Talk:Canada–United States relations
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canada–United States relations article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 180 days may be archived by.|
- 1 Statement on Environmental Issues
- 2 Northwest Passage
- 3 Fears of being overwhelmed & Advocators of Unification
- 4 Plagiarism in Military and Security section?
- 5 "Fears of Being Overwhelmed" -- In the Intro??
- 6 It's Just Getting Worse.
- 7 References
- 8 anti-Canadianism
- 9 Another ref
- 10 Mingling of Peoples and Mormons
Statement on Environmental Issues
"The Canadian government places a higher premium on energy and the environment than the U.S. government."
This is a totally biased statement. While I may agree with it, I don't think it's appropriate for an encylopedia article. It should be deleted to for NPOV purposes.
The article claims Canadians were "incensed" over the Manhattan navigating the Northwest passage but the article on the Northwest passage claims:
"In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker John A. Macdonald."
Fears of being overwhelmed & Advocators of Unification
in the top section where it is mentioned that there are fears in canada "to be ultimately be overwhelmed" among some canadians/students (my personal perception and experience is that that has happened long ago already anyway) and a name is cited, i have added that there are also voices active in canada who openly and very actively (increasingly so in recent times) advocate a unification, naming one of the most prominent and broadly known in that field (Mr. Les Horswill). for source i have added a link to an extensive interview about that topic, it is on youtube and i hope this is an accepted link this time knowing that youtube contributions may not be valid otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
hmm i have provided my entry with several different links to it, yet it has always been deleted, i guess canada will be annexed either way :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, while the article statement is cited, it seems poorly representative of actual (or at least current) Canadian attitude where the topic could hardly be called a "fear", much less a "thing" at all, and if when it is a "thing" it seems the viewpoint is the opposite, preferring to discuss unification in a positive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Plagiarism in Military and Security section?
The first 4 sentences of the second paragraph under the Military and Security section are nearly a word for word copy of a paragraph appearing on the U.S. Department of State website page at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm#relations.
State department text:
U.S. defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country. The Permanent Joint Board on Defense, established in 1940, provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defense matters and the United States and Canada share NATO mutual security commitments. In addition, U.S. and Canadian military forces have cooperated since 1958 on continental air defense within the framework of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
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).
While the article does cite the specific State Dept's website page as a source, I don't think that authors are supposed to copy original text directly and change a couple of words - assuming the State Dept's text IS the original. It is possible that the plagiarism has occurred in the opposite direction.
"Fears of Being Overwhelmed" -- In the Intro??
There is still no coherent explanation of why this minority opinion, citing a single demographic of Canadians, reported by an obscure figure ("James Tagg") should belong in the introduction to the article, rather than somewhere else. It is clear POV pushing. For many readers unfamiliar with the subject, it can filter all subsequent material through a biased lens.
I tried to remove this for at least the second time yesterday. The user "rjensen" has already reverted my edits, as he has done before, with an abbreviated explanation that does not make sense to me. Does anyone agree with his opinion that we should keep this bit about the USA overwhelming Canada in the introduction to the article, rather than deleting it, or moving it elsewhere? I suggested the latter originally. I explained all my edits of the article extensively, when I originally made them over a year ago. See Archive 2, "Statements on Culture Clash" for my take on the matter.
Just because there is one reliable source that reflect the facts that some Canadian students think they will be overwhelmed by the USA, it does not mean that this idea belongs in the introduction, especially without a proper counterargument. Furthermore, I feel that if any opinion related to the "overwhelmed" idea is to be cited, it should reflect the wider sentiment of Canadians, which generally seems to be that the USA overshadows Canadian culture on the international stage, but it does not "overwhelm" it in the sense that it will be destroyed. The part about how sovereignty is threatened makes the opinion a relatively extreme one. I cannot find reliable evidence that any significant minority of people think this way. At the least, more sources need to be cited. The common heritage of USA and Canadian need to be considered, of course, because the two countries have always shared a number of culture elements.
Any contributing editors of this article, please let me know your thoughts. I have no problem mentioning the James Tagg study, but it does not belong in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Culture is hard to define in any community, and is intrinsically much more a matter of POV than hard fact. Before you can even begin to discuss culture clash you need to be able to define the differences between "American culture" and "Canadian culture, and then proceed with defining how one has affected the other and in what way this is detrimental to either. Such a topic could well become a target of considerable POV venting rather than fact based analysis. Perhaps such discussion would be better suited to a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It's Just Getting Worse.
The POV pushing and bias in this article, continuing on my post above ("Fears of Being Overwhelmed" -- In the Intro??") is just getting WORSE. I know that on Wikipedia we are all meant to have respect for one another and our opinions, but honestly, who the heck is editing this thing? Now, in the introduction to the article, we not only have a one-sided story, but we now have the citizens of Canada being referred to as the "cultural corrective" of Americans. How is this not blatantly biased? I understand it's referring to Canadians (possible) perceptions of themselves, but it still only tells one side of the story. A few people have said this is a legitimate issue, but after scouring over Google, I barely even see buzz about it, yet alone legitimate concerns that belong in the introduction of an article. Would someone please comment on this, or perhaps change it? This article reads as though it's been written with an unsubstantiated anti-American tone. Because there is a particular user that constantly reverts my edits, I hesitate to change it myself, but will do so if I do not get any responses to this post.
And, once again, we have an obscure writer, "Jennifer MacLennan", quoted in the introduction. This is just like "James Tagg". Whoever is writing this, please remember: this is meant to be a public encyclopedia, not a college essay, and we should not give credit to almost unheard of scholars as though what they say is monumentally important. It creates a bad filter for the article and is misinforming a lot of people. I understand she may be an accomplished professor, but to plainly say her name as though we are supposed to know who she is, creates a distraction from the fact that what she is saying is a minority opinion. It's really no different than the idea that Canadians fear there sovereignty will be overwhelmed by the USA, which is a tiny minority opinion. The source quotes only a small group of Canadian students, written by a single author, and there is little support elsewhere on the web.
I am going to quote again the Wikipedia rules of neutrality:
Wiki Rule of Neutrality: "Accurately indicate the RELATIVE PROMINENCE of OPPOSING VIEWS. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately REFLECTS THE RELATIVE LEVELS OF SUPPORT FOR THESE VIEWS, and that it does not give a FALSE IMPRESSION of parity, or give UNDUE WEIGHT to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but DAVID IRVING disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent PARITY between the SUPERMAJORITY view and a TINY MINORITY VIEW by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
- Anon wants parity with his own personal POV--he has been unable to cite any reliable sources that support his views. Wiki articles are based on reliable secondary sources, as in journals and major books. Take a look at Yankee Go Home: Canadians and Anti-Americanism by a leading Canadian historian J.L. Granatstein (1997). Also look at biographies of Trudeau, when the phenomenon reached a peak. As for using google-- ok here are 7000 google-scholar citations from books on the subject of Canadian anti-Americanism: these are all found on the first two pages of first 20 titles in a Google book search, and all appear in reliable secondary sources. (1) "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." (2) "More than anything else, Diefenbaker became the tragic victim of Canadian anti-Americanism, a sentiment the prime minister had fully embraced by 1962." (3--page 2 of listing) "In its most extreme form, Canadian suspicion of the United States has led to outbreaks of overt anti-Americanism, usually spilling over against Americans resident in Canada." (4) "In no respect is this defensive posture more salient than in Canadian anti-Americanism. " (5) "The adjective “anti-American” is bandied about very readily by Canadian mini-cons and theocons" (6) [from The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics 2010] "anti-Americanism is deeply ingrained in Canadian society"; (7) "Despite the magnitude of Canadian trade with the United States, there remains a reflexive anti-Americanism among many" and (8) "But at the heart of Canadian anti-Americanism lies a cultural bitterness that takes an American expatriate unawares. Canadians fear the American media's influence on their culture and talk critically about how Americans are exporting ..." etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Response: Obviously there is some anti-Americanism in Canada. This means nothing, necessarily, with regards to the structure of this article. I was referring to the specific idea that Canadian students fear their sovereignty will be overwhelmed, or that Canadians consider themselves cultural correctives to Americans. And I asked for another side of the story, and questioned how big of a deal this was to put in the introduction. Your response here is confusing. As far as "citing my sources", I am questioning your views and whether they belong in the article, not making additions to the article. Several of your quotes are very weak examples... many countries could claim anti-Americanism on the basis of involvement in the Middle-East... that doesn't mean it's a relevant enough addition to put into the INTRODUCTION of an article on one of the most trafficked websites in the world, that is meant to specifically talk about the MAJOR issues between two specific countries.
As far as your sources go, you did not comment on the obscurity of them. You have still not properly defended James Tagg (yes, that was me who removed that a year ago). I don't see why you get to just dub a source "reliable", when I thoroughly explained why I determined it "unreliable" (or, rather, inappropriate to add). I read that source, left you detailed comments, and you said something like "Don't POV push" and reverted my edits. You are not making an argument here. (re: Culture Clash in Archive 2)
Again, there are two sides to every story. Please try to tell both if you are going to edit this article. Many Canadians would laugh at the idea that the USA causes a "profound fear" that their sovereignty will be overwhelmed (and why do students' opinions have so much weight, by the way?). But there likely won't be many sources to support this, because the initial premise-- that it even might be the case-- is so rare that such sources wouldn't exist for a counter argument. Nevertheless, I'll take a look...
One last time... this is about obscurity clouding neutrality, and onesidedness breaching neutrality. I am not trying to say that what you're saying is not true at all. I'm sure it is true the the extent that it is. But how much is that? The points in question fall so far below the relevance required to be in the introduction to an article, that they should be immediately moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- we edit Wikipedia using reliable sources. I have cited a dozen including famous Canadian historians (Bumsted and Granatstein), and the critic has not found a single source that supports his position. He has not indeed clearly stated his position, but I think he's arguing that evidence of anti-Americanism should be suppressed because it's an unhappy topic. The critic lives in Los Angeles, so perhaps he wants to protect the local movie-TV industry which Canadians say is too violent. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Picking on my location is very obvious evidence of how blatant your POV pushing is. That seemed like a discriminatory comment. I was trying to be tactful about this, and that was completely uncalled for. Referring to me as a "critic" is equally uncalled for, and condescending. You have cited a dozen famous Canadians? No you haven't. Do you even read the comments you respond to? I am talking about the INTRODUCTION of the article, NOT whatever section of the article has these sources you speak of. I mentioned, by name, both sources I was challenging, and their placement in the article. You have once against ignored this, and ignored my argument against their obscurity. My "position" is that your position belongs elsewhere in the article, or should be removed. It is inappropriate if left as is. An introduction is meant to highlight the MOST MAJOR of concerns. I don't understand this constant use of the word "suppression" from you. I have said a number of times that it would be fine if you moved these points to their own section.
We edit Wikipedia using reliable sources. Obscure sources in introductions are clear violations of the neutrality conduct expected of editors on this site. You need to support the specific sources and placement I am challenging. It is very difficult to include sources to challenge yours because, again, I am talking about their obscurity with regards to their specific points, i.e. what you quote from them. My issue here is these specific sources and their relevance. I guess I just have to keep saying this. It's not like your saying Canadians hate America and I'm saying Canadians love America. I'm saying you can't tell a one-sided story. Tell both sides or mention it later on, but the introduction to an article is an important filter for a reader and a lot of people read what's written here. It's very important we work these matters out. I don't care if you think a source is "reliable" that supports your points, it still doesn't mean that source is reliable with regards to their RELEVANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- unsigned simply has not cited any reliable sources, and he does not even live in Canada. So why depend on his credibility? But in any case his POV is useless because of the Wikipedia rules requiring RS, of which I have provided a dozen and given links to thousands of books at first 20 titles in a Google book search For example, the The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics (2010) p 391 says "anti-Americanism is deeply ingrained in Canadian society"...is that an obscure source? is that not relevant? Please read Granatstein's book. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer you don't even respond to this if you don't have time to read what I write. I was referring to Tagg and quotations in the introduction to the article. I have said this over and over and pointed out that I have said this over and over. You are completely ignoring my argument and looking for a back door. I openly admitted that there was obviously some anti-Americanism in Canada and you have ignored that as well. I don't know what sort of source I could possibly cite to prove that yours is obscure. What we're talking about here is the relative weight of your the POV of your sources in the intro, re: 'profound fears' and 'cultural correctives'. This involves observation of politics, buzz, news articles, etc., as well as prominence in the media. The introduction of an article is for captioning major issues.
"And he does not even live in Canada". Wow, you don't even try to hide your bias, do you? Why do I need to live in Canada? I can't think of a more obvious way of you admitting that you are forcing a Canadian POV (albeit a minority POV) into this article (though I have no clue if you're Canadian yourself). Where I live has absolutely no bearing on the structure or credibility of this article. I have asked you to defend two specific sources and their placement in the introduction of the article. You have now responded 3+ times and completely disregarded this argument. You are operating under the belief that the only way to prove your sources are obscure is to do so with other sources, which wouldn't likely exist for combating obscure arguments. And you've ignored my complaint about your discriminatory attitude and gone on further, but that's fine. But you cannot disregard a person's argument because of their location.
You either have no idea what I'm saying or you're choosing to brush off what I'm saying to push your own POV. Wikipedia's rules requiring RS are not free of Wikipedia's rules of neutrality, of which you are in violation. But let me know if you genuinely believe something I am saying unclear. There is no need to be disrespectful over such a small and contained argument. I haven't reverted the article back to the version that it should be, because I didn't want to be disrespectful to you, especially because I generally yield to someone with such a strong education. But you have not supported your position against my challenges at all. It's like you're arguing against something I'm not even mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please explain to me where I would cite a source when removing content on the basis that it does not have enough weight to be in the introduction, or why I would need to cite a source if I moved your introduction comments to a section later in the article. "Californian kid"? You're way out of line. You have not supported your sources and their placement, which was the only real issue at hand here. You're trying to change the subject by acting as though there is going to be a source that says "Canadian students do NOT have a profound fear..." when your original sources were too obscure for such sources to exist. I don't see why you have any right to edit this article with this dismissive attitude you employ. And I don't see how reading Canadian history has anything to do with the RELEVANCE of putting these points in the introduction to the article, but once again, I'm wasting my words, you're not listening to anything I'm saying.
Of course, if I was ADDING to the article, I would automatically cite a source, but not all instances of removing content neccessitate sources, especially when the issue is a challenge to a sources obscurity, re: Wikipedia Rules of Neutrality.
- anon thinks he knows the Canadian mind, but does not live in canada and does not read (or cite) books or other RS on Canada. When confronted with multiple sources that can be (partly) read online he ignores them. deleting sourced material violates the WP:NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
RJensen blatantly ignores everything I'm saying. I told you specifically that I read the Tagg source a year ago and I repeated that today. I had plenty of justification for removing that quotation from Tagg. You have glossed over everything I have written today. "Knowing the Canadian mind" is a very vague concept and has very little to do with the relevance and weight of your points in the overall spectrum of the relationships between the USA and Canada, and their placement in the introduction of article. You are very quick to dismiss me as a "Californian kid", which is probably WP misconduct. You are clearly POV pushing and making major issues out of minor issues. Your defense of your points is highly presumptuous. You need to defend why the two sources mentioned in the introduction belong at the beginning of this article as opposed to being entirely contained in the "anti-Americanism" section which is a much more appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This is "anon" logged in. The only issue at hand here is the weight and relative prominence of your sources. That means the challenge is to the placement and relevance of your sources, particularly Tagg. This has nothing to do with my sources, it's a structural issue regarding weight. I understand that there is anti-Americanism in Canada and that there are sources to support that. It still doesn't mean that citing those sources elsewhere justifies the claims of "profound fear" and "cultural correctives" going into the introduction of an article, which are highly specific.
Quote from Tagg:
"Complicating these "anti" emotions is a still more profound yet not always well articulated fear that Canadian culture, and likely Canadian sovereignty, will be overwhelmed by a United States too ignorant and too uninterested to even notice the consequences of their actions."
"NOT ALWAYS WELL ARTICULATED". Read that again and ask yourself if Tagg would agree that this "profound fear" is a big enough issue to, say, go into the introduction of an article on US-Canadian relations. It doesn't even bother me that Tagg does not cite a source for this claim, like he does nearly everything else in the article, because it's a very measured statement and in direct conflict, placement wise, with what you've done in this article. Please move the claim from the introduction and put it elsewhere.
I was asked to take a look at this situation. First we must all keep in mind civility is paramount in moving conversations forward (I myself sometimes have a problem with this main point). I see some undue weight in the article and what looks like some original research here on the talk page since no sources have been provided. Both sides are making good points but but only one is providing sources for there point - I believe this is simply a lack of understanding Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I do agree that there is a bit much on anti American statement. It is correct information but its presented as a real social problem. I would say the lead is a bit overwhelmed - however removal is not the answer - addition of a counter point(s) would be best I think. The article should mention more clearly that the culture clash has influenced legislation like CRTC content in more detail. Were it should also mention how Canadian laws such as " publicly funded health care, higher taxation to distribute wealth, outlawing capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, an emphasis on multiculturalism, stricter gun control, and legalization of same-sex marriage are very different thus showing a vast cultural separation that has evolved. This would all be related to how Canadians view how they are different and have laws that are NON America in nature and are not in danger of being Americanized any time soon.... unlike Canadian media that we here in Canada (and most of Europe aswell) try to help and protect from outside influences. Anti Americanism is not dominate for the average Canadian resulting in limited outcry or media coverage. Tat is not to say its not been a concern for the Government as a whole.Michael Strangelove (2005). The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Capitalist Movement. University of Toronto Press. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-8020-3818-0. Moxy (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I really appreciate this response. I agree with most of what you said, though I'm still confused as to how one could bring in sources to prove the relative obscurity of other sources. It seems like proving the argument against their usage in the introduction would actually require a lack of sources that assert the points in question (other than those challenged). Your suggestions are very good and the point about the difference between Canadian and American laws would be particularly effective. But I'm not sure the sources in question belong in the introduction and not in the anti-Americanism section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M5500 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I was not clear - what should happen is mention perhaps even a section to balance it all out stating - showing - Canadian support and admiration for Americans and there culture. This is were sources would have to be obtained. They do not need to contradicted persay the other material - but simply show another side/view point. Like how many Canadians have participated (joined the American army) in conflicts, despite official or neutral position by the Canadian Government to no join the conflicts.Moxy (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Journal of Academic and Business Ethics
What Canadians fear is called cultural encroachment. It is not an overwhelming fear. Rather, it is a belief that, if left unchecked, American influence will encroach upon Canadian culture. Canadians have taken steps to protect themselves, such as levying tariffs on Time Warner to protect Canadian Broadcast and publication rights. See the following lengthy passage from the source I found:
- "For the purpose of this study, cultural encroachment is defined by the level at which managers within NAFTA countries perceive the advancement of external business cultures to be unacceptable as to influencing sustainable business endeavors within their country’s borders. For example, the fear of cultural encroachment has been a concern for Canadians for some time and has influenced various regulations. Canadians have feared being overwhelmed by the much larger United States’ (US) culture. The US is ten times the size of Canada in population and gross domestic product. Thus, the Canadian population’s strong sense of identity is believed to have lead to engagement in cultural protectionism. For example, the Canadian government believed that Time Warner, a US firm, was engaging in cultural dumping and thus imposed an excise tax on all foreign magazines sold in Canada that contain less than 80% Canadian facts. The Canadian government utilized formal institutional resources to enacted local content regulations to promote Canadian ownership of several industries specifically film distribution, radio, and television (Fergusson 2008)." 
You must realize, though, that it is NOT specifically the USA that Canadians fear. It is the encroachment of other cultures upon itself. If it were a country south of the border called Anycountry, then Canadians would fear encroachment by Anycountry. This is just as true as if Canada were ten times the population of the USA. Americans would fear cultural encroachment from their northern neighbor. This is not controversial or hard to understand.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- That *IS** specifically American culture encroachment that Canadians fear. This is due to the same reasons given (huge border contact). The States is the only neighbour sharing a border with Canada. Look at the rampant fear of other dominating their economy after the NAFTA agreement. Americans have more culture encroachments in their country to fear due to many borders shared. Canadian (British influence), Mexican, and Cuban via the bridge, but that is a horse, of a different colo(u)r, (a)i(s)n't it? We need to get a more compact accent to identify optional letters if we are going to have common spelling. :) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- it's not so much the geographical closeness, it's the cultural closenesss that is the issue, added to the long-term draw that pulls lots of Canadians to the USA. Hollywood is a major factor not because it's close to Toronto but because movies/TV/music makes a difference. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Doreen Sams, Mohammad Ayub Khan, and Monica Ospina. "Across the great divide: Management, culture, and sustainability across NAFTA region". Retrieved 7 May 2012.
- If you have any reliable data on that topic then please provide it. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
For those who have a little time, The Globe and Mail has an article title Obama ‘jilted’ Canada, leading U.S. journal says that may be used as a ref or to extend the article somewhat. Mindmatrix 19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Mingling of Peoples and Mormons
The Following Statement can use clarification or rewrite, as it is misleading:
- In the 1890s some Mormons went north to form communities in Alberta after the LDS Church rejected plural marriage.
Members of the LDS church began to move to southern Alberta before the LDS declaration in 1890, with the first few people being settled in 1886, resulting in the establishment of Cardston Alberta. information can be found on the LDS website with a ton of sources  And mention of some Mormons moving to Alberta as early as 1883 
The LDS Church was involved with several different endeavors in Canada, as early as 1830, where people both came to and left Canada influenced by their involvement with the LDS Church. 
Although some members were involved in plural marriage (i.e. Charles Ora Card  ) to have the content written as if it was the sole reason, and then reference a date that happened after people were settled, would be incorrect.
- Marcus Lee Hansen, The Mingling of the Canadian and American Peoples. Vol. 1: Historical (1940); David D. Harvey, Americans in Canada: Migration and Settlement since 1840 (1991)