Tag Archives: Culture

The EU as a Cultural Confederation: How Brussels Empowers Regional Voices Across Europe

Posted on by
Reply

When discussing the European Union, especially in British or nationalist-leaning media, the usual tropes are economic red tape, democratic deficits, and faceless bureaucrats imposing uniformity. What is strikingly underappreciated is the EU’s role as a tireless and strategic supporter of Europe’s regional cultures: its languages, music, visual arts, literature, and festivals. Far from being a homogenising force, the EU acts as a cultural confederation, empowering the peripheries and amplifying diversity through centralised frameworks and substantial funding.

The legal foundation for this approach is enshrined in Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which commits the EU to respect its members’ national and regional diversity, and to promote the common cultural heritage. This commitment is not symbolic, it’s operationalised through policies and investment tools that strengthen cultural ecosystems often neglected by national governments. A striking example is the Creative Europeprogramme, with a budget of over €2.44 billion for 2021–2027. This fund supports regional festivals, translation projects, heritage preservation, and artistic mobility, placing local cultures on a continental stage.

Let’s consider some examples. In the north of Sweden, Sámi artists and musicians have received EU support to maintain traditional music forms like joik, while also experimenting with modern fusion styles. In the Basque Country, EU funding has gone into language revitalisation efforts, helping schools, theatres, and broadcasters produce content in Euskara, a language that for decades was banned under Franco’s Spain. In Friesland, the Netherlands, similar funding has supported children’s books, cultural programming, and visual arts in the Frisian language – another minority tongue that survives today in part because of EU cultural policy.

Beyond the arts, the EU’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) have proven vital in building cultural infrastructure in economically disadvantaged areas. For example, in Maribor, Slovenia, once a declining industrial town, ERDF funds helped regenerate derelict buildings into art spaces and performance venues during its tenure as European Capital of Culture in 2012. This led to a flourishing of local art initiatives, job creation in the creative sector, and a renewed sense of community identity. Similar transformations have occurred in Plzeň, Czech Republic and Matera, Italy, cities that gained international cultural status thanks to EU support.

One of the EU’s most visionary initiatives is the European Capitals of Cultureprogramme. This initiative does more than bring tourism; it energises local traditions and gives underrepresented regions international attention. Košice, a Slovak city with a rich but lesser-known cultural history, used its 2013 designation to invest in a multicultural arts centre in a former barracks, host Roma music festivals, and highlight the region’s Jewish and Hungarian heritage. Galway, in Ireland, similarly used its 2020 status to foreground Irish-language poetry, traditional music, and storytelling – even if the pandemic altered some of its plans. In each case, the EU served as both patron and platform.

Language diversity is another cornerstone of EU cultural engagement. Though language policy is largely a national prerogative, the EU reinforces regional and minority languages through programmes linked to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. While this charter operates under the Council of Europe, EU institutions work to align policies that protect language rights and support educational initiatives. The Multilingualism Policy, the Erasmus+ programme, and Creative Europe’s translation grants all contribute to preserving Europe’s linguistic diversity.

Furthermore, the EU promotes intercultural exchange and mobility. Through Culture Moves Europe and Erasmus+, thousands of young artists, musicians, writers, and curators have studied, collaborated, and performed across borders. A young fiddler from Brittany can now collaborate with an Estonian folk singer or a Roma dancer from Hungary. These encounters not only enrich the individuals involved but also build cultural bridges that counter xenophobia and nationalist retrenchment.

Critics argue that the EU’s involvement in culture infringes on national sovereignty or encourages a superficial “Euro-culture.” But this misunderstands the structural genius of the EU’s approach. Rather than imposing cultural norms, the EU centralises support mechanisms while decentralising access, ensuring local actors are the ones defining, producing, and showcasing their culture. In effect, the EU empowers regions to bypass national gatekeepers and express their identities on their own terms.

This model has also proven resilient in times of crisis. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU mobilised cultural solidarity quickly, supporting Ukrainian artists and cultural heritage sites both inside and outside the country. Cross-border cooperation projects in Poland, Slovakia, and Romania sprang into action, demonstrating how EU cultural infrastructure can respond nimbly to geopolitical emergencies.

In a world where many nations are becoming more inward-looking and where minority cultures are under threat from political centralisation, the EU stands as a rare example of a supranational body committed to diversity in action, not just in rhetoric. It is not perfect. Bureaucratic hurdles remain, and access to funding can be unequal. But the direction of travel is clear: support local, fund the fringe, and celebrate the plural.

If the soul of Europe lies in its mosaics of culture, then the EU, quietly, consistently, and strategically, acts as its curator.

Sources:
European Commission – Creative Europe
European Commission – Regional Policy
Council of Europe – European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
European Commission – European Capitals of Culture
European Commission – Culture Moves Europe
European Commission – Multilingualism and Language Policy

A Transatlantic Lens: Exploring the Biggest Differences Between Europe and North America

Posted on by
Reply

The feedback I have been getting is that readers have been enjoying my serialised essays exploring subject matter to greater depth. This series of posts is for my friends on both sides of the Atlantic who love to debate this topic, often over European old growth wine and Alberta beef steaks.

Living in North America since the early 1990s as a European, I’m constantly struck by the quirks, surprises, and sometimes baffling differences between the continents. Over the next few weeks, I’ll explore ten key contrasts: spanning work, cities, food, and politics, and share what these differences mean in everyday life.

The Ten Differences

1. Social Safety Nets

In Europe, healthcare, pensions, and social support are expected parts of life. In North America, it’s more “your responsibility,” with benefits often tied to your job. It’s a mindset shift—comfort versus risk, security versus self-reliance, and it shapes so much of daily life.

2. Urban Planning and Transport

European cities invite walking, biking, and public transit. North American life often demands a car for everything. That difference affects how people socialize, shop, and spend their days. Suddenly, running errands isn’t quick, it’s a logistical decision.

3. Work-Life Balance

Europeans enjoy generous vacations and shorter workweeks. North Americans often work longer hours with less guaranteed downtime. Life here can feel like a constant race, while in Europe, there’s a stronger sense of living, not just working.

4. Cultural Formality and Etiquette

Europeans prize subtlety, traditions, and social cues. North Americans are casual, direct, and friendly—but sometimes painfully blunt. Adjusting between the two takes awareness: what feels warm here might feel sloppy there, and what feels polite there can seem distant here.

5. Business Practices

European companies lean toward consensus, careful planning, and stability. North American firms move fast, take risks, and chase growth. The difference shows up in meetings, negotiations, and career paths; you quickly learn when to push and when to wait.

6. Education Systems

Europe often offers low-cost or free higher education and emphasizes broad learning. North America favors expensive, specialized programs. The gap affects opportunities, student debt, and the way people approach learning for life versus learning for a career.

7. Food Culture

In Europe, meals are rituals – slow, social, and seasonal. Here, convenience and speed often rule, and portions are huge. That doesn’t just shape diets; it changes how people connect over meals and how they experience daily life.

8. Political Culture

European politics embrace multiple parties, coalitions, and compromise. North America leans on two parties and polarized debates. This difference affects trust, civic engagement, and how people view the government’s role in society.

9. History and Architecture

Europeans live among centuries of history in their streets, buildings, and laws. North America feels newer, faster, and more forward-looking. The environment subtly teaches what matters: continuity versus reinvention, roots versus growth.

10. Attitudes Toward Environment

Europe integrates sustainability into daily life: cycling, recycling, and urban planning. North American approaches vary, often prioritizing convenience or growth over ecology. Cultural attitudes toward responsibility shape everything from transportation to policy priorities.

These ten contrasts are just a glimpse of life across the Atlantic. In the weeks ahead, I’ll dive deeper into each, sharing stories, observations, and reflections. The goal isn’t just comparison, it’s understanding how culture shapes choices, habits, and even identity. Stay tuned for the journey.

Blood and Creed: Vice President Vance’s Reimagining of American Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

On July 5, 2025, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a notable address at the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award Dinner in San Diego. For a man in the second-highest office of the land, his treatment of American citizenship was striking, not for its novelty, but for its clear departure from foundational norms. 

From Creed to Kinship
Vance began by challenging the idea of the United States as a creedal nation, a polity bound by shared principles of the Declaration of Independence, calling it simultaneously over-inclusive (drawing in “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” who support American ideals abroad) and under-inclusive (excluding those with ancestral ties, but extremist beliefs). He presented a contrasting model of citizenship rooted in ancestry, place, and “blood-and-soil.” With sentimental reference to generations of his family buried in a Kentucky cemetery, Vance argued that belonging should be tied to living history and rootedness rather than abstract ideals. 

This represents more than rhetorical flourish. It signals a paradigm shift, from civic affiliation to ethnic membership. In Vance’s terms, ancestry becomes a qualifier; heritage becomes identity.

Critique from the Center and Beyond
Historians and public intellectuals wasted little time pushing back. Ambassador Daniel Fried offered a powerful critique in The National Interest, opposing Vance’s redefinition for its reversal of Abraham Lincoln’s post–Civil War vision. Lincoln had conceived the nation as “a new nation, conceived in liberty”, not as a bloodline-bound entity. Fried emphasized that Lincoln saw citizenship as a matter of shared principles, not ancestry, drawing on immigrants who “feel…they are part of us” through creed.

Historian and public author John Ganz described Vance’s stance as an “anti-Declaration.” He highlighted the inconsistency of invoking Revolutionary and Civil War symbols while undermining the very ideals those conflicts advanced. Ganz drew contrast with Harry Jaffa, whose defense of Lincoln affirmed that “all men are created equal” meant just that, regardless of bloodline.

Tad Stoermer’s “Heritage Citizenship”
Into this debate steps Tad Stoermer: public historian, educator, and author, who coined the term “heritage citizenship” to categorize this turn toward ancestry-based belonging. Stoermer views this not as nostalgic reflection but as active project: a “restoration” of a racially-defined First Republic rooted in whiteness. The goal, he suggests, is the rewriting of constitutional logic, to reassert lineage as citizenship’s arbiter. 

Why This Matters Today
If Vance’s vision is enacted, it would have real-world consequences:

1. Birthright Citizenship at Risk
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship based on birth within U.S. jurisdiction: an inclusive, principle-based foundation. Vance’s model, however, introduces a lineage test, posing a legal challenge to this constitutional baseline.

2. Political and Social Exclusion
Consider the millions of post-1965 immigrant-descended Americans: legal, patriotic, educated, yet lacking “Appalachian blood.” Their citizenship, under Vance’s rubric, becomes negotiable, diluted by ancestry.

3. Ideological Flexibility for Elites
Despite its broad implications, heritage citizenship allows selective exceptions, for political elites, spouses, or allies (e.g., Vance’s own wife, born in California to Indian immigrants), which erodes the internal consistency of the ideology. Vance can romanticize heritage, while simultaneously reserving membership for his inner circle.

Going Backwards – Constitutionally and Symbolically
This vision directly counters Lincoln’s redefinition of the Union after 1863. At Gettysburg, he consecrated the Union’s cause as “a new birth of freedom,”establishing citizenship through legal equality. Vance’s model, in contrast, retreats into pre-14th Amendment logic, where race and lineage determined belonging.

It also undermines the United States’ role on the global stage. Fried points out that the American creed, its principle-based identity, enabled it to attract “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” of adherents abroad, forming what he describes as a “positive-sum” global leadership structure  . Heritage-based identity, by contrast, is zero-sum, exclusive, and inward-looking.

A Historian’s Judgment
For any senior historian, the implications are stark:
• Constitutional Regression: Voting rights and equal protection, hard-won through amendments and civil rights struggles, are put back on the chopping block.
• Political Inequality: Heritage citizenship enables a bifurcated class of Americans, those with “authentic” lineage and those without.
• National Myth versus National Reality: The U.S. has always been a nation of immigrants and wanderers. Vance’s speech polices belonging by ancestry, contra 250 years of integrated identity-building.

Vice President Vance’s Claremont Institute speech is not merely poetic, it is profoundly political. It stakes out heritage, soil, and blood as qualifiers of sovereignty. Critics like Fried, Ganz, and Stoermer understand this as both intellectual and legal retrenchment. The choice now faces American democracy: Will we continue as a principle-based republic, where citizenship is claimed through belief, law, and shared action? Or will we succumb to a lineage-based model that narrows the definition of who belongs?

In highlighting ancestry over creed, Vance’s model asks an inflammatory question: does American identity belong to those we include, or those we exclude? The answer, for nearly two centuries, has been creed. It must remain so.

In a nation guided by Vance-style heritage criteria, citizenship would shift from being a legal, civic covenant to a cultural inheritance. That model would disqualify immigrants, their children, Jewish Americans, those of Latino or Asian descent, even well-known political figures, unless they belong to the “right” ancestry group. Yet the model grants latitude for elite figures, a glaring hypocrisy exposing the project’s exclusionary core. It’s not just a nostalgic vision, it’s a blueprint for a tiered citizenry: real if you’re insider heritage, negotiable if not.

The Shifting Dream: White Masculinity and their Receding Grip on North America’s Future

Posted on by
Reply

For centuries, the mythology of the “American Dream” (and its Canadian cousin) was powered by the image of the self-made white man; rugged, determined, and in control. From the frontier and the factory floor to the boardroom and ballot box, the narrative of national progress was long centered on white male ambition, but in the 21st century, that dominance is waning. Not because others are taking what doesn’t belong to them, but because they are finally accessing what always should have been shared.

Demographically, socially, and economically, North America is being reshaped by waves of migration, changing gender roles, Indigenous resurgence, and increasing racial and cultural diversity. Women, racialized people, queer folks, and immigrants are not just contributing, they are leading. From startup culture and environmental activism to political office and artistic innovation, the stories being told and the power being wielded are increasingly non-white and non-male.

Yet, as these shifts accelerate, many white men are experiencing something they have rarely encountered at a cultural level: loss of centrality. For generations, society reinforced that whiteness and maleness were the default, everything else was “other.” Now, with those defaults being questioned and dismantled, entitlement is showing its teeth. There is a growing chorus of grievance, often manifesting in reactionary politics, internet subcultures, and movements that call for a return to a mythical past when “men were men” and “America was great.”

The trouble is that entitlement doesn’t vanish when equity rises. Many white men have come to see fairness as persecution, mistaking equality for displacement. They are not just angry at being excluded, they are angry that inclusion requires them to share space, status, and resources. This is especially evident in education, employment, and media representation, where more equitable hiring practices, affirmative action, and inclusive storytelling are viewed not as progress but as threats to traditional dominance.

Some of this backlash is economic. Working-class white men, especially those displaced by globalization and automation, have seen their livelihoods and identities eroded. But the narrative they are often sold isn’t one of class solidarity, it’s one of racial and gender resentment. Politicians and pundits have weaponized their frustration, redirecting legitimate grievances toward scapegoats rather than structural inequity.

Still, the future is not about erasure. It is about redefinition. White men, like everyone else, have the opportunity to take part in a broader, more inclusive vision of what it means to thrive in North America. But it requires humility, self-reflection, and a willingness to let go of inherited privilege. The dream hasn’t died, it’s just no longer theirs alone.

If white men can move from entitlement to empathy, from dominance to solidarity, they can be part of a future that is richer, fairer, and more sustainable. If they cling to the fading illusion of supremacy, they will find themselves shouting from the sidelines of a dream that has moved on without them.

A Tale of Two Nations: Why Canada Celebrates Differences While America Seeks Sameness

Posted on by
Reply

For over a century, the United States has proudly embraced the metaphor of the “melting pot,” a vision in which immigrants from all over the world come together to form a singular American identity. This idea suggests that while people may arrive with distinct languages, customs, and traditions, they are expected to assimilate into a common culture; one that prioritizes English, democratic values, and a shared national ethos. The melting pot is often framed as a symbol of unity, a place where differences dissolve in the service of a greater whole. However, this model has its critics, who argue that it pressures immigrants to abandon their unique cultural heritage in order to conform.

The roots of the melting pot concept can be traced back to Israel Zangwill, a British playwright whose 1908 play The Melting Pot romanticized America as a land where old ethnic divisions would fade away, forging a new, united people. While Zangwill gave the concept its famous name, the push for assimilation had been shaping U.S. policy and attitudes long before. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president, was one of its most vocal proponents, arguing that immigrants must fully adopt American customs, language, and values to be considered truly American. The early 20th century saw the rise of the Americanization movement, which reinforced these ideas through public education, labor policies, and civic initiatives. By mid-century, the expectation of cultural conformity had become deeply embedded in American identity, influencing everything from language policies to popular media portrayals of immigrant life.

Canada, on the other hand, has cultivated a different metaphor, that of a “cultural mosaic.” Rather than seeking to merge all cultures into one, Canada actively encourages its people to maintain and celebrate their distinct identities. This approach is not just a social philosophy, but an official policy, first enshrined in 1971 with the introduction of the Multiculturalism Policy by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Unlike the American melting pot, which emphasizes assimilation, Trudeau’s vision was one of inclusion without erasure. His government recognized that Canada’s growing diversity, particularly from non-European immigration, required a shift in how the country defined itself.

The passage of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988, under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, further reinforced this philosophy by guaranteeing federal support for cultural communities, anti-discrimination measures, and the preservation of minority languages. Unlike the U.S., where English is seen as a central marker of national identity, Canada has long embraced bilingualism, officially recognizing both English and French. Additionally, Canada has extended support for Indigenous and immigrant languages in education and public services, further emphasizing its commitment to cultural pluralism.

The differences between these two models of integration are profound. In the United States, the expectation is often that newcomers will embrace “Americanness” above all else, whether that means speaking only English, adopting mainstream American customs, or minimizing their ethnic identity in public life. While the U.S. does recognize and celebrate diversity in some respects; Black History Month, Indigenous Peoples’ Day, and the popularity of international cuisines all attest to this, there remains a strong undercurrent that to be truly American, one must fit within a specific cultural framework.

Canada’s approach, by contrast, views multiculturalism as a strength rather than a challenge to national unity. Cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal are known for their ethnic neighborhoods, where different cultures not only survive, but thrive. Unlike the American approach, which often treats diversity as something to be managed or assimilated, Canada has built institutions that actively encourage it. Government funding for cultural festivals, multilingual public services, and policies that allow dual citizenship all reflect a belief that preserving one’s cultural roots does not weaken Canadian identity, but enriches it.

This difference is especially clear in the way both countries handle language. In the U.S., English is often seen as the primary marker of integration, with political debates regularly emerging over whether Spanish speakers should make greater efforts to assimilate linguistically. Canada, meanwhile, has long recognized both English and French as official languages, and has even extended support for Indigenous and immigrant languages in education and public services.

Ultimately, the American melting pot and the Canadian cultural mosaic reflect two very different visions of national identity. While the U.S. values unity through assimilation, Canada finds strength in diversity itself. Neither model is without its challenges, but the contrast between them speaks to fundamental differences in how these two North American nations define what it means to belong.