CommentaryThe Medicine Line and the

Thin Red Lineby Frits Pannekoek

The Medicine Line, the namegiven by the Blackfoot to theCanadian-American border, reflectsthe "magic" that it imposes oncertain people. How can similarpeoples sharing the same continentbe so different when divided by the"Medicine Line"? There is alsoanother interpretation of theborder. Many Canadians see it as athin red line: the 49th parallelprotects their rather fragile culturefrom unimaginable incursions fromthe south.

Canadians spend a great deal oftheir time on that most belovedtopic—the differences betweenCanadians and Americans. Virtu-ally every university has a courseon Canadian-American relations.There are countless books on thesubject. Canadians spend moretime with a Molson arguing overthe differences between Canadiansand Americans than they spenddebating the merits of their varioushockey clubs.

In the summer of 1994 I wassent to Helena on an exchange withthe Montana Historical Society.This four-week swap involving twopeople from each agency wasfunded by the American govern-ment through the AmericanAssociation of Museums and by theCanadian government through theCanadian Museums Association.The exchanges took place in 1994and included Glenn Matich,manager of Alberta's southern

Rejecting the American Revolution, Canadiansembraced the "caring and nurturing" monarchy. _!

56

historic sites; myself; KathrynOtto, Montana State Archivist;and Patty McLaughlin,Montana's senior heritagepreservation officer.

Two years earlier, theHistoric Sites Service, ofwhich I am director, and theMontana Historical Society de-cided that given their closeproximities, it would be worthwhileto get to know each other better.The exchange has been successfulbeyond our original expectations,and together we are currentlyplanning a major internationalexhibition on the culture surround-ing the horse, a subject that unitesus.

My visit to Helena gave me fourweeks to observe American societydirectly, particularly that of a statewhose history and people havesuch strong connections withAlberta. My American colleaguestold me there are really no differ-ences between Americans andCanadians, and even if there were afew, there certainly were nodiscernible differences betweenMontanans and Albertans. Whenpressed, however, they came upwith a few distinctions,but not ones theythought substan-tial. I was toldthat our

The 25<t shopping buggy conspiracy

"pronunciations are British." Thisobservation always irritates Canadi-ans, who feel their pronunciationsare, of course, Canadian. Wordslike "out, about, schedule, again,and roof were most frequentlycited. They also mentioned theuniqueness of the Canadiancommercial landscape. Canada hasfewer and different banks and fewerand different department stores.Their signage gives Canada aunique feel in the otherwiseinternationally franchised land-scape of the golden arches. Thereis also the shopping "buggy"children's subculture. Alberta has atwenty-five cent deposit on shop-ping carts, and there are alwaysgroups of children eagerly waitingto return your cart for the quarter.Some Montanans asked me howcould we put up with the BritishQueen—and why did we not have

AUTUMN 1996 FRITS PANNEKOEK

Americans believe they are simplybeing honest and tell it like it is.

Canadians are polite. Toopolite. You never know exactly

what they are thinking.

our own government? The answeris complex, but to a country builton the principles of evolutionrather than revolution, the quainttrappings of the past hardly seemthe burden of tyranny. Othersadmitted a few additional superfi-cial differences but argued theywere a product of differing politicalstructures, not differences rooted inculture.

Above all I was repeatedly toldthat even if there were differences,the differences between Montanaand the eastern United States, andAlberta and eastern Canada, weresurely greater than the differencesbetween Montana and Alberta.There was an obvious culturalsameness. Perhaps Canadians werea bit too reticent, too polite—indeed, the word "boring" slippedout. I gather that one of the statehistorical society staff, who drewthe short straw for assignment tothe frozen north as part of theAlberta/Montana exchange, wasworried that she would be bored in

1. F. R. Scotland A. J. M. Smith, TheBlasted Pine: An Anthology of Satire,Invective and Disrespectful Verse, Chieflv b\Canadian Writers (Toronto, 1957).

2. W. L. Morton, The CanadianIdentity (Madison, Wis.. 19()1). Mortonargues that Canada's distinctive culture andpolitics are due to its northernness and thatCanada's deferential nature steins from itspolitical organization as a monarchy.

Canada and so took a carload ofwork along. I gather little of thework got done. At least theyproved Irving Layton, one ofCanada's leading poets, wrong.Layton said Canadians were "a dullpeople, without charm or ideas"who had "settled into the cleanempty look of a Mountie or dairyfarmer."1

In Canada, we are constantlytold by the media that we are aspecial people with a uniqueheritage and a distinct nationalidentity. Our national identity is soloosely defined, however, that noone really agrees what we are orwhat we believe in. But we areemphatically taught that we areunique. Our nationality is alwaysdefined in relation to that of theUnited States. So we know what weare not, not what we are. and weare emphatically not Americans.Canadians are a northern people;Americans are a southern people.2

The settlement of Canada's West

3. R. C. Macleod. The North WestMounted Police and Law Enforcement1X73-190.5 (Toronto, 1976); HughDempsey. Men in Scarlet (Toronto. 1974).Both authors argue that the settlement ofthe Canadian West was more peaceful thanthat of the United States.

4. Harold Adam Innis, The Fur Tradein Canada: An Introduction to CanadianEconomic History (New Haven, Conn.,1930). Innis argues that Canada was

was peaceful: the settlement ofAmerica's was violent.3 Canadiansbelieve in the importance of thestate; Americans believe in theimportance of the individual.Canadians are silent; Americans aregregarious. Canada is boring; theUnited States is exciting. Canadahas three founding cultures;America has one. America is acountry that exists because of itsgeography; Canada exists to spiteits.4 America's psyche is dominatedby its position as a world power;Canada's is dominated by its self-image as a victim.5

Canadians generally argue theyare so different because Canada'sfounding peoples (and foundingpeoples would include FrenchCanadians, English Canadians, andaboriginal Canadians) rejected theAmerican Revolution. Theyrejected the Revolution because itgave too much power to the "vulgarherd"—to the mob. Canadiansinstead believed in and wished toretain a structured hierarchicalsociety in which individuals knewtheir place, their responsibilities,and their obligations. Authority inCanada comes from above, notfrom below. Those who are moregenerously endowed with eithermaterial, spiritual, or intellectualgoods have an obligation to sharethese with those less fortunate.Most important, Canadians obligetheir government to accept respon-sibility to act for the greater publicgood. Some will argue that thisphilosophy is too subtle, the self-serving argument of a threatenedcultural elite. Whatever it is thatmakes Canada distinct, manv

created because of its geography, not inspite of it. Many scholars agree, but willargue that in any case they created thenation to spite its harsh climate and theCanadian Shield.

5. Margaret Atwood, Survival: AThe(Ton

leadii

itic Guide to Canadian Literaturento, 1972). One of Canada's mosts authors suggests that Canada, likeg characters who play out their rolesims, behaves in a similar fashion .

57

MONTANA THE MAGAZINE OF WESTERN HISTORY

Canadian Mounties were peacefuland friends to all the Indians.

U.S. gunslingers cleared the Westwith their own brand of justice.

believe that our hierarchical andorganic society has been andcontinues to be under constantthreat from the anarchy of individu-alism that is the United States. ThisAmerican cultural trait, whether itwas carried like some contagion bythe American immigrant seekingnew land in Ontario in 1818, by theimmigrant to Alberta in 1920, or bythe pervasive American mediapresence, is seen as worrisome.The sanctity of the individual,which we in Canada see as so veryAmerican, threatens, in the mindsof some, to thoroughly permeateand undermine Canada's culture.The threat is particulary serious inAlberta, which was largely settledby Americans, even thoughthrough most of its history, theprovince's political culture hasalways been dominated byOntarian immigrants who are soinfused with the principles ofmonarchy.6

These observations may seemfarfetched and implausible. Butperhaps the Canadian tendency tonurture the role of the state, andthe Canadian willingness to acceptgreater state intervention in theirday-to-day lives, explains Canada'smedicare system, its government-supported social safety net, and thepartnership of government andbusiness.

6. George Grant. Lament for a Nation:'Ihe Defeat of Canadian Nationalism(Toronto, 1965). Grant develops thisargument to its full extent.

58

The question hereis this: How doesCanada's distinctsense of self translateinto distinct cultural andheritage policies? In an organichierarchial society there should begreater state presence and directionin government heritage policy. Onthe surface this seems to be so.Some Montanatis argue thatAlberta has spent considerablymore money on heritage preserva-tion than has Montana. Certainly ifstate or provincial governmentexpenditures are the measure, theAlberta provincial governmentseems to have a much greatercommitment to heritage preserva-tion and cultural tourism than doesthe state government. This is onlyan illusion. There is no realdifference in heritage funding on aper capita basis if all private sectorand government resources areincluded. It could be proven thatMontanans probably spend onlyslightly less per capita on heritage

Montana: Heritage homes.mansions, and very large

open pits

than do Albertans. All expenditureson heritage in Alberta are approxi-mately $10 to $12 per capita. Areexpenditures per capita any less inMontana if one considers privatesector funds; state budgets relatingto the Montana Historical Society,various state parks with heritageattractions, arid university muse-ums like the Museum of theRockies; and most important,federal agency expenditures?

The apparent differences resultfrom the unique leadership roleCanadian society assigns to govern-ment. It only seems that Albertanshave devoted more resources to thepreservation of their heritagebecause these resources are morevisible publicly. The province hasan agency, the Cultural Facilitiesand Historical Resources Divisionof the Department of CommunityDevelopment, that manageseighteen historical facilities valued

AUTUMN 1996 FRITS PANNEKOEK

in excess of $200 million anda foundation, the AlbertaHistorical Resources Foun-dation, that supports privatesector and nonprofit activitieswith grants valued at ap-proximately $2 million peryear. The eighteen historicalfacilities range from majorinstitutions like the RoyalTyrrell Museum, the Provin-cial Museum, theReynolds-Alberta Museum ofindustry, transportation andagriculture, interpretationcenters like Head Smashed InBuffalo Jump and Frank Slide tomansion museums like RutherfordHouse, the home of the firstPremier of Alberta. The foundationprovides support grants to theAlberta Museums Association,several heritage main streets, andmore than 200 owners of desig-nated historic structures.

In Montana, property rights andindividualism dictate a lesserdegree of coordination and coop-eration at one government level.Rather, the role is divided amongthe various levels of government,and there is a considerably greater,although uncoordinated, involve-ment by the private and not-for-profit sector. In Montana funding isdispersed throughout several statedepartments, local governments,and federal departments andagencies. In Alberta, ProvincialParks has a minimal heritagepresence; in Montana state fundingis significant. In Alberta the federalgovernment has virtually nopresence; in Montana the federalgovernment's role is key to thepreservation movement.

In Canada the provinces controlpublic lands, property rights, andsubsurface resources. This meansthat any meaningful preservationprogrammes that affect individualproperty rights must be provincial.The province even has certaintaxing powers that coulcl affect

The fur trade in Canada—Acorporate endeavour

The fur trade in the U.S.—lone, rugged, gun-totin"

mountain men

heritage projects and programmes,but these have been assigned to thefederal government under a com-plex set of negotiations. Given thereality of Quebec, the Canadianconstitution tends to acknowledgeprovincial jurisdiction over culturalmatters. The Canadian federalgovernment is left to deal withthose few sites of national signifi-cance that it can acquire in themarket place, and those on federallands. So in the search for culturallife, the provincial government hasno choice but to assume a para-mount role.

In Montana the federal govern-ment has a much greater presence,with its own significant heritagestaff sprinkled throughout anumber of agencies. It owns 30percent of the state's land base andcontrols many heritage decisionsthrough grants for sometimestotally unrelated activities, such ashighways. These grants can only beaccessed if certain heritage preser-vation or mitigation activites areundertaken.'

In Montana I noticed a greatindividual awareness of America's

7. JainesJ. Lopach. eel.. We the Peopleof Montana: 'Ike Workings of a PopularGovernment (Missoula, Mont., 1983), 279.

heritage but a very muted celebra-tion of Montana's past. There issuch confidence in being Americanand in being a Montanan that thereis no real need to seek and definemeaning. American nationalsymbols and myths are so powerfulthat they seem to mute the need forcommunity and state to createidentities through preservation ofthe past. Communities not onlyaccept the national myths, theyreinforce them. Montana is seen asthe last wild West, the last greatfrontier, the space where theindividual can exercise his free-doms free from the tyranny ofneighbours and government. Iwonder whether some of Montana'srich heritage assets are neglectedbecause they do not directlycontribute to this myth. To meMontana is a complex state with anequally complex history with subtletextures and remains. Helena, forexample, has a collection ofheritage buildings that are unsur-passed in western Canada.Montana's native history is amongthe most important in NorthAmerica. There seems a particulardenial of the industrial past. Butteis probably one of the most impor-tant historical resources in NorthAmerica, possibly the world. Thegreat Berkeley Pit provided thecopper that electrified the world.

Canada for its part has fewsymbols. The crests of the OldDominion are gone, and the visualidentity of the various provinces areoften more the creation of an adman's imagination than a culturalreality. There is the maple leaf flag,

59

Myth of Montana: Unblemished, wide open spaces

Myth of Alberta: No roads, no history—only cities, igloos, and oil

but it was a product of debate,hardly the spontaneous product ofany national affection. The toil-some bark-eating beaver hardlycompares to the eagle in ferocityand image.

In the United States I alsoencountered a real and deeply helddistrust of government. In thisenvironment, federal or stateagencies have to exercise their legalobligations with extreme care.Effective heritage or preservationinitiatives can only succeed ifinitiated and totally funded at locallevels. The C. M. Russell Museumin Great Falls; the HistoricalMuseum at Fort Missoula; theTowe Ford Museum at DeerLodge; the Museum of the Rockiesin Bozeman; the house museums inHelena, Butte, and Bozeman; andthe rehabilitations at Butte are allthe results of community dedica-tion. This approach has produceda rich and varied, yet fragile anduncoordinated, approach toheritage preservation. But it works.The heritage movement is strong inMontana: the state has more than165 community museums, somesupported out of the communitytax base. There are nineteen statehistoric parks and two federalparks. All of these work indepen-

Edmonton: A large city, with no reason toexist, clutching to the edge of the tundra.

60

dently to achieve their own goals.The motto seems unrestrictedcompetition rather than coordina-tion.

The approach in Alberta isvirtually opposite. While we have astrong community base, majorprojects are expected to be eitherpartially funded or coordinated bygovernment. The Harvie family, forexample, who founded theGlenbow Museum in Calgary witha $5 million endowment and afabulous collection, expected thegovernment to provide a buildingand a matching $5 million, which itdid. Canada and Alberta celebratedthe centennial of confederation in1967 by building the ProvincialMuseum of Alberta. In 1974 theprovince passed a powerful pieceof legislation, the HistoricalResources Act, which allowed theprovince to work with the develop-ment industry in the managementof heritage resources. In the

\ I

as tourism became increasinglycritical to the economy of theprovince, and as the need for newAlbertans to understand theprovince's past and their place in itgrew, the state began to invest whatwould amount to more than $120million in heritage infrastructuredevelopment. These seventeenfacilities are the focus of muchrecent attention.8

It should be emphasized that theHistorical Resources Act wasaccompanied by considerableheritage activity at the communitylevel. The province saw thecommunity museum as the back-bone of heritage commitment andprovided the Alberta MuseumsAssociation, with its 240-plusmember museums, with more than$l million annually. The largercities in Alberta also providedsupport. Edmonton, Calgary.Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, and RedDeer, for example, all have reason-

I / ,

Canadian ranching: Tea tune andpolo—very proper, very British it n

'f

American ranching:Cowboys and showdowns

ably well-funded arid community-supported local institutions ormuseums.

Nonetheless, there may not bep I all that much difference in funding

levels for heritage in Montana andAlberta. There may have beensome difference in capital expendi-tures in the last few years, but I amconvinced that the total capitalvalue of the heritage plant (bothprivate and public) in Alberta,compared to the total capital valueof the heritage plant (both privateand public) in Montana, are equalif compared on a per capita basis. Iam also convinced that the currentoperating costs for all heritageprojects in Montana and Alberta, ifprorated per capita, would besimilar. Unfortunately precisecomparisons are difficult to calcu-late, and the numbers will alwaysbe interpreted differently. Albertahas little federal presence inheritage and outside the nationalparks there is little federal crown

8. Fort Victoria. Fort GeorgeBuckingham House. Frank Slide. LeitchCollieries. Reynolds-Alberta Museum, theProvincial Museum of Alberta. Remiugtori-Alherta Carriage Centre, the FortMcMurray Oil Sands Interpretive Centre,Rutherford House. Father LacomheChapel. Brooks Aqueduct, the I 'krainianCultural Heritage Village, StephanssonHouse. Royal Tyrrel] Museum. RoyalTyrrell Field Station, and HistoricDuuvegan.

land. There is only one Albertapark—Writing on Stone—that dealswith heritage. Alberta can traceheritage expenditures more effec-tively because of various grant anddesignation programmes. InMontana heritage is more passive,and much of the work is done byindividuals without governmentsupport. Heritage is so much a partof the American soul that it is notreadily traceable through publicexpenditures.

Yet I am repeatedly askedwhich system is the moreeffective. I don'tbelieve that is theappropriatequestion. If eachsystem deliverswhat its societywants then it iseffective. I know someMontanans admire the provincialheritage plant. We Canadiansadmire your federal tax concessionprogramme, the state archives,which is among the best in NorthAmerica, and the Montana Histori-cal Society's publications, whichare the result of decades of commit-ment. I admire the dedication ofthe many people in Butte andHelena, for example, to makingpreservation a part of their every-day lives. Montana has shownAlberta that strength in heritage issomething that must be rooted inindividual consciousness, that itmust be subtle, and that it will takeseveral generations to root success-fully. Canada's more statist model

X

works because it is rooted inCanada's traditions. It results ingreater physical institutions, inlarger edifices, but it reflects nogreater or lesser a commitment byits citizens to the preservation ofthe past.

Scottish guy with kilts-a typical Alhertan?

FRITS PANNEKOEK is directorof Historic Sites Service, AlbertaCommunity Development, inEdmonton, Alberta; past editor ofPrairie Forum-, and author of ASnug Little Flock: The SocialOrigins of the Kiel Resistance ofi86g-jo (1991). This commentaryis adapted from an address hepresented at the Montana HistoryConference in Helena in October1995. Illustrations were preparedby Edward Wiens, senior designeralso with Alberta's Historic SitesService.

61