In this much-acclaimed
book, Anthony DePalma argues that the traditional continental divisions
in North America are fading. Canada and Mexico, though still distinctive,
are becoming more American and the United States is beginning to
pay more attention to its northern and southern neighbours. By the
end of the 20th century North America was more than a geographic
expression; it was becoming an economic, cultural and even political
entity.
DePalma reported from
both ends of the continent in the 1990s. He was the New York
Times foreign correspondent in Mexico City from 1993 to 1996
and in Ottawa from 1996 to 1999. This gave him an unusually good
vantage point during an interesting decade. In 1994, from Mexico,
he reported on the peso crisis and the assassination of Luis Donaldo
Cololosio, who many expected to become the next Mexican president.
He travelled deep into the forests of Chiapas and heard Subcomandante
Marcos address his Zapatista followers. In Canada he reported on
the Nisga'a Treaty, visited the Inuit of Igloolik in the Arctic,
and commented on the aftermath of the sovereignty referendum in
Quebec. Here: A Biography of the New American Continent is
based on such experiences. It is impressively reported and eloquently
written. DePalma has an acute reporter's eye.
The book is the story
of the personal re-education (DePalma uses this term in the preface,
p. xiii) of a journalist who understood little about Mexico and
Canada before he lived there. He reports to Americans on their neighbours
and informs them that the three countries can no longer exist as
islands. In the new global age they have no choice in this matter;
they are stuck with each other. DePalma believes that the United
States, because of its wealth, power and past errors, has a special
obligation as these new realities take shape. The book is an appeal
for Americans to look southward and northward. Canada and Mexico
are vital to the future of the continent. They have great potential
and are interesting, culturally diverse societies. And surely, DePalma
argues, diversity is a virtue in the interdependent world of the
21st century. Here is a book more for Americans than for
Canadians and Mexicans. The author hopes that by reading it the
American public will experience some of the re-education which he
did.
The title of the book
is interesting. DePalma attempts to write the biography of a place,
the new America, which he believes emerged in the 1990s. But, of
course, biography cannot be written without looking back at where
the subject came from. Thus the author reflects extensively on the
histories of Mexico and Canada in light of the critical changes
on the continent which he witnessed. However, the book should not
be read primarily to understand Canadian history. There are over
generalizations, misleading impressions and errors. Are the "thousands
of loyalists" (p. 78) who settled in Canada at the time of
the American Revolution the major explanation for Canadian anti-Americanism
over the next two centuries? Did Eastern Europeans who settled in
the Canadian west bring "socialist ideals with them" (p.
78), which contributed to the development of cooperatives on the
prairies and a national publicly funded medical system? This would
be news to the vast majority of Ukrainians, Poles, Hungarians and
Mennonites who came from Russia and Austria in search of land. Has
Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights made Canada more American? Is
use of the charter to enhance Native treaty claims and gay rights
evidence of "creeping Americanism" (p. 203)? Certainly
many Canadians, and likely most Americans, would question that assumption.
Can the massive Progressive Conservative defeat in 1993 and Brian
Mulroney's personal unpopularity be explained by a backlash against
the Free Trade agreement (p. 50)? This ignores Meech Lake and the
rise of the Reform party in the west, a party that supported free
trade. And surely DePalma's sympathetic treatment of Andy McMechan's
hatred for the Canadian Wheat Board (pp. 204-208) sheds little light
on the differences between Canadians and Americans and even less
on the history of prairie agriculture.
January 1, 1994, the
date NAFTA went into effect, is central to the thesis of the book.
It marked the birth of the new America. DePalma acknowledges that
there was considerable opposition in all three countries. Some people
in the short run were hurt. Others were more marginalized than ever.
Change never occurs without a social cost. But, in the end, the
author argues, the proponents of NAFTA were right, and the agreement
created a new and better continent. He concludes that in the mid-90s
the United States, Mexico and Canada, though still different and
despite continuing tensions, began to focus on what they had in
common and not to accentuate their differences. In the process Mexico
became more democratic, less corrupt and more economically stable;
Canada was less nationalistic, less obsessed with its identity;
and the United States was less insular, more outward looking, more
international. DePalma sees the outcomes of the three almost concurrent
national elections in 2000 as a "manifestation of that continental
conversion" (p. 343) that had begun earlier in the decade.
The winners, George W. Bush, Vincente Fox and Jean Chrétien
strongly supported NAFTA and greater continental cooperation.
DePalma's views are
optimistic, even idealistic. He approvingly refers to Václev
Havel's speech to the Canadian parliament in 1999. The poet-president
of the Czech Republic claimed that the nation state was passing
away and that he foresaw a world in which traditional states would
cede power to international agencies. To Anthony DePalma the new
America is a part of that future. Blurring national differences
will usher in a new and better world.
Possibly this is a prophetic
book, but surely it is too soon to tell. In fact, the events of
the past three years lead one to question its conclusions more than
support them. Large numbers of Mexicans continue to live in desperate
poverty. Opposition to globalization is growing. The Balkans and
Middle East appear to disprove Václav Havel's vision of declining
nationalism. The Iraq War was a disastrous setback to international
cooperation. And certainly the United States, Mexico and Canada
were not a triumvirate against Saddam Hussein! George W. Bush, the
first president during the new North American age, is far less popular
among Canadians than Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy who were
in office when Canada, according to DePalma, spent much of its energy
opposing continental integration and distinguishing itself from
the United States.
Obviously this book is thought provoking and controversial. The
issues it raises should be discussed in all Canadian classrooms.