1 Cited in Seton-Watson, C., Italy from Liberalism to Fascism 1870–1925 (London: Methuen, 1967), 13.Google Scholar

2 Easton, David, “Part Three: The Input of Support,” in his A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965), 151–243Google Scholar; Schermerhom, R. A., Comparative Ethnic Relations: A Framework for Theory and Research (New York: Random House, 1970), 23.Google Scholar For a general discussion of nation-building, see Bendix, Reinhard, Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order (New York: Wiley, 1964)Google Scholar; Deutsch, K. W. and Foltz, W. J. (eds.), Nation-Building (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar; Eisenstadt, S. N. and Rokkan, Stein (eds.), Building States and Nations (Beverley Hills: Sage, 1973)Google Scholar; and Tilly, Charles (ed.), The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).Google Scholar For observations on the difficulties cultural, ethnic, and racial cleavages create for nation-builders, see Geertz, Clifford (ed.), Old Societies and New States (New York: Free Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Enloe, Cynthia H., Ethnic Conflict and Political Development (Boston: Little Brown, 1973)Google Scholar; Hunt, Chester L. and Walker, Lewis, Ethnic Dynamics: Patterns of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies (Homewood: Dorsey Press, 1974)Google Scholar; and Bell, Wendell and Freeman, Walter E. (eds.), Ethnicity and Nation-Building: Comparative, International, and Historical Perspectives (Beverley Hills: Sage, 1974).Google Scholar In investigating the way in which a stable liberal democratic national system was built in the United States, Lipset's, Seymour MartinThe First New Nation: The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective (New York: Anchor Books, 1967)Google Scholar lays much emphasis on the role of its English-speaking, liberally-minded charter group, while Kenneth D. McRae's discussion of the Canadian experience (“Empire, Language, and Nation: The Canadian Case,” in Eisenstadt and Rokkan, Building States and Nations, vol. 2) stresses the difficulties created for nation-builders in that country by the fact that their work had to accommodate the interests of more than one group of national importance.

3 See Bendix, Nation-Building and Citizenship, particularly “The Extension of Citizenship to the Lower Classes,” 74–101.

4 Janowitz, Morris, The Last Half-Century: Societal Change and Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 178Google Scholar.

5 “The available evidence,” argues Seymour Martin Lipset, “suggests that the chances for stable democracy are enhanced to the extent that groups and individuals have a number of crosscutting, politically relevant affiliations” (Political Man: The Social Basis of Politics [Garden City: Anchor Books, 1963], 77)Google ScholarPubMed

6 Indeed, notes a recent observer, national societies are to be “envisaged as systems in which societal allocations are inputs. The inputs pass through the social structure, described in terms of the degree of differentiation and the pressures towards uniformity, and result in outputs that can be assessed in terms of societal and individual goals,” with these goals being determined “in terms of the basic needs of individuals” (Erik Allardt, “Individual Needs, Social Structures, and Indicators of National Development,” in Eisenstadt and Rokkan, Building States and Nations, vol. 1, 261).

7 Weber's insistence on the importance of “the feelings of the actors that they belong together” has been explicitly recalled by Easton who himself insists on the importance of “affective solidarity.” Historians of nationalism, too, have consistently emphasized its character as a body of feeling which, one of them notes, “may mean whatever a given people, on the basis of their own historical experience, decide it to mean “”Nationalism,” argues another, “is what the nationalists have made of it; it is not a neat, fixed concept but a varying combination of beliefs and conditions.” “A nation,” insists a third, “may be a configuration of meaning that transcends any concrete manifestation. On this level, a nation is a set of sentiments and myths that, like religion, is ultimately grounded only in the consciousness of the committed.” See Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 183Google Scholar; Easton, Systems Analysis, 187; Snyder, Louis L., The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick: Greenwood Press, 1954), 11Google Scholar; Shafer, Boyd C., Nationalism: Myth and Reality (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1955), 15Google Scholar; and Beals, R. C., “The Rise and Decline of National Identity,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 2 (1977), 148.Google Scholar

8 Sometimes, of course, those who deployed these constructs deliberately made them represent only a part of the whole, hoping that in gaining support for that part they would forge a national character consistent with the particular and limited values it represented. “The aim of the Argentine nationalism of [the early twentieth century],” argues one student, “was to teach the immigrant masses to revere essentially aristocratic cultural values, symbolized by the gaucho, which upper-class intellectuals claimed constituted the true Argentine character. The assumption was that the immigrants would eventually accept the hierarchical structure of Argentine society and would abandon such ‘foreign’ ideas as popular democracy, socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism. The public school became the vehicle that transmitted traditional Creole cultural values to the immigrants and their children.” Usually, however, the device chosen transcends identification with any particular part of the nation. India thus looked back to the Buddhist emperor Asoka and took the lion-omamented capital of one of his edict pillars as its national emblem, while Eric Williams, first prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, used his History of the People of Trinidad and Tobago (Port-of-Spain: PNM Publishing, 1962)Google Scholar to enforce the idea that the population of those islands was linked by its common experience with slavery, plantation, and empire. As these examples make clear, the object was not necessarily to obliterate attachments to race, ethnicity, or religion but “to transform them and to raise them to a higher level of scale by shifting the focus of attention to the relationship between large sub-populations on the national stage.” A system of national symbols, concludes Morris Janowitz, “offered in contrast to existing localistic and traditional boundaries thus provided a basis for collective action [which was] powerful and enduring.” See Solberg, Carl, Immigration and Nationalism: Argentina and Chile, 1890–1914 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1970), 170Google Scholar; Marriott, McKim, “Cultural Policy in the New States,” in Geertz, C. (ed.), Old Societies and New States (New York: Free Press, 1963), 35Google Scholar; Wendell Bell, “Ethnicity, Decisions of Nationhood, and Images of the Future,” in Bell and Freeman, 295, 289; and Janowitz, The Last Half-Century, 182.

9 In the United States, argues Lipset, “the basic value system, as solidified in the early days of the new nation” so strongly influenced the behaviour of Americans that it “could account for the kinds of changes that have taken place in the American character and in American institutions as these faced the need to adjust to the requirements of an urban, industrial, and bureaucratic society” (Lipset, First New Nation, 118).

10 The process is similar to that involved in maintaining what sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann call “the symbolic universe,” that is, the body of belief through which individuals make sense of, and acquire confidence in, the world around them and their relation to it. In telling them not only what the nature of that world is but also what place in it they occupy, it gives them information they must have if they are to lead secure and productive lives as integrated, society-supporting beings (Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge [Garden City: Anchor Books, 1967], 92–128).Google Scholar

11 As John Jay put it, the unity of the Americans as’ ‘a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” and occupying “one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country…” provided an ample foundation for a unified national existence (“The Federalist No. 2,” in The Federalist [New York: The Modern Library, 1937], 8–9).Google ScholarPubMed

12 Handlin, Oscar, The Uprooted (Boston: Little, Brown, 1951), 306.Google Scholar

13 That American society had much success in orienting its members towards identification with the whole should not be taken to suggest that they lost sight of their relationship to the parts. “The strength of national attachments,” as Morris Janowitz points out, “does not mean that local attachments became extinct.” What it does mean, however, is that those local attachments become less ends in themselves and more the means of heightening the individual's sense of security. Thus, in Janowitz's terms, they allow him “to relate himself to more and more encompassing systems of authority [for] ethnicity, religion, regionalism, and the like are the intervening dimensions in a sense of nationality” (Janowitz, The Last Hatf-Century, 327). For some traditional views of what composed that sense of nationality see Kohn, Hans, American Nationalism: An Interpretive Essay (New York: Macmillan, 1957)Google Scholar; Arieli, Yehoshua, Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nye, Russel B., “The American as Nationalist,” in his This Almost Chosen People: Essays in the History of American Ideas (Toronto: Macmillan, 1966), 43–103.Google Scholar

14 Even though, as Milton Gordon points out, “anglo-conformity in various guises has probably been the most prevalent ideology in assimilation in the American historical experience…” (“Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality,” Daedalus, 90 [1961], 263–85Google Scholar, reprinted in Levine, Lawrence W. and Middlekauf, Robert [eds.], The National Temper: Readings in American History [New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968], 271).Google Scholar

15 A characteristic of American life perhaps more readily apparent to outsiders. At any rate, as Seymour Martin Lipset remarks, “from Tocqueville and Martineau in the 1830's to Gunnar Myrdal in more recent times, foreign visitors have been impressed by the extent to which the values proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence have operated to prescribe social and political behavior” (Lipset, First New Nation, 111).

16 Ward, W. Peter, White Canada Forever: Popular Attitudes and Public Policy Toward Orientals in British Columbia (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

17 Parliamentary Debates in the Confederation of the British North American Provinces (Queen's Printer, 1865), 55.Google Scholar

18 For a fuller treatment of this process, see Smith, Allan, “Metaphor and Nationality in North America,” Canadian Historical Review 51 (1970), 247–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Careless, J. M. S., “‘Limited Identities’ in Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 50 (1969), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Novak, Michael, The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics: Politics and Culture in the Seventies (New York: Macmillan, 1971).Google Scholar

21 Fellows, Donald Keith, A Mosaic of America's Ethnic Minorities (New York: Wiley, 1972).Google Scholar

22 John Slawson in collaboration with Vosk, Marc, Unequal Americans: Practices and Politics of Intergroup Relations (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979), 6.Google Scholar

23 LaGumina, Salvatore J. and Cavaioli, Frank J. (eds.), The Ethnic Dimension in American Society (Boston: Holbrook Press, 1974), 2.Google Scholar

24 Vos, George De, “Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation,” in Vos, George De and Romanucci-Ross, Lola (eds.), Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change (Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1975), 21.Google Scholar

25 For a discussion of the history of the pluralist idea in Canada before 1970, see Smith, “Metaphor and Nationality.”

26 For an assessment of its impact, see Bumet, Jean, “The Policy of Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework: A Stock-Taking,” Canadian Ethnic Studies 10(1978), 107–13.Google Scholar

27 See, for example, Brown, Francis J. and Roucek, Joseph S. (eds.), One America: The History, Contribution, and Present Problems of Our Racial and National Minorities (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1952), 4.Google Scholar

28 While, however, some commentators saw the new ethnicity as playing an important role in maintaining the mental health of Americans in a bland and homogeneous society—”as America becomes increasingly depersonalized,” observes one of them, “‘groupism’ and ethnicity serve the added important function of reducing anomie…”—others viewed the form of ethnic consciousness to which these circumstances gave rise rather less generously. Oscar Handlin portrayed it as “a surrogate country” arising out of the attempt by men in motion to give themselves roots, while more recently Morris Janowitz has explained it as little more than the product of an attempt by the largely assimilated second and third generation to recover its past. “In this regard,” he suggests, “ethnic concern in the ‘middle class’ is the equivalent of upper-class preoccupation with geneology. Accordingly, the general English-language mass media and not foreign-language press have reinforced this attenuated aspect of ethnic consciousness.” The basic point—that the felt anonymity of American life helped precipitate ethnic consciousness—nonetheless stands. See Slawson, Unequal Americans, 6; Handlin, The Uprooted, 227; and Janowitz, The Last Half-Century, 311.

29 Higham, John, Send These to Me: Jews and Other Immigrants in Urban America (New York: Atheneum, 1975), 243.Google Scholar

30 Post-World War One sociologists, Morris Janowitz writes, “emphasized the strength of nationality and ethnic solidarities; they did not hold the superficial view that a comprehensive ‘melting pot’ was rapidly developing. In fact, from a policy point of view, they opposed mechanical efforts at ‘Americanization'; as pluralists they believed that ethnic solidarities and associated forms of self-help were essential for national integration” (Janowitz, The Last Half-Century, 305). For a lengthier treatment of these matters, see Matthews, Fred H., Quest for An American Sociology: Robert E. Park and the Chicago School (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977), especially chap. 4, 85–120.Google Scholar

31 See Higham, Send These to Me, 221–22 for a discussion of this point.

32 Herberg, Will, Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology (New York: Doubleday, 1955).Google Scholar

33 At the beginning of the decade, Berthoff set out some ideas about the nature of the American past which were to contribute to the conclusion, expressed in a later book-length study, that the individual had never really confronted society as an isolated being. Voluntary associations had been important agencies in his life, and “the traditional institutions of society—the family, the community, the church—have never ceased to exist in some form throughout American history… nor have social classes disappeared “See his “The American Social Order: A Conservative Hypothesis,” American Historical Review 65 (1960), 495–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his An Unsettled People: Social Order and Disorder in American History (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 477.Google Scholar

34 Higham, John, with Kreiger, Leonard and Gilbert, Felix, History: The Development of Historical Studies in the United States (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1965), 221.Google Scholar

35 For an influential argument in support of the contention that class existed in America, see Themstrom, Stephan, Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City (New York: Atheneum, 1970).Google Scholar For an argument that a working class sub-culture existed, see Gutman, Herbert, Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America: Essays in American Working Class and Social History (New York: Knopf, 1976),Google Scholar especially chap. 1, “Work, Society, and Culture in Industrializing America, 1815–1919,” 3–78.

36 Especially in the history of colonial America. Fora discussion of some of them, see Beeman, Richard, “The New Social History and the Search for ‘Community’ in Colonial America,” American Quarterly 29 (1977), 422–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an overview of American history as a whole cast in these terms, see Wiebe, Robert H., The Segmented Society: An Introduction to the Meaning of America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

37 Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel P., Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1963), v.Google Scholar

38 Ellison, Ralph, Invisible Man (New York: Modem Library, 1952).Google Scholar

39 Literature exploring the emergence of the black American in the 1960's and 1970's is extensive. Fora summary account of the earlier stages of the process, see Lomax, Louis E., The Negro Revolt (New York: Harper and Row, 1962)Google Scholar; for a comprehensive selection of material dealing with both its earlier and later phases, see Geschwender, James A.(ed.), The Black Revolt: The Civil Rights Movement, Ghetto Uprisings, and Separatism (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1971).Google Scholar Whether blacks have made meaningful gains in terms of their socioeconomic status is a vexed question. Nathan Glazer and Robin Williams Jr. think that, on the whole, they have; Morris Janowitz is less sure; the Glazer and Moynihan together suggest that they may have improved their situation both absolutely and in relation to some white ethnics, but have been prevented from fully appreciating the importance of that fact by the extent to which they have been reminded how badly off, relative to the white community at large, they still were. See Glazer, Nathan, Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1975), 40–43Google Scholar; Williams, Robin Jr, Mutual Accommodation: Ethnic Conflict and Cooperation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 27–32Google Scholar; Janowitz, The Last Half-Century, 133; and Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel P., Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City (2nd ed.; Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970), xii.Google Scholar

40 Margaret Mead outlined the process in these words: “The progression from integration as a principle to black power has marked a shift from the demand, on the part of both black and white, that individual black people be admitted as pupils, physicians, lawyers, etc., into the larger society, to the demand that black people as a group and black people as residents of particular contiguous sections of large cities or rural countries be accorded recognition as a separate people which can itself confer dignity on each of its members. Integration expressed the melting pot idea: If you will make an effort to look, act, dress, speak as much like the standard white, then though [you are] not blond like the ideal American, we will act as though you were really entirely one of us. Black power expresses the rejection of this unilateral invitation, and the demand instead for equal recognition and value based on difference” (“Ethnicity and Anthropology in America,” in De Vos and Romanucci-Ross, Ethnic Identity, 186).

41 “Ethnicity,” he writes, “… is best understood not as a primordial phenomenon in which deeply held identities have to reemerge, but as a strategic choice by individuals who, in other circumstances, would choose other group memberships as a means of gaining some power and privilege” (Bell, Daniel, “Ethnicity and Social Change,” in Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel P. (eds.), Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 171.Google Scholar

42 “Neo-ethnicity among urban whites,': reports one observer, “is in large part a response to the relative political success of an emergent black ethnicity…. The marginal-income city whites are especially central to neo-ethnicity, insofar as they provide the sharpest core support for a fundamental attribute of white neo-ethnicity—anti-Negro orientation.” Nathan Glazer makes essentially the same point: “It turned out that the effort to make the Negro equal to the other Americans raised the question of who are the other Americans? How many of them can define their own group as being also deprived?” See Martin Kilson, “Blacks and Neo-Ethnicity in American Political Life,” in Glazer and Moynihan, Ethnicity, 260, and Glazer, Affirmative Discrimination, 31.

43 “Above all other themes in his campaign, beyond any program, the fire that burned most hotly in him was forthe underprivileged—forthe minorities, forthe Negroes, for the Appalachians, forthe Mexican-Americans” (White, Theodore H., The Making of the President 1968 [New York: Atheneum, 1969], 173).Google Scholar

44 White, Theodore H., The Making of the President 1972 (New York: Atheneum, 1973), 229–30, 344–46.Google Scholar

45 De Vos, “Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation,” 21.

46 Glazer, Affirmative Discrimination, 219–20.

47 Bell, “Ethnicity and Social Change,” 146.

48 See Yuzyk, Paul, The Ukrainians in Manitoba: A Social History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Kosa, John, Land of Choice: The Hungarians in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Vallee, Frank G., Schwartz, Mildred, and Darknell, Frank, “Ethnic Assimilation and Differentiation in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 23 (1957), 540–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaye, V. J., Early Ukrainian Settlements in Canada, 1895–1900 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Wagenheim, Elizabeth, “The Ukrainians: A Case Study of the Third Force,” in Russell, Peter (ed.), Nationalism in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 72–91Google Scholar; and Boissevain, Jeremy, “The Italians of Montreal,” Special Study of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969).Google Scholar

49 See Vallee, Frank G. and Whyte, Donald R., “Canadian Society: Trends and Perspectives,” in Blishen, Bernard R., Jones, Frank E., Naegele, KasparD., and Porter, John (eds.), Canadian Society: Sociological Perspectives (3rd ed.; Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 851.Google Scholar

50 Wsevolod W. Isajiw, for example, attributes ethnic consciousness in Canadian life in part to a concern to resist the anonymity of urban industrial society. As he puts it, “the technological culture heightens identity needs and creates identity search. Ethnic rediscoveries or ‘new ethnicity’ is one significant direction that this search takes.” Other sociologists have argued that in Canada as elsewhere ethnic identification can in some measure be explained as an outgrowth of the concern of the third generation to define itself in terms of its past as well as its present. “A ‘new ethnicity’ among the third generation may,” Alan B. Anderson and Daiva K. Stasiulis suggest, “assume the form of a keen interest in one's geneological and ethnic history, regardless of one's ability to speak the mother tongue or one's religious inclinations.” See Isajiw, Wsevolod W., “Olga in Wonderland: Ethnicity in a Technological Society,” in Driedger, Leo (ed.), The Canadian Mosaic (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1978), 36Google Scholar, and Anderson, Aian B. and Stasiulis, Daiva K., “Canadian Multiculturalism: A Critique,” paper presented to the Biennial Conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association,Vancouver,October 1979, 23.Google Scholar

51 See Thompson, Dale C., “Canadian Ethnic Pluralism in Context,” paper presented to the Biennial Conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association,Vancouver,October 1979Google Scholar, and McRae, Kenneth D., “The Plural Society and the Western Political Tradition,” this Journal 12 (1979), 688.Google Scholar

52 Wagenheim, “The Ukrainians,” 73.

53 “Ethnic saliency or differentiation in social structure,” Porter was still insisting in 1975, “always creates a high risk of ethnic stratification” (The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965], 558Google Scholar, and “Ethnic Pluralism in Canadian Perspective,” in Glazer and Moynihan, Ethnicity, 289).

54 As early as 1963 Premier Manning of Alberta had made it clear that he would not accept a national policy that attempted to make a sharp distinction between the French-speaking and other minorities. A policy relating to those groups, he wrote the prime minister, would receive his support only if it placed all of them on the same basis. “In the matter of biculturalism,” as he put it, “if the objective is to encourage citizens of all racial and ethnic origins to make their maximum contribution to the development of one overall Canadian culture embracing the best of all, we feel this would meet with endorsation and support.” Otherwise, the implication was clear, there was strong likelihood that it would not. Manning's letter is quoted in Saywell, John (ed.), The Canadian Annual Review 1963 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 For a discussion of the impact of the 1967 regulations, see Hawkins, Freda, “The Canadian Experience,” Venture, January 1971, 32–35.Google Scholar That Canada was a racially, as well as a linguistically and culturally, diverse society was now more obvious than ever before, a fact which at one and the same time was underscored by and contributed to the appearance of a number of studies focussing on the history and experience of its racial minorities. See, for example, Ward, White Canada Forever; Adachi, Ken, The Enemy that Never Was: A History of the Japanese Canadians (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976)Google Scholar; and Broadfoot, Barry, Years of Sorrow, Years of Shame: The Story of the Japanese Canadians in World War Two (Toronto: Doubleday, 1977).Google Scholar The history of the country's original inhabitants also received book length scrutiny—see Patterson, E. Palmer, The Canadian Indian (Toronto: Collier-MacMillan, 1972)Google Scholar —while its first racial minority was examined in Winks, Robin W.' comprehensive and detailed The Blacks in Canada: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

56 The phrase was used by Prime Minister Trudeau in his Commons speech announcing the policy (House of Commons Debates, October 8, 1971, 8545–46).Google Scholar

57 Trudeau, Pierre Elliott, “The New Treason of the Intellectuals,” in his Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 177.Google Scholar The essay was originally published as “La nouvelle trahison des clercs,” in Cite Libre, April 1962.

58 CBC network television, for example, emphasized the nation's multicultural character through the medium of such programs as “The Newcomers,” dealing with its indigenous as well as its immigrant population, and “King of Kensington,” situated in one of Toronto's best-known ethnic neighbourhoods. Radio and television stations such as CJBV in Vancouver and Toronto's recently licensed multilingual broadcasting channel offered programming in several languages. At the level of scholarly activity sociologists, historians, and political scientists combined to form the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association in 1971, an organization which in its turn assumed responsibility for a biannual conference exploring aspects of the ethnic experience in Canada and forthe publication of the scholarly journal Canadian Ethnic Studies. A contribution of importance to the heightening of ethnic consciousness was made, too, by the several studies of individual ethnic groups in Canada funded during the 1970's by the Department of the Secretary of State.

59 Orummond, Robert, “Nationalism and Ethnic Demands: Some Speculations on a Congenial Note,” this Journal 10 (1977), 387.Google Scholar

60 W. M. Newman, for example, argues that while minorities have social mobility, they experience it not as a consequence of structural assimilation but within the framework of a parallel set of minority-group controlled institutions, a contention that prepares the way fora view of American society as in a very real sense corporatist (American Pluralism: A Study of Minority Groups and Social Theory [New York: Harper and Row, 1973]).Google Scholar

61 LaGumina and Cavaioli, The Ethnic Dimension in American Society, I. For a vigorous statement of the need to move from the old kind of immigrant history to the new kind of ethnic history, see Vecoli, Rudolph J., “Ethnicity: A Neglected Dimension of American History,” in Bass, Herbert J. (ed.), The State of American History (Chicago: Quandrangle Books, 1970), 70–88.Google Scholar

62 Higham, “Ethnic Pluralism in Modem American Thought.”

63 Glazer, Affirmative Discrimination, 5.

64 See his 1959 critique of the consensus view of American history “The Cult of the ‘American Consensus': Homogenizing Our History,” Commentary 17(1959), 93–100.Google Scholar

65 Higham, John, “Hanging Together: Divergent Unities in American History,” Journal of American History 60 (1974), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Higham, Send These to Me, 237.

67 “It is hardly likely,” Glazer and Moynihan wrote in 1971, “that Moslem, Swahili-speaking blacks of Zanzibar would find much in common with the black institutions and culture that are now being built up in this country. They would not have any predilection for soul food, would find the styles of dress, hair, walk, and talk that are now popular as defining blackness distinctly foreign. ‘Blackness’ in this country is not really and simply blackness, it is an American Negro cultural style” (Glazer and Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot, 2nd ed., xxxix).

68 “If one,” they wrote, “compared [the black experience in New York] with the first fifty years of the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews, we are convinced there would be enough in that comparison to justify an ethnic rather than a racial or ‘internally-colonized’ self-image,” a circumstance which, they continued, made it wholly realistic to suggest that blacks could improve their position in American life by following the route marked out by these earlier travellers (ibid., xiv, xxiii-xxiv).

69 De Vos, “Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation,” 21–22.

70 Kilson, “Blacks and New-Ethnicity in American Political Life,” 237.

71 Talcott Parsons, “Some Theoretical Considerations on the Nature and Trends of Change and Ethnicity,” in Glazer and Moynihan, Ethnicity, 72.

72 Higham, Send These to Me, 240–43.

73 Milton M. Gordon, “Toward a General Theory of Racial and Ethnic Group Relations,” in Glazer and Moynihan, Ethnicity, 106, 110.

74 Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book 4, The Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970), 17–31.Google Scholar

75 Bell, David V. J., “The Loyalist Tradition in Canada,” Journal of Canadian Studies 5 (1970), especially 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 Careless, “‘Limited Identities’ in Canada,” 4.

77 For Prime Minister Trudeau's remarks on it, see House of Commons Debates, October 8, 1971, 8545–46.Google Scholar

78 Claude Ryan, Address to the Ontario Heritage Congress, June 1972, in Palmer, Howard (ed.), Immigration and the Rise of Multiculturalism (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1975), 148.Google Scholar

79 Rocher, Guy, “Les ambiguites d'un Canada bilingue et multicultural,” in his Le Quebec en mutation (Montreal: Hurtibise, 1973), 117–126Google Scholar; and “Multiculturalism: The Doubts of a Francophone,” in Multiculturalism as State Policy (Ottawa: Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, 1976), 47–53.Google Scholar

80 The Task Force on Canadian Unity, A Future Together: Observations and Recommendations (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1979), 55–56.Google ScholarPubMed