Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Is Superman Canadian? Who decides, and what is at stake in such a question? How is the Underground Railroad commemorated differently in Canada and the United States, and can those differences be bridged? How can we acknowledge properly the Canadian labour behind Hollywood filmmaking, and what would that do to our sense of national cinema? Reading between the Borderlines grapples with these questions and others surrounding the production and consumption of literary, cinematic, musical, visual, and print culture across the Canada-US border. Discussing a range of popular as well as highbrow cultural forms, this collection investigates patterns of cross-border cultural exchange that become visible within a variety of genres, regardless of their place in any arbitrarily devised cultural hierarchy. The essays also consider the many interests served, compromised, or negated by the operations of the transnational economy, the movement of culture's \"raw material\" across nation-state borders in literal and conceptual terms, and the configuration of a material citizenship attributed to or negotiated around border-crossing cultural objects. Challenging the oversimplification of cultural products labelled either \"Canadian\" or \"American,\" Reading between the Borderlines contends with the particularities and complications of North American cultural exchange, both historically and in the present.\"-- Provided by publisher.

From 1932 to 1933, a catastrophic famine, known as the Holodomor ( extermination by hunger ), raged through Ukraine, killing millions of people. Although the Soviet government denied it, news about the tragedy got out and Canadians came to learn about the famine from many, though often contradictory, sources. Through an extensive analysis of newspapers, political speeches, and organized protests, Serge Cipko examines both the reporting of the famine and the Canadian response to it, highlighting the vital importance of journalism and the power of public demonstrations in shaping government action.

The presence of a westward-moving frontier of settlement shaped early U.S. history. In 1893, the historian Frederick Jackson Turner famously argued that the American frontier fostered individualism. We investigate the “frontier thesis” and identify its long-run implications for culture and politics. We track the frontier throughout the 1790–1890 period and construct a novel, county-level measure of total frontier experience (TFE). Historically, frontier locations had distinctive demographics and greater individualism. Long after the closing of the frontier, counties with greater TFE exhibit more pervasive individualism and opposition to redistribution. This pattern cuts across known divides in the United States, including urban–rural and north–south. We provide evidence on the roots of frontier culture, identifying both selective migration and a causal effect of frontier exposure on individualism. Overall, our findings shed new light on the frontier’s persistent legacy of rugged individualism.

The Insular Cases have been enjoying an improbable—and unfortunate—renaissance. Decided at the height of what has been called the \"imperialist\" period in U.S. history, this series of Supreme Court decisions handed down in the early twentieth century infamously held that the former Spanish colonies annexed by the United States in 1898—Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam—\"belong[ed] to, but [were] not a part of, the United States.\"What exactly this meant has been the subject of considerable debate even as those decisions have received unanimous condemnation. According to the standard account, the Insular Cases held that the \"entire\" Constitution applies within the United States (defined as the states, the District of Columbia, and the so-called \"incorporated\" territories) while only its \"fundamental\" limitations apply in what came to be known as the \"unincorporated\" territories (today, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). Scholars unanimously agree that the Insular Cases gave the Court's sanction to U.S. colonial rule over the unincorporated territories—and that the reason for it was racism. Yet courts and scholars have recently sought to hoist the Insular Cases on their own racist petard—by \"repurposing\" them to defuse constitutional objections to certain distinctive cultural practices in the unincorporated territories. Adopting the standard account of the Insular Cases, according to which they created a nearly extraconstitutional zone, proponents of repurposing argue that the relative freedom from constitutional constraints that government action enjoys in the unincorporated territories can and should be exploited now to vindicate their peoples' right to cultural self-preservation. This Article disagrees. Although I share the view that the Constitution should not ride roughshod over the cultural practices of the people of the unincorporated territories, I do not agree that the Constitution necessarily must bend to any such practices it finds there or that the Insular Cases present a legitimate—let alone desirable—doctrinal vehicle for preserving such practices. Instead, constitutional doctrines available outside of the Insular Cases present the most promising—and the only legitimate—doctrinal means for making the constitutional case in favor of cultural accommodation. Against the repurposing project, I argue that the Insular Cases gave rise to nothing less than a crisis of political legitimacy in the unincorporated territories, and that no amount of repurposing, no matter how well-intentioned—or even successful—can change that fact. On the contrary: repurposing the Insular Cases will prolong the crisis. They should be overruled.

Throughout the nineteenth century, federal Indian policy oscillated between two extreme positions: assimilation versus isolation. While scholars have often been interested in the impact of past federal policy on current levels of economic development among American Indian tribes, none have explicitly examined the influence of federal assimilation policy on long-run economic development. In this paper, I take advantage of tribal-level variation in the application of federal policies to estimate the effect of assimilation on long-run economic performance. To quantify the impact of such policies, I introduce a novel measure of cultural assimilation: the prevalence of traditional indigenous names relative to common American first names. To calculate the distribution of name types, I have gathered the names and locations for all American Indians enumerated in the 1900 United States census. After classifying each name, I calculated the reservation-specific share of non-indigenous names. I estimate the relationship between cultural assimilation in 1900 and per capita income from 1970 through 2020. I find that historical levels of assimilation are consistently associated with higher levels of per capita income in all census years. The results are robust to the inclusion of a variety of cultural and institutional controls and regional fixed effects.

This article reviews cross-national research on multicultural policies in relation to immigrants in the main European and Anglo-Saxon immigrant-receiving countries. It compares the policies themselves and reviews studies that evaluate their outcomes. The size of immigrant populations as well as their composition in terms of countries of origin, religion, and human capital are key to understanding why multiculturalism has fallen further from grace in Europe than in the classical immigrant-receiving countries of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, religious rights are identified as the main source of controversy regarding multicultural rights; that Muslims make up a larger proportion of immigrants to Europe explains in part the more critical evaluation that multicultural policies receive there. The reviewed studies reveal a mixed picture regarding outcomes of multicultural policies, with little effect on socioeconomic integration, some positive effects on political integration, and negative impacts on sociocultural integration.

Seafood plays an important role in sustainably feeding the world and is one of the most traded food products globally. However sustainability improvements are often focused on its production (e.g., aquaculture, fishing) rather than trade. Here, we quantify the magnitude and extent of global ‘redundant two-way’ seafood trade–the exchange of the same quantity of the same taxonomic species between two countries–to examine its prevalence and potential implications across the seafood supply chain. We focused on wild-caught seafood trade and found that redundant two-way trade has increased by 43%, between 2000 and 2015, making up 3.2% (7.7 Mt) of global seafood trade during that period. Although most countries were involved in redundant two-way seafood trade (111 of 212 analyzed), the majority occurred between five trade partners: Canada and the United States (15%), Germany and the Netherlands (11.8%); Denmark and Sweden (10.6%); Germany and Denmark (7.1%); and France and Norway (7%). Nearly 50% of redundant trade is made up of just four species including Atlantic herring, Atlantic cod, Skipjack tuna and Atlantic mackerel. While deficiencies in global seafood trade data mask seasonal and product heterogeneity, redundant trade could have implications for meeting conservation and sustainable development goals. Future research should build upon these findings to explore specific environmental, economic, and social implications associated with redundant two-way trade to benefit producers and consumers within the seafood supply chain.

IR proceeds on a Eurocentric ontological assumption that sovereignty has universal validity today. How can IR be decolonised, when in spite of countless examples of the enactment of ‘sovereignty otherwise’, the discipline remains unconcerned with the fact that the logic of sovereignty remains uni-versal. The question is as much political as it is intellectual, because as a discipline, we have allowed the inertia of our professional rhythms to marginalise pluri-versal sovereignty, or the organisation of sovereignty along different ontological starting points. I argue IR must abandon its disciplinary love affair with uni-versal sovereignty. The tendency to ‘bring in’ new perspectives by inserting them into an already ontologically constituted set of assumptions works to protect IR’s Eurocentricity, which makes disciplinary decolonisation untenable. I propose that as a starting point, IR needs to be more mature about recognising the decolonisations that are happening under our very feet if we are to stand a chance at disciplinary level decolonisation. As an illustrative example, I explore an ongoing collision of settler-colonial and Mi’kmaw sovereignty through the issue of lobster fisheries in Mi’kma’ki, or Nova Scotia as the territory is known to Canadians.

As a 2016 presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump invoked racially charged rhetoric to galvanize conservative white voters who felt left behind in the “new economy.” In this article, we ask whether Trump’s ability to attract electoral support in that way was linked to local histories of racist mob violence. We use countylevel data on threatened and completed lynchings of Black people to predict support for Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary and general election across eleven southern states. We find that fewer voters cast their ballots for Trump in counties that had suppressed a comparatively larger share of potentially lethal episodes of racist mob violence. Supplementary analyses suggest that counties’ histories of violence are also related to their electoral support for Republican presidential candidates more broadly. We posit that this correlation points to the durable effects of racist violence on local cultures and the imprint of community histories on the social environment.

This article documents how business lobbying groups, corporate leaders, and even some members of the Nixon administration drew on futurist discourse and rhetoric to defeat the Burke-Hartke bill, proposed legislation that would have imposed new taxes on multinational corporations. For several years, self-described futurologists had reconceptualized multinational corporations as ideal institutions for securing world peace and, more broadly, meeting society’s needs, thereby taking over some of the government’s functions. These ideas allowed business interests to invoke a utopian vision of the multinational corporation while working toward the more concrete goal of building a global economy defined by free trade and fending off unwanted regulation.