Anglo-American Relations in the 1920s: The Struggle for Supremacy ed. by B.C.L. McKercher (review)

310 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW come apart because itjeopardized theirmutual 'all-important relationship with the United States.' When one sweeps asidethe emotionaltiesof the Commonwealth, ourrelationship withtheCaribbean hasbeena peripheral onepacked withexpectation butdelivering littleadvantage. Tennyson leave, uswitha veryCanadian message: wewill continue to dispatch tourists and aid to theCaribbean, andin doingsowecanplaya 'useful role'which perhaps 'moderate' American behaviour in theregion. Betweenthe thematic workof Tennyson and Guyarethreeessays of historicalinterest.Certainly,Harold Barratt'ssurveyof the West In'•dla•:. immigrant experience in Canada willcomplement ourexisting knowledge theexperience ofdisadvantaged immigrants coming toCanada. WestIndiam in Canadahave alwayssufferedfrom the myth of the 'bad nigger,'a stereotype thathasbeenlef•tofester because theythemselves have'largely accepted thestatus ofoutsiders' in Canadian sodety. Bartartdraws broadly on literature, history, and sociologyto demonstratethis 'intolerable passivism.' Twootheressays, oneby F.W.Renwick, onmarketingCanadian goodsin the Caribbean, and anotherby AaronSchneider, on 'grass-rootf development strategies, do notfit neatlyin the volume. They are overlong andtoodetailed. Schneider, forinstance, contains muchthatsupports Guy's contention that the Caribbean is beginningto adoptinternallygenerated development schemes (local literacy programs, fishermen's cooperatives), but thepointismadelongbeforetheartide'seightypages end. Bystressing theregion's greatdiversity in experience andhistoriography, Tennysonetal. havenotonlysetour Caribbean recordstraight but havealso laidit outina manneruseful toteacher, student, andpractitioners ofaidand of trade alike. DUNCAN MCDOWALL Carle•nUniversi 9 Anglo-American Relatiom in the1920s:TheStruggle for Supremacy. Editedby B.C.L. MCKVaCHv. R.Edmonton: University ofAlbertaPress 1990.Pp.xiv,242. $37.50 The cat-and-mouse gamein Anglo-American relationships haslongexisted, and amonghistorians the playhasinvariably centredon gainsandlosses. The 1920s wasoneera(among several) inwhich theUnitedStates made diplomatic ,economic, and navalgainsat the expense of the British- butnot withoutBritishbulldogresistance. The struggle wasconducted totallyby peacethl means, of course, andit isoftendifficult to gaugewhatthereal nature of the rivalrywas.War hadbeengoodfor business, but therewere profitstobemadefrompeace andfromwardebts, andin thistheAmericara hadtheupperhand.In thisdistinguished collection ofessays thecomplexitiesoftherelationship areexamined withgreatcareandconsiderable scholarly advance. P•VIEWS 311 Thefirstlord of theAdmiralty,Selborne, minutedin 1901thatit wason itscreditanditsnavythat thestrengthof Britainrested,andhe notedthat these weretwinpillarsof power.In their several contributions, George Egerton, JohnFerris, Kathleen Burk,Roberta AllbertDayer,Benjamin Rhodes, andBrianMcKercher enlarge uponthetheme, though to varying degrees. The financial inquiries of the 'special relationship' are the most original, to thisreviewer's wayof thinking, butallaresignificant contributions tothestudyofinternational history. And,if anyone everdoubted that tacha thingasinternational historyexists,here is what D. CameronWatt •fines the genreas,in hisworthyforewordto thissignificant book:'an approach which treats theevolution offoreign policy asthesum ofa massive series ofindividual transactions executed and,to a certain extentplanned, withina clusterof dosely-linked, constitutionally definable,groupsof definable individuals. Togetherthese groups forma "foreign-policymaking el/re," thedistinguishing marksof whichare thecontinuance ofitsmemberdaip overtime,thecomparative freedom of debate withinitsranksandthe firm, though byno means entirelyimpermeable barriercontrolling the flow ofinformation aboutthesedebates from withinitsranksto the publicor, rather, thevariouspublics in whose nameits members act,whoseinterests they believe theyserve andfromwhom,viathepolitical process, theyderive their authorityand their salaries' (xii). I•ARRY GOUGH Wilfridlazurier University Canada andNATO: Uneasy Past,Uncertain Future.Editedby M•ROARET O. •MILDa. N andDAVID S.SORENSON. Waterloo, Ont.:University of Waterloo Press in association withThe LymanL. LemnitzerCentrefor NATO Studies and Centre forForeign Policy andFederalism 1990.Pp.xviii,162.$19.50 As theeditors pointoutin theirintroduction tothisvolume ofessays which emerged from a 1987conference, 'Canada's rolein theAriantic Alliancehad not beenseriously studiedfor someyears'(iv). Couldit be thatCanada's North Ariantic TreatyOrganization rolewasalltalked outbythe1970s? After all, what newcouldbesaidaboutthemilitarytasking of a small country with tiny armed forces thatis submerged in an alliance castof millions? The question thatthenpresents itself is:Doesthiscollection offerthereaderany new insights intoor interpretations of theCanada-NATO relationship? In a qualified way,theanswer isyes,in reference to articles in thefirstsection, The Historical Background, and,regrettably in thistimeofnewEuropean experiments, no,regarding those in thesecond section, NATO in a Changing World: TheCanadian Perspective. Despite thisgeneral characterization, however, therearesome weaknesses •nMary Halloran's essay, which falls in thefirstgrouping. Most importantly, she fails to put Canada's military withdrawal fromEurope in 1946into ...