."
In research he presented to one of the conference workshops, Coté discerned a continental sensibility in a literary genre he identified as "travel literature" – the greatest exemplar of which is Jack Kerouac, the U.S.-born child of French-Canadians who penned the seminal On the Road.
"It began before NAFTA and has gone a long way beyond it in cultural terms," he said.
Côté cited the common thread that unites authors as varied as Russell Banks, Dany Laferriere, Octavio Paz and many others – themes such as solitude and nativism, a preoccupation with border narratives and the search for a broader identity.
"These are all ideas that put into question political borders," he said. "They have evolved into a cultural space that is no longer national ... there is an ongoing rediscovery of the Americas in literary terms."
Poet and author Emile Martel – the impromptu Spanish translator – also broached the subject of "l'américanité."
"The word American has strong resonance, both positive and negative, depending on your point of view. American-ness also allows for significant differences ... labels like Canadian or Québécois offer a sort of protection," he said, speaking in French.
Martel also suggested that national identities in North America are often invoked less out of profound difference than as a political reaction when a country's sensibilities are offended, such as Canada's by the George W. Bush administration.
"We create a moral wall called Canada, or better yet, a refuge called Quebec," he said. Points of differentiation like language, geography and history "help distinguish us without reducing our shared American-ness," he added.
Those kinds of observations aren't likely to sit well with Canadian cultural nationalists.
Indeed, there were many in the various conference panels who argued that crucial differences between the countries make a broader identity next to impossible – and, more important, undesirable.
CBC Radio host Jian Gomeshi, one of the more than two dozen panelists who took part in the three-day conference, even took a run at defining the nebulous question of what it means to be Canadian.
"Fredericton reminds me of Moose Jaw, even though they're thousands of kilometres apart ... there are ties that bind despite the lack of a brash identity, which actually is our identity," said Gomeshi. "The biggest differences with the United States are in the arts and culture realm ... Canada is a disproportionately artistic country."
Gomeshi also suggested that "the collision and collusion of immigration, and maybe an inferiority complex" has created an "outsider" view of culture.
"With that comes patience, moderation, and sometimes artistry," he said.
Mexican screenwriter Lopez also cast a skeptical eye on the concept of an emerging continental identity. Even as she allowed that the dominant cultural medium in her country – television – has evolved away from imitating U.S. programming, she said language and other cultural considerations continue to set Mexico apart.
"We are a people that is conservative, superstitious, with a strong affinity for family ties and we're still fond of smoking," she said to audience laughter.
Poet Martel was more categorical on the question of Canadian identity, saying it is a country "that asks more questions than it answers" and whose general ethos could reasonably be summed up as "we're working on it."
So why did the organizers choose to ask such a loaded question, and why now?
Part of the answer lies in academic curiosity over the impact of new technology on the cultural marketplace, but, more importantly, the conference organizers were keen to reassess the impact of the North American Free Trade Accord, negotiated 15 years ago and signed in January 1994.
"The question is: Has cultural unification followed economic unification, or in fact, as some suggest, are we getting further apart?" asked Will Straw, acting director of the institute and the conference chair.
Straw, a cultural theorist who also teaches art history and communications at McGill, has his own ideas about cultural integration.
"Has new technology made things like NAFTA irrelevant? People in the music industry would probably say yes," he said.
"Maybe globalization is actually helping ... instead of dissecting everything into a kind of cultural Esperanto."
Straw suggested that at the same time that cultural industries are developing on a continental scale, there is a parallel phenomenon.
"It has become a more niche-oriented culture. We may never have another Seinfeld or I Love Lucy," Straw said in an interview. "Not to overstate things, but the niches and sub-cultures also tend to replicate independently in different places. If you went into an indie record shop in the U.S. or in Mexico or here, you would mostly find the same records."
The conference featured academics, media personalities, artists, businesspeople, political figures like U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, and leading cultural thinkers from all three countries.
It looked at a variety of subjects ranging from the media's role in creating "cultural citizenship" to cultural branding, the prevalence of Canadian humour, the emergence of the music industry as a continental market, and the difficulties with measuring and observing cultural phenomena.
The discussion was also framed by a national poll commissioned by the institute, which found that while 65 per cent of respondents disagreed with the posit that "Canadian and U.S. culture are basically the same," fully 59 per cent supported the assertion that "all North Americans share certain values that are different from those of the rest of the world."
P.S. There are more than one "United States". There is only ONE America.
“I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m __________________ .”
(fill in the blank)
I noticed in South America many seemed to be rather sore about Americans calling themselves Americans.
If “United States-ian” distinguishes us from the rest, that ok by me. And if they think themselves so superior then perhaps they would stop sneaking in. I for one would not miss them at all.
The question is, are we the United States of America in the same way that Brazil was the United States of Brazil...or the United MEXICAN States, formerly the United States of Mexico?
If so, we are America even if our continent shares a name.
That’s not new. Been that way for years.
I’ve seen that too, but “Unitedstatesian” sounds stupid.
They call us “Estadunidos” (sp?) though, not “americanos.” (Sorry I took French, not Spanish...)
Didn’t Ayn Rand say, “he who controls the language controls the debate”?
The Left keeps moving the goals posts. We’re Americans, no hypen needed, and I could care less how non-productive Leftists try to make me think.
The name of the country is the United States of America. We’re the only country with “America” as part of its name. People from the U.S. are Americans. I don’t know why a Canadian or a Costa Rican would want to consider calling themselves American any more than why a Japanese would prefer Asian to Japanese. All that serves to do is blur the positive distinctions that exist among the peoples and nationalities of every continent.
There are deep resonances between Mexicans, Americans, and Canadians that become obvious when you live among one another.
This does not mean the borders should come down, though. We remain quite distinct in other ways, and neither of the three wants to be ruled by the other.
Generally, the ‘they’ you refer to here call us all ‘gringos’ as a catch-all that includes all US citizens not of Hispanic descent.
True. But Mexican leaders keep saying how they want to rule the "region" and they keep agitating for the reconquista. So I submit that illegal aliens from Mexico are not immigrants, but colonists.
Who gives the slightest crap what these elitist pantywaists think?
Estadounidenses. :)
- Give me a break. - Norteamericano is the correct term.
-But that makes no distinction between us or Canadians. ''Yankee'' and ''Gringo'' are obviously pejorative... ...but it's the standard dictionary term that's the most insulting. Estadounidense. Dense. D-E-N-S-E. It's the same spelling. Dense. Thick, stupid. Every time you hear it, Estadouni- dense. It's a direct slap in the face. Incredible.
-You're too sensitive.
-Great! Now we're too sensitive!
Maybe it’s different in Mexico, but in South America they used gringo to refer to all white people from America to Europe to Australia.
And everywhere we went we kept seeing more and more answers to that question. These idiots think that if only they can steal California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and (yes) British Columbia they'll be 'rich'. The truth is that they'll destroy the wealth of these territories the same as they have done in Mexico.
Precisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.