We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
At around the 47 minute mark of Forbidden Love: The Unashamed Stories of Lesbian Lives, one of the women interviewed, Carol Ritchie-MacKintosh, talks about the persecution of gay men in the mid-20th century:
CRM: Well, at that time, it was illegal to have a house party with only one sex. So you at least had to have two women. Now, you could have 45 men and two women. And as long as the women were discreet and could sit in the library, and let the boys do what they liked, and simply answer the door, there was no problem.
Interviewer: What happened if there weren't women there?
CRM: They would raid it. They would absolutely raid it. They would level it, the police.
I was curious about this and tried to do some internet research on Canadian law during this period but did not find anything. This also reminded me of an oft-circulated myth about laws restricting the number of unrelated women living together, on the premise that a residence with too many such women would constitute a brothel, which made me suspicious.
I believe what is being said here, but was there actually such a law, and if so, could a reference be provided for it? I can imagine that the police might want to raid a single-sex party if they suspected that it was really a gathering for homosexuals, but that is different from saying that all single-sex house parties were unequivocally illegal. (Moreover, I would think that very traditionally-minded people might have accepted or even preferred single-sex parties, for the same reasons for which they might have been supportive of sex-segregated in social or educational settings.)
A gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is based on a fixed quantity of gold. The gold standard was widely used in the 19th and early part of the 20th century. Most nations abandoned the gold standard as the basis of their monetary systems at some point in the 20th century, although many still hold substantial gold reserves.  
Colonial wars Edit
Before the British conquest of French Canada in 1760, there had been a series of wars between the British and the French which were fought out in the colonies as well as in Europe and the high seas. In general, the British heavily relied on American colonial militia units, while the French heavily relied on their First Nation allies. The Iroquois Nation were important allies of the British.  Much of the fighting involved ambushes and small-scale warfare in the villages along the border between New England and Quebec. The New England colonies had a much larger population than Quebec, so major invasions came from south to north. The First Nation allies, only loosely controlled by the French, repeatedly raided New England villages to kidnap women and children, and torture and kill the men.  Those who survived were brought up as Francophone Catholics. The tension along the border was exacerbated by religion, the French Catholics and English Protestants had a deep mutual distrust.  There was a naval dimension as well, involving privateers attacking enemy merchant ships. 
England seized Quebec from 1629 to 1632, and Acadia in 1613 and again from 1654 to 1670 These territories were returned to France by the peace treaties. The major wars were (to use American names), King William's War (1689–1697) Queen Anne's War (1702–1713) King George's War (1744–1748), and the French and Indian War (1755–1763). In Canada, as in Europe, this era is known as the Seven Years' War.
New England soldiers and sailors were critical to the successful British campaign to capture the French fortress of Louisbourg in 1745,  and (after it had been returned by treaty) to capture it again in 1758. 
American Revolutionary War Edit
At the outset of the American Revolutionary War, the American revolutionaries hoped the French Canadians in Quebec and the Colonists in Nova Scotia would join their rebellion and they were pre-approved for joining the United States in the Articles of Confederation. When Canada was invaded, thousands joined the American cause and formed regiments that fought during the war however most remained neutral and some joined the British effort. Britain advised the French Canadians that the British Empire already enshrined their rights in the Quebec Act, which the American colonies had viewed as one of the Intolerable Acts. The American invasion was a fiasco and Britain tightened its grip on its northern possessions in 1777, a major British invasion into New York led to the surrender of the entire British army at Saratoga, and led France to enter the war as an ally of the U.S. The French Canadians largely ignored France's appeals for solidarity.  After the war Canada became a refuge for about 75,000 Loyalists who either wanted to leave the U.S., or were compelled by Patriot reprisals to do so. 
Among the original Loyalists there were 3,500 free African Americans. Most went to Nova Scotia and in 1792, 1200 migrated to Sierra Leone. About 2000 black slaves were brought in by Loyalist owners they remained slaves in Canada until the Empire abolished slavery in 1833. Before 1860, about 30,000–40,000 black people entered Canada many were already free and others were escaped slaves who came through the Underground Railroad. 
War of 1812 Edit
The Treaty of Paris, which ended the war, called for British forces to vacate all their forts south of the Great Lakes border. Britain refused to do so, citing failure of the United States to provide financial restitution for Loyalists who had lost property in the war. The Jay Treaty in 1795 with Great Britain resolved that lingering issue and the British departed the forts. Thomas Jefferson saw the nearby British presence as a threat to the United States, and so he opposed the Jay Treaty, and it became one of the major political issues in the United States at the time.  Thousands of Americans immigrated to Upper Canada (Ontario) from 1785 to 1812 to obtain cheaper land and better tax rates prevalent in that province despite expectations that they would be loyal to the U.S. if a war broke out, in the event they were largely non-political. 
Tensions mounted again after 1805, erupting into the War of 1812, when the United States declared war on Britain. The Americans were angered by British harassment of U.S. ships on the high seas and seizure of 6,000 sailors from American ships, severe restrictions against neutral American trade with France, and British support for hostile Native American tribes in Ohio and territories the U.S. had gained in 1783. American "honor" was an implicit issue. While the Americans could not hope to defeat the Royal Navy and control the seas, they could call on an army much larger than the British garrison in Canada, and so a land invasion of Canada was proposed as the most advantageous means of attacking the British Empire. Americans on the western frontier also hoped an invasion would bring an end to British support of Native American resistance to American expansion, typified by Tecumseh's coalition of tribes.  Americans may also have wanted to acquire Canada.        
Once war broke out, the American strategy was to seize Canada. There was some hope that settlers in western Canada—most of them recent immigrants from the U.S.—would welcome the chance to overthrow their British rulers. However, the American invasions were defeated primarily by British regulars with support from Native Americans and Upper Canada militia. Aided by the large Royal Navy, a series of British raids on the American coast were highly successful, culminating with an attack on Washington that resulted in the British burning of the White House, the Capitol, and other public buildings. However, the later battles of Baltimore, Plattsburg, and New Orleans all ended in defeat for the British. At the end of the war, Britain's American Indian allies had largely been defeated, and the Americans controlled a strip of Western Ontario centered on Fort Malden. However, Britain held much of Maine, and, with the support of their remaining American Indian allies, huge areas of the Old Northwest, including Wisconsin and much of Michigan and Illinois. With the surrender of Napoleon in 1814, Britain ended naval policies that angered Americans with the defeat of the Indian tribes the threat to American expansion was ended. The upshot was both the United States and Canada asserted their sovereignty, Canada remained under British rule, and London and Washington had nothing more to fight over. The war was ended by the Treaty of Ghent, which took effect in February 1815.  A series of postwar agreements further stabilized peaceful relations along the Canadian-US border. Canada reduced American immigration for fear of undue American influence, and built up the Anglican Church of Canada as a counterweight to the largely American Methodist and Baptist churches. 
In later years, Anglophone Canadians, especially in Ontario, viewed the War of 1812 as a heroic and successful resistance against invasion and as a victory that defined them as a people. The myth that the Canadian militia had defeated the invasion almost single-handed, known logically as the "militia myth", became highly prevalent after the war, having been propounded by John Strachan, Anglican Bishop of York. Meanwhile, the United States celebrated victory in its "Second War of Independence," and war heroes such as Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison headed to the White House. 
Post War of 1812 and mid-19th century Edit
In the aftermath of the War of 1812, pro-British conservatives led by Anglican Bishop John Strachan took control in Ontario ("Upper Canada"), and promoted the Anglican religion as opposed to the more republican Methodist and Baptist churches. A small interlocking elite, known as the Family Compact took full political control. Democracy, as practiced in the US, was ridiculed. The policies had the desired effect of deterring immigration from United States. Revolts in favor of democracy in Ontario and Quebec ("Lower Canada") in 1837 were suppressed many of the leaders fled to the US.  The American policy was to largely ignore the rebellions,  and indeed ignore Canada generally in favor of westward expansion of the American Frontier.
American Civil War Edit
The British Empire and Canada were neutral in the American Civil War, and about 40,000 Canadian citizens volunteered for the Union Army—many already lived in the U.S., and a few for the Confederate Army.  However, hundreds of Americans who were called up in the draft fled to Canada.  In 1864, the Confederate government tried to use Canada as a base to attack American border towns. They raided the town St. Albans, Vermont on October 19, 1864, killing an American citizen and robbing three banks of over US$200,000. The three Confederates escaped to Canada where they were arrested, but then released. Many Americans suspected – falsely – that the Canadian government knew of the raid ahead of time. There was widespread anger when the raiders were released by a local court in Canada.  The American Secretary of State William H. Seward let the British government know, "it is impossible to consider those proceedings as either legal, just or friendly towards the United States." 
Alabama claims Edit
Americans were angry at the British role during the American Civil War. Some leaders demanded for a huge payment, on the premise that British involvement had lengthened the war. Senator Charles Sumner, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, originally wanted to ask for $2 billion, or alternatively the ceding of all of Canada to the United States.  
When American Secretary of State William H. Seward negotiated the Alaska Purchase with Russia in 1867, he intended it as the first step in a comprehensive plan to gain control of the entire northwest Pacific Coast. Seward was a firm believer in Manifest Destiny, primarily for its commercial advantages to the U.S., Seward expected British Columbia to seek annexation to the U.S. and thought Britain might accept this in exchange for the Alabama claims. Soon other elements endorsed annexation, Their plan was to annex British Columbia, Red River Colony (Manitoba), and Nova Scotia, in exchange for dropping the damage claims. The idea reached a peak in the spring and summer of 1870, with American expansionists, Canadian separatists, and Pro-American Englishmen seemingly combining forces. The plan was dropped for multiple reasons. London continued to stall, American commercial and financial groups pressed Washington for a quick settlement of the dispute on a cash basis, growing Canadian nationalist sentiment in British Columbia called for staying inside the British Empire, Congress became preoccupied with Reconstruction, and most Americans showed little interest in territorial expansion. The "Alabama Claims" dispute went to international arbitration. In one of the first major cases of arbitration, the tribunal in 1872 supported the American claims and ordered Britain to pay $15.5 million. Britain paid and the episode ended in peaceful relations.  
Late 19th century Edit
Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 in internal affairs while Britain controlled diplomacy and defence policy. Prior to Confederation, there was an Oregon boundary dispute in which the Americans claimed the 54th degree latitude. That issue was resolved by splitting the disputed territory the northern half became British Columbia, and the southern half the states of Washington and Oregon.
Strained relations with America continued, however, due to a series of small-scale armed incursions named the Fenian raids by Irish-American Civil War veterans across the border from 1866 to 1871 in an attempt to trade Canada for Irish independence.  The American government, angry at Canadian tolerance of Confederate raiders during the American Civil War, moved very slowly to disarm the Fenians.  The Fenian raids were small-scale attacks carried out by the Fenian Brotherhood, an Irish Republican organization based among Irish Catholics in the United States. Targets were British Army forts, customs posts and other locations near the border. The raids were small, unsuccessful episodes in 1866, and again from 1870 to 1871. The goal was to bring pressure on Great Britain to withdraw from Ireland. None of these raids achieved their aims and all were quickly defeated by local Canadian forces. 
The British government, in charge of diplomatic relations, protested cautiously, as Anglo-American relations were tense. Much of the tension was relieved as the Fenians faded away and in 1872 by the settlement of the Alabama Claims, when Britain paid the U.S. $15.5 million for war losses caused by warships built in Britain and sold to the Confederacy.
Disputes over ocean boundaries on Georges Bank and over fishing, whaling, and sealing rights in the Pacific were settled by international arbitration, setting an important precedent. 
Early 20th century Edit
Alaska boundary Edit
A short-lived controversy was the Alaska boundary dispute, settled in favor of the United States in 1903. The issue was unimportant until the Klondike Gold Rush brought tens of thousands of men to Canada's Yukon, and they had to arrive through American ports. Canada needed its port and claimed that it had a legal right to a port near the present American town of Haines, Alaska. It would provide an all-Canadian route to the rich goldfields. The dispute was settled by arbitration, and the British delegate voted with the Americans—to the astonishment and disgust of Canadians who suddenly realized that Britain considered its relations with the United States paramount compared to those with Canada. The arbitration validated the status quo, but made Canada angry at London.  
1907 saw a minor controversy over USS Nashville sailing into the Great Lakes via Canada without Canadian permission. To head off future embarrassments, in 1909 the two sides signed the International Boundary Waters Treaty and the International Joint Commission was established to manage the Great Lakes and keep them disarmed. It was amended in World War II to allow the building and training of warships. 
Free trade Edit
Anti-Americanism reached a shrill peak in 1911 in Canada.  The Liberal government in 1911 negotiated a Reciprocity treaty with the U.S. that would lower trade barriers. Canadian manufacturing interests were alarmed that free trade would allow the bigger and more efficient American factories to take their markets. The Conservatives made it a central campaign issue in the 1911 election, warning that it would be a "sell out" to the United States with economic annexation a special danger.  The Conservative slogan was "No truck or trade with the Yankees", as they appealed to Canadian nationalism and nostalgia for the British Empire to win a major victory.  
Post-First World War Edit
Canada demanded and received permission from London to send its own delegation to the Versailles Peace Talks in 1919, with the proviso that it sign the treaty under the British Empire. Canada subsequently took responsibility for its own foreign and military affairs in the 1920s. Its first ambassador to the United States, Vincent Massey, was named in 1927. The United States first ambassador to Canada was William Phillips. Canada became an active member of the British Commonwealth, the League of Nations, and the World Court, none of which included the U.S.
In July 1923, as part of his Pacific Northwest tour and a week before his death, US President Warren Harding visited Vancouver, making him the first head of state of the United States to visit confederated Canada. The then Premier of British Columbia, John Oliver, and then mayor of Vancouver, Charles Tisdall, hosted a lunch in his honor at the Hotel Vancouver. Over 50,000 people heard Harding speak in Stanley Park. A monument to Harding designed by Charles Marega was unveiled in Stanley Park in 1925. 
Relations with the United States were cordial until 1930, when Canada vehemently protested the new Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act by which the U.S. raised tariffs (taxes) on products imported from Canada. Canada retaliated with higher tariffs of its own against American products, and moved toward more trade within the British Commonwealth. U.S.–Canadian trade fell 75% as the Great Depression dragged both countries down.  
Down to the 1920s the war and naval departments of both nations designed hypothetical war game scenarios on paper with the other as an enemy. These were routine training exercises the departments were never told to get ready for a real war. In 1921, Canada developed Defence Scheme No. 1 for an attack on American cities and for forestalling invasion by the United States until British reinforcements arrived. Through the later 1920s and 1930s, the United States Army War College developed a plan for a war with the British Empire waged largely on North American territory, in War Plan Red. 
Herbert Hoover meeting in 1927 with British Ambassador Sir Esme Howard agreed on the "absurdity of contemplating the possibility of war between the United States and the British Empire." 
In 1938, as the roots of World War II were set in motion, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt gave a public speech at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, declaring that the United States would not sit idly by if another power tried to dominate Canada. Diplomats saw it as a clear warning to Germany not to attack Canada. 
Second World War Edit
The two nations cooperated closely in World War II,  as both nations saw new levels of prosperity and a determination to defeat the Axis powers. Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and President Franklin D. Roosevelt were determined not to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.  They met in August 1940 at Ogdensburg, issuing a declaration calling for close cooperation, and formed the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD).
King sought to raise Canada's international visibility by hosting the August 1943 Quadrant conference in Quebec on military and political strategy he was a gracious host but was kept out of the important meetings by Winston Churchill and Roosevelt.
Canada allowed the construction of the Alaska Highway and participated in the building of the atomic bomb. 49,000 Americans joined the RCAF (Canadian) or RAF (British) air forces through the Clayton Knight Committee, which had Roosevelt's permission to recruit in the U.S. in 1940–42. 
American attempts in the mid-1930s to integrate British Columbia into a united West Coast military command had aroused Canadian opposition. Fearing a Japanese invasion of Canada's vulnerable British Columbia Coast, American officials urged the creation of a united military command for an eastern Pacific Ocean theater of war. Canadian leaders feared American imperialism and the loss of autonomy more than a Japanese invasion. In 1941, Canadians successfully argued within the PJBD for mutual cooperation rather than unified command for the West Coast. 
The United States built large military bases in Newfoundland during World War II. At the time it was a British crown colony, having lost dominion status. The American spending ended the depression and brought new prosperity Newfoundland's business community sought closer ties with the United States as expressed by the Economic Union Party. Ottawa took notice and wanted Newfoundland to join Canada, which it did after hotly contested referenda. There was little demand in the United States for the acquisition of Newfoundland, so the United States did not protest the British decision not to allow an American option on the Newfoundland referendum. 
Cold War Edit
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, working closely with his Foreign Minister Louis St. Laurent, handled foreign relations 1945–48 in cautious fashion. Canada donated money to the United Kingdom to help it rebuild was elected to the UN Security Council and helped design NATO. However, Mackenzie King rejected free trade with the United States,  and decided not to play a role in the Berlin airlift.  Canada had been actively involved in the League of Nations, primarily because it could act separately from Britain. It played a modest role in the postwar formation of the United Nations, as well as the International Monetary Fund. It played a somewhat larger role in 1947 in designing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.  After the mid-20th century onwards, Canada and the United States became extremely close partners. Canada was a close ally of the United States during the Cold War.
Vietnam War resisters Edit
While Canada openly accepted draft evaders and later deserters from the United States, there was never serious international dispute due to Canada's actions, while Sweden's acceptance was heavily criticized by the United States. The issue of accepting American exiles became a local political debate in Canada that focused on Canada's sovereignty in its immigration law. The United States did not become involved because American politicians viewed Canada as geographically close ally not worth disturbing. 
Nixon Shock 1971 Edit
The United States had become Canada's largest market, and after the war the Canadian economy became dependent on smooth trade flows with the United States so much that in 1971 when the United States enacted the "Nixon Shock" economic policies (including a 10% tariff on all imports) it put the Canadian government into a panic. Washington refused to exempt Canada from its 1971 New Economic Policy, so Trudeau saw a solution in closer economic ties with Europe. Trudeau proposed a "Third Option" policy of diversifying Canada's trade and downgrading the importance of the American market. In a 1972 speech in Ottawa, Nixon declared the "special relationship" between Canada and the United States dead. 
Relations deteriorated on many points in the Nixon years (1969–74), including trade disputes, defense agreements, energy, fishing, the environment, cultural imperialism, and foreign policy. They changed for the better when Trudeau and President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) found a better rapport. The late 1970s saw a more sympathetic American attitude toward Canadian political and economic needs, the pardoning of draft evaders who had moved to Canada, and the passing of old such as the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. Canada more than ever welcomed American investments during "the stagflation" that hurt both nations. 
The main issues in Canada–U.S. relations in the 1990s focused on the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1994. It created a common market that by 2014 was worth $19 trillion, encompassed 470 million people, and had created millions of jobs.  Wilson says, "Few dispute that NAFTA has produced large and measurable gains for Canadian consumers, workers, and businesses." However, he adds, "NAFTA has fallen well short of expectations." 
Migration history Edit
From the 1750s to the 21st century, there has been extensive mingling of the Canadian and American populations, with large movements in both directions. 
New England Yankees settled large parts of Nova Scotia before 1775, and were neutral during the American Revolution.  At the end of the American Revolution, about 75,000 United Empire Loyalists moved out of the new United States to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the lands of Quebec, east and south of Montreal. From 1790 to 1812 many farmers moved from New York and New England into Upper Canada (mostly to Niagara, and the north shore of Lake Ontario). In the mid and late 19th century gold rushes attracted American prospectors, mostly to British Columbia after the Cariboo Gold Rush, Fraser Canyon Gold Rush, and later to the Yukon Territory. In the early 20th century, the opening of land blocks in the Prairie Provinces attracted many farmers from the American Midwest. Many Mennonites immigrated from Pennsylvania and formed their own colonies. In the 1890s some Mormons went north to form communities in Alberta after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejected plural marriage.  The 1960s saw the arrival of about 50,000 draft-dodgers who opposed the Vietnam War. 
Canada was a way-station through which immigrants from other lands stopped for a while, ultimately heading to the U.S. In 1851–1951, 7.1 million people arrived in Canada (mostly from Continental Europe), and 6.6 million left Canada, most of them to the U.S.  After 1850, the pace of industrialization and urbanization was much faster in the United States, drawing a wide range of immigrants from the North. By 1870, 1/6 of all the people born in Canada had moved to the United States, with the highest concentrations in New England, which was the destination of Francophone emigrants from Quebec and Anglophone emigrants from the Maritimes. It was common for people to move back and forth across the border, such as seasonal lumberjacks, entrepreneurs looking for larger markets, and families looking for jobs in the textile mills that paid much higher wages than in Canada. 
The southward migration slacked off after 1890, as Canadian industry began a growth spurt. By then, the American frontier was closing, and thousands of farmers looking for fresh land moved from the United States north into the Prairie Provinces. The net result of the flows were that in 1901 there were 128,000 American-born residents in Canada (3.5% of the Canadian population) and 1.18 million Canadian-born residents in the United States (1.6% of the U.S. population). 
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, about 900,000 French Canadians moved to the U.S., with 395,000 residents there in 1900. Two-thirds went to mill towns in New England, where they formed distinctive ethnic communities. By the late 20th century, most had abandoned the French language (see New England French), but most kept the Catholic religion.   About twice as many English Canadians came to the U.S., but they did not form distinctive ethnic settlements. 
The executive of each country is represented differently. The President of the United States serves as both the head of state and head of government, and his "administration" is the executive, while the Prime Minister of Canada is head of government only, and his or her "government" or "ministry" directs the executive.
W. L. Mackenzie King and Franklin D. Roosevelt (October 1935 – April 1945) Edit
Louis St. Laurent and Harry S. Truman (November 1948 – January 1953) Edit
Prime Minister Laurent and President Truman were both anti-communist during the early years of the Cold War.
John G. Diefenbaker and John F. Kennedy (January 1961 – April 1963) Edit
Diefenbaker and Kennedy did not get along well personally. This was evident in Diefenbaker's response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where he did not support the United States. However, Diefenbaker's Minister of Defence went behind Diefenbaker's back and did set Canada's military to high alert in order to try and appease Kennedy. 
Lester B. Pearson and Lyndon B. Johnson (November 1963 – April 1968) Edit
In 1965, Lester B. Pearson gave a speech in Philadelphia criticizing the US involvement in the Vietnam War.  This infuriated Lyndon B. Johnson, who gave him a harsh talk, saying "You don't come here and piss on my rug". 
Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan (September 1984 – January 1989) Edit
Relations between Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan were famously close.  This relationship resulted in negotiations for the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, and the U.S.–Canada Air Quality Agreement to reduce acid-rain-causing emissions, both major policy goals of Mulroney, that would be finalized under the presidency of George H. W. Bush.
Jean Chrétien and Bill Clinton (November 1993 – January 2001) Edit
Although Jean Chrétien was wary of appearing too close to President Bill Clinton, [ citation needed ] both men had a passion for golf. During a news conference with Prime Minister Chrétien in April 1997, President Clinton quipped "I don't know if any two world leaders have played golf together more than we have, but we meant to break a record".  Their governments had many small trade quarrels over the Canadian content of American magazines, softwood lumber, and so on, but on the whole were quite friendly. Both leaders had run on reforming or abolishing NAFTA, but the agreement went ahead with the addition of environmental and labor side agreements. Crucially, the Clinton administration lent rhetorical support to Canadian unity during the 1995 referendum in Quebec on separation from Canada. 
Jean Chrétien and George W. Bush (January 2001 – December 2003) Edit
Relations between Chrétien and George W. Bush were strained throughout their overlapping times in office. After the September 11 attacks terror attacks, Jean Chrétien publicly mused that U.S. foreign policy might be part of the "root causes" of terrorism. Some Americans criticized his "smug moralism", and Chrétien's public refusal to support the 2003 Iraq war was met with negative responses in the United States, especially among conservatives. 
Stephen Harper and George W. Bush (February 2006 – January 2009) Edit
Stephen Harper and George W. Bush were thought to share warm personal relations and also close ties between their administrations. Because Bush was so unpopular among liberals in Canada (particularly in the media), this was underplayed by the Harper government. 
Shortly after being congratulated by Bush for his victory in February 2006, Harper rebuked U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins for criticizing the Conservatives' plans to assert Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean waters with military force. 
Stephen Harper and Barack Obama (January 2009 – November 2015) Edit
President Barack Obama's first international trip was to Canada on February 19, 2009, thereby sending a strong message of peace and cooperation.  With the exception of Canadian lobbying against "Buy American" provisions in the U.S. stimulus package, relations between the two administrations were smooth.
They also held friendly bets on hockey games during the Winter Olympic season. In the 2010 Winter Olympics hosted by Canada in Vancouver, Canada defeated the US in both gold medal matches, entitling Stephen Harper to receive a case of Molson Canadian beer from Barack Obama in reverse, if Canada had lost, Harper would have provided a case of Yuengling beer to Obama.  During the 2014 Winter Olympics, alongside U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry & Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird, Stephen Harper was given a case of Samuel Adams beer by Obama for the Canadian gold medal victory over the US in women's hockey, and the semi-final victory over the US in men's hockey. 
Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) (2011) Edit
On February 4, 2011, Harper and Obama issued a "Declaration on a Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness"   and announced the creation of the Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) "to increase regulatory transparency and coordination between the two countries." 
Health Canada and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the RCC mandate, undertook the "first of its kind" initiative by selecting "as its first area of alignment common cold indications for certain over-the-counter antihistamine ingredients (GC 2013-01-10)." 
On December 7, 2011, Harper flew to Washington, met with Obama and signed an agreement to implement the joint action plans that had been developed since the initial meeting in February. The plans called on both countries to spend more on border infrastructure, share more information on people who cross the border, and acknowledge more of each other's safety and security inspection on third-country traffic. An editorial in The Globe and Mail praised the agreement for giving Canada the ability to track whether failed refugee claimants have left Canada via the U.S. and for eliminating "duplicated baggage screenings on connecting flights".  The agreement is not a legally binding treaty, and relies on the political will and ability of the executives of both governments to implement the terms of the agreement. These types of executive agreements are routine—on both sides of the Canada–U.S. border.
Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama (November 2015 – January 2017) Edit
President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first met formally at the APEC summit meeting in Manila, Philippines in November 2015, nearly a week after the latter was sworn into the office. Both leaders expressed eagerness for increased cooperation and coordination between the two countries during the course of Trudeau's government with Trudeau promising an "enhanced Canada–U.S. partnership". 
On November 6, 2015, Obama announced the U.S. State Department's rejection of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the fourth phase of the Keystone oil pipeline system running between Canada and the United States, to which Trudeau expressed disappointment but said that the rejection would not damage Canada–U.S. relations and would instead provide a "fresh start" to strengthening ties through cooperation and coordination, saying that "the Canada–U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project."  Obama has since praised Trudeau's efforts to prioritize the reduction of climate change, calling it "extraordinarily helpful" to establish a worldwide consensus on addressing the issue. 
Although Trudeau has told Obama his plans to withdraw Canada's McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet jets assisting in the American-led intervention against ISIL, Trudeau said that Canada will still "do more than its part" in combating the terrorist group by increasing the number of Canadian special forces members training and fighting on ground in Iraq and Syria. 
Trudeau visited the White House for an official visit and state dinner on March 10, 2016.  Trudeau and Obama were reported to have shared warm personal relations during the visit, making humorous remarks about which country was better at hockey and which country had better beer.  Obama complimented Trudeau's 2015 election campaign for its "message of hope and change" and "positive and optimistic vision". Obama and Trudeau also held "productive" discussions on climate change and relations between the two countries, and Trudeau invited Obama to speak in the Canadian parliament in Ottawa later in the year. 
Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump (January 2017 – January 2021) Edit
Following the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Trudeau congratulated him and invited him to visit Canada at the "earliest opportunity."  Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump formally met for the first time at the White House on February 13, 2017, nearly a month after Trump was sworn into the office. Trump has ruffled relations with Canada with tariffs on softwood lumber.  Diafiltered Milk was brought up by Trump as an area that needed negotiating. 
In 2018, Trump and Trudeau negotiated the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), a free trade agreement concluded between Canada, Mexico, and the United States that succeeded the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The agreement has been characterized as "NAFTA 2.0,"    or "New NAFTA,"   since many provisions from NAFTA were incorporated and its changes were seen as largely incremental. On July 1, 2020, the USMCA entered into force in all member states.
In June 2018, after Trudeau explained that Canadians would not be "pushed around" by the Trump tariffs on Canada's aluminum and steel, Trump labelled Trudeau as "dishonest" and "meek", and accused Trudeau of making "false statements", although it is unclear which statements Trump was referring to. Trump's adviser on trade, Peter Navarro, said that there was a "special place in hell" for Trudeau as he employed "bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door . that comes right from Air Force One."   Days later, Trump said that Trudeau's comments are "going to cost a lot of money for the people of Canada". 
In June 2019, the U.S. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said the US "view Canada’s claim that the waters of the Northwest Passage are internal waters of Canada as inconsistent with international law." 
Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden (January 2021 – present) Edit
Following the victory of Joe Biden in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Trudeau congratulated him on his successful victory indicating a significant improvement in Canada-U.S. relationships which had been strained in the years prior during the Presidency of Donald Trump.
On January 22, 2021, Biden and Trudeau held their first phone call. Trudeau was the first foreign leader to receive a phone call from Biden as President. 
On February 23, 2021, Biden and Trudeau held their first bilateral meeting. Although virtual, the bilateral meeting was Biden's first as President. The two leaders discussed "COVID-19, economic recovery, climate change, and refugees and migration" among other subjects. 
The Canadian military, like forces of other NATO countries, fought alongside the United States in most major conflicts since World War II, including the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, and most recently the war in Afghanistan. The main exceptions to this were the Canadian government's opposition to the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, which caused some brief diplomatic tensions. Despite these issues, military relations have remained close.
American defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country.  The Permanent Joint Board of Defense, established in 1940, provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defense matters. The United States and Canada share North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mutual security commitments. In addition, American and Canadian military forces have cooperated since 1958 on continental air defense within the framework of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Canadian forces have provided indirect support for the American invasion of Iraq that began in 2003.  Moreover, interoperability with the American armed forces has been a guiding principle of Canadian military force structuring and doctrine since the end of the Cold War. Canadian navy frigates, for instance, integrate seamlessly into American carrier battle groups. 
In commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812 ambassadors from Canada and the US, and naval officers from both countries gathered at the Pritzker Military Library on August 17, 2012, for a panel discussion on Canada-US relations with emphasis on national security-related matters. Also as part of the commemoration, the navies of both countries sailed together throughout the Great Lakes region. 
War in Afghanistan Edit
Canada's elite JTF2 unit joined American special forces in Afghanistan shortly after the al-Qaida attacks on September 11, 2001. Canadian forces joined the multinational coalition in Operation Anaconda in January 2002. On April 18, 2002, an American pilot bombed Canadian forces involved in a training exercise, killing four and wounding eight Canadians. A joint American-Canadian inquiry determined the cause of the incident to be pilot error, in which the pilot interpreted ground fire as an attack the pilot ignored orders that he felt were "second-guessing" his field tactical decision.   Canadian forces assumed a six-month command rotation of the International Security Assistance Force in 2003 in 2005, Canadians assumed operational command of the multi-national Brigade in Kandahar, with 2,300 troops, and supervises the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, where al-Qaida forces are most active. Canada has also deployed naval forces in the Persian Gulf since 1991 in support of the UN Gulf Multinational Interdiction Force. 
The Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. maintains a public relations website named CanadianAlly.com, which is intended "to give American citizens a better sense of the scope of Canada's role in North American and Global Security and the War on Terror".
The New Democratic Party and some recent Liberal leadership candidates have expressed opposition to Canada's expanded role in the Afghan conflict on the ground that it is inconsistent with Canada's historic role (since the Second World War) of peacekeeping operations. 
2003 Invasion of Iraq Edit
According to contemporary polls, 71% of Canadians were opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Many Canadians, and the former Liberal Cabinet headed by Paul Martin (as well as many Americans such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama),  made a policy distinction between conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, unlike the Bush Doctrine, which linked these together in a "Global war on terror".
Responding to ISIS/Daesh Edit
Canada has been involved in international responses to the threats from Daesh/ISIS/ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and is a member of the Global Coalition to Counter Daesh. In October 2016, Foreign Affairs Minister Dion and National Defence Minister Sajjan met the U.S. special envoy for this coalition. The Americans thanked Canada "for the role of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in providing training and assistance to Iraqi security forces, as well as the CAF's role in improving essential capacity-building capabilities with regional forces." 
Illicit drugs Edit
In 2003, the American government became concerned when members of the Canadian government announced plans to decriminalize marijuana. David Murray, an assistant to U.S. Drug Czar John P. Walters, said in a CBC interview that, "We would have to respond. We would be forced to respond."  However, the election of the Conservative Party in early 2006 halted the liberalization of marijuana laws until the Liberal Party of Canada leglised recreational cannabis use in 2018. 
A 2007 joint report by American and Canadian officials on cross-border drug smuggling indicated that, despite their best efforts, "drug trafficking still occurs in significant quantities in both directions across the border. The principal illicit substances smuggled across our shared border are MDMA (Ecstasy), cocaine, and marijuana."  The report indicated that Canada was a major producer of Ecstasy and marijuana for the U.S. market, while the U.S. was a transit country for cocaine entering Canada.
Canada and the United States have the world's second largest trading relationship, with huge quantities of goods and people flowing across the border each year. Since the 1987 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, there have been no tariffs on most goods passed between the two countries.
In the course of the softwood lumber dispute, the U.S. has placed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber because of what it argues is an unfair Canadian government subsidy, a claim which Canada disputes. The dispute has cycled through several agreements and arbitration cases. Other notable disputes include the Canadian Wheat Board, and Canadian cultural "restrictions" on magazines and television (See CRTC, CBC, and National Film Board of Canada). Canadians have been criticized about such things as the ban on beef since a case of Mad Cow disease was discovered in 2003 in cows from the United States (and a few subsequent cases) and the high American agricultural subsidies. Concerns in Canada also run high over aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) such as Chapter 11. 
A principal instrument of this cooperation is the International Joint Commission (IJC), established as part of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to resolve differences and promote international cooperation on boundary waters. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 is another historic example of joint cooperation in controlling trans-border water pollution.  However, there have been some disputes. Most recently, the Devil's Lake Outlet, a project instituted by North Dakota, has angered Manitobans who fear that their water may soon become polluted as a result of this project.
Beginning in 1986, the Canadian government of Brian Mulroney began pressing the Reagan administration for an "Acid Rain Treaty" in order to do something about U.S. industrial air pollution causing acid rain in Canada. The Reagan administration was hesitant, and questioned the science behind Mulroney's claims. However, Mulroney was able to prevail. The product was the signing and ratification of the Air Quality Agreement of 1991 by the first Bush administration. Under that treaty, the two governments consult semi-annually on trans-border air pollution, which has demonstrably reduced acid rain, and they have since signed an annex to the treaty dealing with ground level ozone in 2000.     Despite this, trans-border air pollution remains an issue, particularly in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence watershed during the summer. The main source of this trans-border pollution results from coal-fired power stations, most of them located in the Midwestern United States.  As part of the negotiations to create NAFTA, Canada and the U.S. signed, along with Mexico, the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation which created the Commission for Environmental Cooperation which monitors environmental issues across the continent, publishing the North American Environmental Atlas as one aspect of its monitoring duties. 
Currently neither of the countries' governments support the Kyoto Protocol, which set out time scheduled curbing of greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the United States, Canada has ratified the agreement. Yet after ratification, due to internal political conflict within Canada, the Canadian government does not enforce the Kyoto Protocol, and has received criticism from environmental groups and from other governments for its climate change positions. In January 2011, the Canadian minister of the environment, Peter Kent, explicitly stated that the policy of his government with regards to greenhouse gas emissions reductions is to wait for the United States to act first, and then try to harmonize with that action – a position that has been condemned by environmentalists and Canadian nationalists, and as well as scientists and government think-tanks.  
Newfoundland fisheries dispute Edit
The United States and Britain had a long-standing dispute about the rights of Americans fishing in the waters near Newfoundland.  Before 1776, there was no question that American fishermen, mostly from Massachusetts, had rights to use the waters off Newfoundland. In the peace treaty negotiations of 1783, the Americans insisted on a statement of these rights. However, France, an American ally, disputed the American position because France had its own specified rights in the area and wanted them to be exclusive.  The Treaty of Paris (1783) gave the Americans not rights, but rather "liberties" to fish within the territorial waters of British North America and to dry fish on certain coasts.
After the War of 1812, the Convention of 1818 between the United States and Britain specified exactly what liberties were involved.  Canadian and Newfoundland fishermen contested these liberties in the 1830s and 1840s. The Canadian–American Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and the Treaty of Washington of 1871 spelled-out the liberties in more detail. However the Treaty of Washington expired in 1885, and there was a continuous round of disputes over jurisdictions and liberties. Britain and the United States sent the issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 1909. It produced a compromise settlement that permanently ended the problems.  
Diplomatic missions Edit
Canadian missions in the United States Edit
Canada's chief diplomatic mission to the United States is the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C.. It is further supported by many consulates located throughout the United States.  The Canadian Government maintains consulates-general in several major U.S. cities, including: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle. Canadian consular services are also available in Honolulu at the consulate of Australia through the Canada–Australia Consular Services Sharing Agreement. There are also Canadian trade offices located in Houston, Palo Alto, and San Diego.
U.S. missions in Canada Edit
The United States' chief diplomatic mission to Canada is the United States Embassy in Ottawa. It is supported by many consulates located throughout Canada.  The U.S government maintains consulates-general in several major Canadian cities, including: Calgary, Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg.
The United States also maintains Virtual Presence Posts (VPPs) in the: Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Southwestern Ontario, and Yukon.
Common memberships Edit
Canada and the United States both hold membership in a number of multinational organizations, including:
Territorial disputes Edit
The two countries have had a number of territorial disputes throughout their histories. Current maritime territorial disputes between the two countries include the Beaufort Sea, Dixon Entrance, Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Islands, Machias Seal Island, and North Rock. Additionally, the United States is one of several countries that contends the Northwest Passage is international waters whereas the Canadian government asserts it forms Canadian Internal Waters. The Inside Passage is also disputed as international waters by the United States.
Historical boundary disputes include the Aroostook War at the Maine-New Brunswick border the Oregon boundary dispute at the present day British Columbia-Washington border and the Alaska Boundary Dispute at the Alaska-British Columbia border. The Maine-New Brunswick boundary dispute was resolved through the Webster–Ashburton Treaty in 1842, the Oregon boundary dispute through the Oregon Treaty of 1846, and the Alaska boundary dispute through arbitration in 1903.
Northwest Passage Edit
A long-simmering dispute between Canada and the U.S. involves the issue of Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage (the sea passages in the Arctic). Canada's assertion that the Northwest Passage represents internal (territorial) waters has been challenged by other countries, especially the U.S., which argue that these waters constitute an international strait (international waters). Canadians were alarmed when Americans drove the reinforced oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in 1969, followed by the icebreaker Polar Sea in 1985, which actually resulted in a minor diplomatic incident. In 1970, the Canadian parliament enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which asserts Canadian regulatory control over pollution within a 100-mile zone. In response, the United States in 1970 stated, "We cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada. Such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide." A compromise of sorts was reached in 1988, by an agreement on "Arctic Cooperation," which pledges that voyages of American icebreakers "will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada." However the agreement did not alter either country's basic legal position. Paul Cellucci, the American ambassador to Canada, in 2005 suggested to Washington that it should recognize the straits as belonging to Canada. His advice was rejected and Harper took opposite positions. The U.S. opposes Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.  
Views of presidents and prime ministers Edit
Presidents and prime ministers typically make formal or informal statements that indicate the diplomatic policy of their administration. Diplomats and journalists at the time—and historians since—dissect the nuances and tone to detect the warmth or coolness of the relationship.
- Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, speaking at the beginning of the 1891 election (fought mostly over Canadian free trade with the United States), arguing against closer trade relations with the U.S. stated "As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born—a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the ‘veiled treason’ which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance." (February 3, 1891.  )
Canada's first Prime Minister also said:
It has been said that the United States Government is a failure. I don't go so far. On the contrary, I consider it a marvelous exhibition of human wisdom. It was as perfect as human wisdom could make it, and under it the American States greatly prospered until very recently but being the work of men it had its defects, and it is for us to take advantage by experience, and endeavor to see if we cannot arrive by careful study at such a plan as will avoid the mistakes of our neighbors. In the first place we know that every individual state was an individual sovereignty—that each had its own army and navy and political organization – and when they formed themselves into a confederation they only gave the central authority certain specific rights appertaining to sovereign powers. The dangers that have risen from this system we will avoid if we can agree upon forming a strong central government—a great Central Legislature—a constitution for a Union which will have all the rights of sovereignty except those that are given to the local governments. Then we shall have taken a great step in advance of the American Republic. (September 12, 1864)
- Prime Minister John Sparrow Thompson, angry at failed trade talks in 1888, privately complained to his wife, Lady Thompson, that "These Yankee politicians are the lowest race of thieves in existence." 
- After the World War II years of close military and economic cooperation, President Harry S. Truman said in 1947 that "Canada and the United States have reached the point where we can no longer think of each other as 'foreign' countries." 
- President John F. Kennedy told Parliament in Ottawa in May 1961 that "Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder." 
- President Lyndon Johnson helped open Expo '67 with an upbeat theme, saying that "We of the United States consider ourselves blessed. We have much to give thanks for. But the gift of providence we cherish most is that we were given as our neighbours on this wonderful continent the people and the nation of Canada." Remarks at Expo '67, Montreal, May 25, 1967. 
- Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau famously said that being America's neighbour "is like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, if one can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." 
- Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, sharply at odds with the U.S. over Cold War policy, warned at a press conference in 1971 that the overwhelming American presence posed "a danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view." 
- President Richard Nixon, in a speech to Parliament in 1972 was angry at Trudeau, declared that the "special relationship" between Canada and the United States was dead. "It is time for us to recognize," he stated, "that we have very separate identities that we have significant differences and that nobody's interests are furthered when these realities are obscured." 
- In late 2001, President George W. Bush did not mention Canada during a speech in which he thanked a list of countries who had assisted in responding to the events of September 11, although Canada had provided military, financial, and other support.  Ten years later, David Frum, one of President Bush's speechwriters, stated that it was an unintentional omission. 
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a statement congratulating Barack Obama on his inauguration, stated that "The United States remains Canada's most important ally, closest friend and largest trading partner and I look forward to working with President Obama and his administration as we build on this special relationship." 
- President Barack Obama, speaking in Ottawa at his first official international visit on February 19, 2009, said, "I love this country. We could not have a better friend and ally." 
Today there remain cross-border cultural ties    and according to Gallup's annual public opinion polls, Canada has consistently been Americans' favorite nation, with 96% of Americans viewing Canada favorably in 2012.   As of spring 2013, 64% of Canadians had a favorable view of the U.S. and 81% expressed confidence in then-US President Obama to do the right thing in international matters. According to the same poll, 30% viewed the U.S. negatively.  In addition, according to Spring 2017 Global Attitudes Survey, 43% of Canadians view the U.S. positively, while 51% hold a negative view.  More recently, however, a poll in January 2018 showed Canadians' approval of U.S. leadership dropped by over 40 percentage points under President Donald Trump, in line with the view of residents of many other U.S. allied and neutral countries. 
Since the arrival of the Loyalists as refugees from the American Revolution in the 1780s, historians have identified a constant theme of Canadian fear of the United States and of "Americanization" or a cultural takeover. In the War of 1812, for example, the enthusiastic response by French militia to defend Lower Canada reflected, according to Heidler and Heidler (2004), "the fear of Americanization."  Scholars have traced this attitude over time in Ontario and Quebec. 
Canadian intellectuals who wrote about the U.S. in the first half of the 20th century identified America as the world center of modernity, and deplored it. Anti-American Canadians (who admired the British Empire) explained that Canada had narrowly escaped American conquest with its rejection of tradition, its worship of "progress" and technology, and its mass culture they explained that Canada was much better because of its commitment to orderly government and societal harmony. There were a few ardent defenders of the nation to the south, notably liberal and socialist intellectuals such as F. R. Scott and Jean-Charles Harvey (1891–1967). 
Looking at television, Collins (1990) finds that it is in Anglophone Canada that fear of cultural Americanization is most powerful, for there the attractions of the U.S. are strongest.  Meren (2009) argues that after 1945, the emergence of Quebec nationalism and the desire to preserve French-Canadian cultural heritage led to growing anxiety regarding American cultural imperialism and Americanization.  In 2006 surveys showed that 60 percent of Québécois had a fear of Americanization, while other surveys showed they preferred their current situation to that of the Americans in the realms of health care, quality of life as seniors, environmental quality, poverty, educational system, racism and standard of living. While agreeing that job opportunities are greater in America, 89 percent disagreed with the notion that they would rather be in the United States, and they were more likely to feel closer to English Canadians than to Americans.  However, there is evidence that the elites and Quebec are much less fearful of Americanization, and much more open to economic integration than the general public. 
The history has been traced in detail by a leading Canadian historian J.L. Granatstein in Yankee Go Home: Canadians and Anti-Americanism (1997). Current studies report the phenomenon persists. Two scholars report, "Anti-Americanism is alive and well in Canada today, strengthened by, among other things, disputes related to NAFTA, American involvement in the Middle East, and the ever-increasing Americanization of Canadian culture."  Jamie Glazov writes, "More than anything else, Diefenbaker became the tragic victim of Canadian anti-Americanism, a sentiment the prime minister had fully embraced by 1962. [He was] unable to imagine himself (or his foreign policy) without enemies."  Historian J. M. Bumsted says, "In its most extreme form, Canadian suspicion of the United States has led to outbreaks of overt anti-Americanism, usually spilling over against American residents in Canada."  John R. Wennersten writes, "But at the heart of Canadian anti-Americanism lies a cultural bitterness that takes an American expatriate unaware. Canadians fear the American media's influence on their culture and talk critically about how Americans are exporting a culture of violence in its television programming and movies."  However Kim Nossal points out that the Canadian variety is much milder than anti-Americanism in some other countries.  By contrast Americans show very little knowledge or interest one way or the other regarding Canadian affairs.  Canadian historian Frank Underhill, quoting Canadian playwright Merrill Denison summed it up: "Americans are benevolently ignorant about Canada, whereas Canadians are malevolently informed about the United States." 
Canadian public opinion on U.S. presidents Edit
United States President George W. Bush was "deeply disliked" by a majority of Canadians according to the Arizona Daily Sun. A 2004 poll found that more than two thirds of Canadians favoured Democrat John Kerry over Bush in the 2004 presidential election, with Bush's lowest approval ratings in Canada being in the province of Quebec where just 11% of the population supported him.  Canadian public opinion of Barack Obama was significantly more positive. A 2012 poll found that 65% of Canadians would vote for Obama in the 2012 presidential election "if they could" while only 9% of Canadians would vote for his Republican opponent Mitt Romney. The same study found that 61% of Canadians felt that the Obama administration had been "good" for America, while only 12% felt it had been "bad". Similarly, a Pew Research poll conducted in June 2016 found that 83% of Canadians were "confident in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs".  The study also found that a majority of members of all three major Canadian political parties supported Obama, and also found that Obama had slightly higher approval ratings in Canada in 2012 than he did in 2008. John Ibbitson of The Globe and Mail stated in 2012 that Canadians generally supported Democratic presidents over Republican presidents, citing how President Richard Nixon was "never liked" in Canada and that Canadians generally did not approve of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's friendship with President Ronald Reagan. 
A November 2016 poll found 82% of Canadians preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.  A January 2017 poll found that 66% of Canadians "disapproved" of Donald Trump, with 23% approving of him and 11% being "unsure". The poll also found that only 18% of Canadians believed Trump's presidency would have a positive impact on Canada, while 63% believed it would have a negative effect.  A July 2019 poll found 79% of Canadians preferred Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders over Trump. 
In the Early 20th Century, America Was Awash in Incredible Queer Nightlife
In the Civic Ballroom of Hamilton Lodge of 1920s Harlem, satin heels beneath delicate gowns and feathers swept across smooth dance floors. Men who waited to take the stage adjusted their stockings, touched up their rouge. At tables nearby, women sitting together loosened their ties, drawing their hands and foreheads close. “Wigs, where necessary, were in evidence,” says The New York Age in March 1927. “From the garb of a biblical virgin…down to the very sparse attire only seen on burlesque stage of today, accentuated with feminine gesture and lingo, to say nothing of contortions of the hip, formed the make-up of these male masqueraders.”
It was only the last line that pointed at the radical nature of the event. “All’s well that ends well,” noted the Age, “The police did not find it necessary to raid.”
During the “Pansy Craze” from the 1920s until 1933, people in the lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer (LGBTQ) community were performing on stages in cities around the world, and New York City’s Greenwich Village, Times Square and Harlem held some of the most world-renowned drag performances of the time. While dominant American society disapproved of LGBTQ people, they were very fond of their parties. “It’s pretty amazing just how widespread these balls were,” says Chad Heap, a professor at George Washington University and author of Slumming, about the era. “Almost every newspaper article about them has a list of 20 to 30 well known people of the day who were in attendance as spectators. It was just a widely integrated part of life in the 1920s and 30s.”
All of this activity existed during cultural time that, as historian George Chauncey writes in his book Gay New York, many people believe “is not supposed to have existed.” Popular belief often holds that LGBTQ rights and acceptance was a forward-moving machine beginning with the Stonewall Riots in the 1960s, but when comparing Prohibition Era acceptance versus that of the 1950s, it isn’t so. “It’s not just that they were visible, but that popular culture and newspapers at the time remarked on their visibility—everyone knew that they were visible,” says Heap.
Even smaller towns included news stories about female impersonators and drag entertainment. Many African American newspapers, from Harlem, the Pittsburg Courier, and the Baltimore African American had news about drag events on the front page.
Some of the most iconic venues in New York City—like the Savoy, the Rockland Palace in Harlem, the Astor Hotel, and Madison Square Garden—held glamorous beauty contests and performances by drag kings and queens. Thousands of men and women met at these clubs and theaters as a safe space to dress how they wanted, and find friends, lovers and partners.
Drag queens danced, musicians sang songs like “Masculine Women, Feminine Men” in clubs, and lesbians went out to dances dressed to the nines—be it in dresses or tuxes, with many famous blues songs with lyrics talking about female relationships sung by queer women of the time. A popular song called “Boy in the Boat” (a euphemism for a clitoris) says:
“When you see two women walking hand in hand. Just look ‘em over and try to understand. They’ll go to these parties have their lights down low. Only those parties where women can go.”
Men who dressed as women were often called “pansies”, while women who dressed as men were “bull-daggers” or “bull-dikers.” Chauncey notes in his book that drag performers were “likely to be presented to thousands of spectators, many of whom traveled from other cities, in some of the best-known ballrooms of the city.” Coming out was an initiation into the world of men in sequined dresses and women in white tuxes for drag performers.
In the early 1930s drag king Gladys “Fatso” Bentley played piano and sang amazingly lewd songs and parodies using blues music and popular showtunes. Openly bisexual, Bentley often wore a white tux, a hat, and played up a “bull-diker” image with male impersonation during her act. Garber writes that Harry Hansberry’s Clam House “featured Gladys Bentley, a 250-pound, masculine, dark skinned lesbian, who performed all night long in a white tuxedo and top hat. Bentley, a talented pianist with a magnificent, growling voice.” Famous blues singers Ethel Waters, Ma Rainey and Lucille Bogan were also lesbian or bi performers at the time Bogan’s song B.D. (Bull Dagger) Women Blues sings:
“B.D. women, they all done learnt their plan
They can lay their jive just like a natural man
B.D. women, B.D. women, you know they sure is rough
They all drink up plenty whiskey and they sure will strut their stuff”
Drag queen Francis Renault, who got his start on the Vaudeville circuit, tended to impersonate high-society women and famous historic figures, and eventually opened a club after his own name in Atlantic City. Phil Black often passed as female while dressed in drag, pulling a more conventional female look. Harry S. Franklin wore cloche hats and fur capes over his beaded dresses, with the typical thin brows and dark lips that were in vogue. At one point, drag queen Gene Malin was the highest-paid nightclub entertainer in New York.
Rather than curtail the supposed moral decay of the American people, Prohibition played a huge part in making all these fantastic parties happen. Alcohol brought people together, but Prohibition gathered them in new combinations. The Harlem Renaissance was in full effect, and white LGBTQ people found out about the clubs and societies among Harlem’s black LGBTQ performers, frequented these parties, and often became part of them. Suddenly, when everyone was on the search for newly illegal alcohol, black and white gay and lesbian life came into contact with one another and dominant society.
And for a while, dominant society loved it.
The Rockland Palace’s Hamilton Lodge could hold up to 6,000 people—and it was often packed for its annual Masquerade ball and frequent drag shows. With probably the best tabloid headline ever written, “FAG BALLS EXPOSED. 6,000 CROWD HUGE HALL AS QUEER MEN AND WOMEN DANCE.” The Vanderbilts, the Astors, and others from high society often came to watch.
These drag balls, in some form, may have come from masquerade balls combined with gay nightlife of the late 1800s. “By the 1890s there were a number of dance halls and entertainment venues in the Bowery area that had what we would now call drag entertainment,” Heap explains. While the Hamilton Lodge Ball may have begun in the 1860s or s, it probably didn’t gain a predominantly gay and lesbian presence until the 1920s. By the mid-30s, it was the largest annual ball held in New York, attracting spectators who were gay, lesbian, straight, black and white all at once.
In the clubs of Greenwich Village, the bohemian, artistic stereotype often gave cover for LGBTQ people, as did the theater district of Times Square as outsiders, artists and theater-workers were a little more open-minded to what the dominant society believed were “deviants.” Chauncey writes that even “the most “obvious” gay men stood out less in Times Square.”
An advertisement for Francis Renault at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. (Photo: Courtesy BAM Hamm Archives)
During the Pansy Craze, the phrase “coming out”, when someone in the LGBTQ community tells larger society of their gender or sexual identity, had a different use than it does today. In the s and early s, coming out had to do with making a debut into the gay and lesbian world, and was derived from when wealthy women would “come out” formally into high society. Steven Watson in his book The Harlem Renaissance quotes Richard Bruce Nugent saying, ”You didn’t get on the rooftop and shout, ‘I fucked my wife last night.’ So why would you get on the roof and say ‘I loved prick.’ You didn’t. You just did what you wanted to do. Nobody was in the closet. There wasn’t any closet.”
Still, LGBTQ men and women were sometimes living double lives, hiding their identities from their coworkers or engaging in “lavender marriages” legal marriages for the purpose of a “cover” (though some may have also been marriages of bisexual couples). Queer men and women who didn’t live publicly as a pansy or a bulldagger didn’t necessarily “identify” as anything in particular, even if they acted on their desires and had same-sex partners.
“They didn’t see a conflict between not being openly gay at work and sort of only being gay during their leisure time,” says Heap, adding that a person’s class was likely indicative of how you might participate in gay and lesbian culture at the time. “These were moments when working class gay men and women could more freely explore their sexuality, desires, and interests in cross dressing, but probably no doctor or lawyer is going to dress up in drag at these events, out of risk of being exposed.” Most middle and upper class gay men and lesbians sat in the upper booths at drag events among straight people, using the popularity as a cover.
There may not have been an official closet, but as indicated by the famous Stonewall riots of the s just a few decades later, the toleration of the community didn’t continue forever. Sodomy laws that had been updated in 1923 were enforced heartily, and in the s the cultural reactionary force against visible LGBTQ identities was strong. Sex-crime panic grew, and gay men and lesbians were seen as dangerous to society. Prohibition was repealed, and the New York State Liquor laws were updated to serve alcohol only in places that were “orderly”, which didn’t apparently include gay and lesbian nightclubs.
Women dressed for a drag ball at Webster Ball. (Photo: Public Domain)
“To use the modern idiom,” Chauncey writes, “the state built a closet in the 1930s and forced gay people to hide in it.” In the mid s, production codes were put into effect that restricted and prevented performances of openly gay characters in film or in theater, and in the following decades, thousands of LGBTQ people were arrested post WWII for frequenting their own clubs. Drag balls continued, with each new generation of drag performers seemingly picking up the torch as needed. Often in a smaller, more segregated form, the impetus for large groups of people to flock to one location to watch drag performances disappeared, taking much of the history of the pansy and lesbian craze performances with it.
The Pansy and Lesbian craze of the 1920s was influential, and almost surprisingly open to LGBTQ activities to the modern eye, but when presented with the information about the popularity of drag balls of the time, it’s unbelievable that knowledge of them had almost been forgotten completely. It wasn’t until the 1970s and 80s that historians examined this part of gay and lesbian life.
Now, among drag queens and kings around the country, and the roaring popularity of Ru Paul’s Drag Race, the seeds of costume and performance and identity and oppression and celebration seem more rooted than ever in the pansies and bull daggers of the early s and s. “It’s not just that there’s the moment in time that’s been forgotten, but how visible, how integrated into American nightlife, and how popular this form of entertainment was,” says Heap. “There was this new moment of possibility and flowering of nightlife that had been spectacularly forgotten.”
1969: A Borderline Case
To hear mid-20th century U.S. lawmakers tell it, marijuana is a Mexican drug. The term "marijuana" was a Mexican slang term (etymology uncertain) for cannabis, and the proposal to enact a ban during the 1930s was wrapped up in racist anti-Mexican rhetoric.
So when the Nixon administration looked for ways to block the import of marijuana from Mexico, it took the advice of radical nativists: close the border. Operation Intercept imposed strict, punitive searches of traffic along on the U.S.-Mexican border in an effort to force Mexico to crack down on marijuana. The civil liberties implications of this policy are obvious, and it was an unmitigated foreign policy failure, but it demonstrated how far the Nixon administration was prepared to go.
1. Edenton, North Carolina Tea Party 1774
European immigrants settled Edenton, North Carolina in the late seventeenth century. In 1722, the King&rsquos appointed governor made Edenton his home, thus making the small town the capital of the Province of North Carolina until 1743. During those years, the town&rsquos population, and importance as a seaport increased. Situated at the mouth of the Chowan River and the Albemarle Sound, Edenton is connected to the backcountry of Virginia and the shipping routes of the Atlantic Ocean.
Merchants shipped tea, wine, sugar, and many other goods into Edenton. Great Britain had passed laws that prohibited the sale of any goods in America that were not produced in England or shipped via British vessels. Any goods made in America such as muskets, knives, or furniture, had to be shipped to England. Selling those goods directly to a neighbor, for example, would be in direct defiance of the King. As such, Americans made goods, but they were not allowed to sell them without approval from British officials.
In the aftermath of the Seven Years War, known as the French-Indian War in America, the King and Parliament began passing tax proclamations. All British colonies, including America, were to pay coinage to pay down war debts and to fund new fort construction. When Great Britain won new frontier territory from France, old French fortifications had to be staffed and new forts built to ensure the proper protection of British colonists living along the frontier.
As taxes were levied on goods, American colonists attempted to air their grievances with British officials. When their numerous requests for an audience were denied or ignored, colonists began to boycott all British-made and British-shipped goods. This was an enormous act of defiance considering Americans were forbidden to sell the goods they made unless they were shipped form England.
Throughout the British Colonies, Patriots began boycotting goods. Shops operated by British merchants were targeted as shameful places to purchase British-shipped wine and fabric. People that shopped at these stores were later targeted as traitors to the patriot cause some were even tarred and feathered. Women supportive of the anti-tax movement began spinning their own fabric and making homespun clothing instead of purchasing fabric imported by the British.
Anti-British fervor was rising in the small town of Edenton. Inspired by the defiance of the Sons of Liberty in Boston, fifty-one women met in the parlor of Penelope Baker on October 25,1774. The women signed a petition stating that they would never purchase tea or other British-imported goods &ldquountil such time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.&rdquo In January 1775, the British press printed the women&rsquos petition along with their names. They were vilified with satirical cartoons that painted them as being neglectful of their children, lacking obedience, and as being puppets of men.
The Edenton Tea Party was the first known anti-British movement in the colonies organized solely by women. Each woman that signed the petition could have been tried for treason and hung as they were in direct defiance of the King. Throughout the colonies, the Edenton women became a symbol of American defiance and influenced the formation of many other anti-British organizations that ultimately contributed to the successful break from colonial rule.
The rise and fall of lawn darts
There are a lot of dangerous children's toys from previous decades, from Sky Dancers to Moon Shoes, but one particularly perilous game stands apart from the rest: lawn darts.
If you're unfamiliar with lawn darts, or Jarts as they're sometimes known, it was a game developed in the mid-20th century, in which weighted spikes were tossed into the air with the hopes of landing in a plastic circle placed some paces away. It was essentially the same game as horseshoes or cornhole, only with metal spikes raining down from the sky instead of bean bags.
If you've never played the game, there's a good reason. Lawn darts were banned in America by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1988 for the severe danger that they presented. This ban had to be reissued in 1997 and people were urged to destroy the game.
Lawn darts weren't the brainchild of the 1950s. In fact, they have a much older history that definitely foreshadowed their violent implications.
The roots of lawn darts don't come from the popular bar game they're named after, instead their history can be found in an ancient Greet and Roman war weapon called a plumbata. Thought to have originated around 500 BCE, plumbata were basically the same thing as lawn darts: weighted spikes thrown from a distance with the intention of landing somewhere soft. They were even thrown in the same way. Needless to say, the ancient Romans weren't aiming for a plastic circle.
Despite being a literal weapon of war, toy manufacturers believed that they would make an excellent family lawn game and began production of them in the 1950s.
It didn't take long before the dark side of lawn darts reared its ugly, pierced head.
Lawn dart injuries happened – often – over the next few decades. The danger became so apparent that the Consumer Product Safety Commission first banned them in 1970. The manufacturers challenged the ban and a compromise was reached wherein lawn darts could no longer be marketed or sold as toys or in toy stores.
The Commission ruled that every pack must contain the following warning: "Not a toy for use by children. May cause serious of [sic] fatal injury. Read instructions carefully. Keep out of reach of children."
Unfortunately, this did little to stem the tide of injuries, and the more information that came out, the worse the picture appeared.
The father of a 7-year-old girl who died in a lawn dart accident, David Snow, made it his mission to get the game banned. He launched a lobbying campaign, appealing to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to re-evaluate the injuries and deaths caused by lawn darts. The Commission, it turned out had misidentified how many injuries lawn darts had caused and had to update its statistics. According to Mental Floss, the commission believed there had only been a few dozen injuries. The reality was much worse.
"From January, 1978 to December 1986 lawn darts were responsible for an estimated 6,100 hospital emergency-room treated injuries," the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported. "Approximately 81 percent of the victims were under 15 years old, and 50 percent were under the age of 10."
Lawn darts had also killed two other children: a 4-year-old, and a 13-year-old.
In 1988, the Commission voted to ban lawn darts sales completely.
But that's not the end of the story. Though they appear to be sold out now, at least one company skirted the ban by selling lawn dart components online. Subcultures also exist who revel in their forbidden lawn game. And then you have people like my parents, who probably never saw or heard of the ban at all, and allowed me and my sister to play with our set until well into the 1990s.
If there's a lesson to be learned from all of this, it should be that toys and relaxing lawn games shouldn't be made out of actual weapons of war.
SOCI 380 Exam 2
Only the Netherlands and Belgium permit euthanasia for patients under the age of 18.
Netherlands, a competent patient between the ages of 16 and 18 may request euthanasia or assisted suicide. The parent or guardian does not have a veto, but must be consulted. Competent patients aged between 12 and 16 may also qualify, but only if their parent or guardian consents
The most recent survey of doctors in the UK was in 2007-08. The rate of euthanasia was reported to be 0.21% of all deaths, and a similar rate has been reported in France (in 2009), even though euthanasia remains illegal in both countries.
—a condition created by rapid medical technological development and relatively static definitions of biological life and death.
In contrast, legislators and biomedical researchers have now designed an emergency system in which care providers are required to save lives whenever medically indicated
major reason for people to think seriously about death was in part eliminated. Death began to be treated as an occurrence of old age, an idea that encouraged people to postpone or preempt preparation for death.
In hospitals, ethical behavior is usually based on the codification of moral principles by an occupational group and may reflect the group's long-range self-interest in its image as a servant of the community.
the presence of bioethicists in medical institutions leads to an affinity between bioethicists and other professionals there
example, in 2008 a total of 27, 958 organ transplant procedures were performed in the United States, the over- whelming majority coming from deceased organ donors (78 percent), with the others coming from living donors ( New York Organ Donor Network, 2009
The lack of a legal definition of death in some states prevents surgeons from removing healthy organs when brain activity has stopped but the heart and lungs are still functioning.
there is great resistance to human organ transplantation, deriving from Japan's equivocal position as a society that on the one hand seeks to break free from religious and traditional forms, but at the same time is suspicious of the wholesale importing of Western approaches to matters of life and death, observed Seale.
Japan, only one heart transplant had ever been performed before 1995, and the doctor responsible was prosecuted for murder
Prior to the development of formal federal regulations, organs were generally distributed in local areas first, even if there were sicker patients elsewhere. Later federal regulation mandated a set of performance goals for organ allocation, generally emphasizing patients' medical urgency over local matching.
One definition of suicide is a death arising from an act inflicted upon oneself with the intent to kill oneself (Andriessen, 2006). Most definitions share self-initiation, behavior with a fatal outcome, and intention or expectation to die.
Well into the 19th century, taking one's own life was still considered a grievous sin, but by the mid- 20th century the taboo had lost some of its religious undertone.
suicide corpses were regularly mutilated to prevent the unleashing of evil spirits.
Suicides were denied burials in church cemeteries.
The property of the suicide victims' families was confiscated and put into the control of local agents, and these families were excommunicated from the community.
The traditional idea in the United States is that the only legally, ethically, and morally correct response to suicide is intervention, with such ethical codes being found in many helping professions and their organizations
"What are the rules and regulations?" he or she may ask. An individual is unemployed at age 45 for the first time in her or his life and does not know where to begin in order to start over,
Many current studies found that belonging to a certain religion showed a protective effect against suicide, as did the level of religious commitment and church attendance.
Other studies, reported by Colucci and Martin, have shown that the association between religion and suicide is influenced by other variables, thus weakening the overall association between religion and suicide.
Durkheim stated that strong social networks formed in religious communities may decrease a person's risk of suicide by increasing the individual's social support (Robins & Fiske, 2009). He theorized that social integration offered protection against suicidal tendencies and conceptualized religious involvement as a form of social integration.
He argued that individuals are less likely to commit suicide when they are bound to social groups and thus to group values, goals, norms, and traditions.
A Statistics Canada report released in January found that more than one in five off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit adults reported having suicidal thoughts at some point in their lives.
the dramaturgical perspective uses the metaphor of drama or action to explain behavior. Rather than asking questions to find out about the motivations of the individual who committed suicide, someone using the dramaturgical approach would observe events related to the suicide.
They would attempt to find the meaning of the suicide in these actions, not in interviews with the survivors.
the dramaturgical analyst emphasizes action, the symbolic interaction emphasizes intention.
acknowledges that human existence is finite and that we all must face death. One must assume responsibility for his or her own actions and moral choices. This anticipation of death affects daily actions, bringing about an understanding of how death and life are linked.
As adults, we prefer to believe that children do not commit suicide, likely thinking that childhood is a carefree, happy time. As with many other suicides, child suicides are easily mistaken for accidents.
behavior often occurs in the context of a family conflict, sometimes striving for autonomy, or in the context of academic and disciplinary problems, or as a result of disruptions in peer relationships, which increase in significance as youth get older. A noticeable shift in suicide rate occurs at age 15 when it increases dramatically.
Accidents and homicides are viewed by many individuals as disguised suicides. Many drug overdoses, fatal automobile accidents, and related self-destructive food and alcohol disorders are probably uncounted teen suicides. Thus, the total number of adolescent suicides may be greater than actually reported.
EXPLAINING ADOLESCENT SUICIDE Sociological and psychological studies have indicated that both contextual factors (e.g., social disorganization, lack of family support, and poor peer relationships) and individual-level predictors (e.g., depression, emotionality, and impulsivity) are associated with suicide, suicide attempts, and suicide ideation.
Peer relationships are becoming more important, yet many of the peers in a chosen peer group may themselves be troubled, thus increasing the chances of behavioral and emotional difficulties for others.
Mythologies of Tunnels, Quilts and Lawn Jockeys
The popular mythology of the Underground Railroad is filled with stories of tunnels, secret hiding places, quilts and lawn jockeys. Let me be clear on this--there is virtually no evidence for any of these elements in the historical record. We have numerous narratives of the self emancipated and their helpers, and no one actually connected with the Underground Railroad ever mentioned tunnels, quilts (as signals) or cast iron statues. Specially built secret hiding places were so rare as to be almost non-existent. It was much easier to hide people, if secrecy was necessary, in the attic, the spring house, the barn or the field than build a hidey-hole. However, my major concern is that this fascination with the mechanisms of the Underground Railroad distracts from understanding the networks that made escape possible.
When Thomas Mitchell's neighbors set off to rescue him from the slave catchers they used the existing Underground Railroad network. One group went to Wilmington, Delaware to alert Thomas Garrett, who telegraphed John Needles in Baltimore to go to the train station to wait for the kidnappers. Needles and Garrett were in touch with anti-slavery Quakers from Virginia to New York and beyond.
The Home Office’s treatment of the Windrush Generation is still nothing less than a national scandal, but the lives of my grandparents’ generation were not all enveloped in trauma. What should have been an uncontroversial move, changed Britain forever. They planted roots and their contributions to British culture and life have been immeasurable. In addition to colonial histories in the Caribbean, I was also told stories by relatives about Lovers Rock and blues dances of the 1970s and 1980s, as represented in Steve McQueen’s Small Axe film. That despite hostility from police to Black communties, I grew up learning the value of education and community organising and despite the continued racism against Black British people today, my Windrush family friends and relatives continue to pave the way to keep us moving forward.