gy sectors in a common front to opposerncnltnral protectionism anywhere. Thisrn”American” juggernaut—the product ofrncorporate mergers and the convergencernof the information media — sees thernCanadian bill as a litmus test, since successfulrnCanadian resistance can be arnmodel for other countries. Canadian argumentsrnhave been echoed in Europernand Asia, where the ver)- notion of standingrnup to “American” cultural hegemonyrntouches a cord.rnWhat most Europeans and Canadiansrnstill call “culture” has been absorbed, inrnthe Ihiited States, into a monolithicrnentertainment-industrial complex thatrncombines publishing, broadcasting, cablernand satellite systems, film-making,rnvideo and TV production, theater, andrnmusic performance, recording, and distribution.rnTime-Warner, Disney, andrncompany want to control the world, literally.rnThey have a lot of money, andrntherefore a lot of influence in Washington,rnwhich now seems ready to risk anrnall-out trade war over an unimportantrnand perfectly legal foreign bill. Thanksrnto their lobbying, “manv in Washingtonrnfeel an example must be made of Canadarnif other cultural protectionists aroundrnthe world are to be deterred,” accordingrnto Christopher Sands, director of thernCanada Project at the Center for Strategicrnand hiternational Studies in Washington,rnD.C.rnErom this “American” point of view,rnany national culture —if it is to be toleratedrnat all —must be subordinate tornsomething called “freedom of choice,”rnwhich entails, in addition to split-runrnmagazines, as man’American radio andrntelevision stations, cable channels, films,rnvideos, and Stephen King paperbacks asrnthe “global” consumer wants. This “freedom,”rnrichly endowed with advertisingrnbillions, is supposedly resisted only byrnoppressive “cultural elites,” an array ofrnkilljoys and nerds who nndcuKJcraticallyrnpresume to tell the people what theyrnought to read, see, and hear. Culture-relatedrnsubsidies of any kind, not to mendonrncontent rec[uireuients, are shacklesrnlimiting peoples’ choices, inconsistentrnwith “globalization” and “freedom of expression.”rnThe assault is formidable, and it needsrnto be resisted by the adherents of truernculture everywhere. But it is unfortunaterndiat Canada has been pushed to the forefrontrnof the emerging global culture war.rnCanada —or, to be precise, its Englishspeakingrnbulk—is, if anvthing, more politicallyrncorrect and more “mrdhcnltural”rnthan America. Its Toronto-basedrn”cultural elite” is largel- effete, leftish,rnanti-Christian, sexnalh’ ambiguous, andrnfatally dependent on state handouts fromrnlike-minded federal and provincial bureaucrats.rnIt is lacking in the vigor, authenticiU’,rnand raw energ’ of, say, the laternRobertson Davies or Alice Munro. It deservesrnto be swept awav.rnBut its defeat at the hands of StevenrnSpielberg, David Geffen, and MichaelrnEisner would undermine the will to resistrnin places such as Spain, Slovakia,rnEinland, or Austria, not to mentionrnAmerica’s own struggling heartland. Forrnthat reason alone, we ought to supportrnthe Canadians on this one. The barbariansrnare inside the gates, and our enemy’srnenemy should be at least an ally, if notrnexaedy a friend.rn— Srdja TrifkovicrnA HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL statuernhas been proposed by a local Jewish interiorrndecorator here in St. Petersburg.rnThe 80-foot statue would be situated inrnone of the parks that line Tampa Bay, inrndowntown St. Pete. The decorator hasrnalready selected a London sculptor, who,rnin turn, has designed the statue. Evcr)-rnthing is set. All that is needed now isrnmoney, bodi Jewish and municipal. Therncost would be three million dollars, notrncounting the land and the annual maintenance,rnwhich the city is supposed tornprovide. In Tampa Ba’s Jewish world,rnthree million dollars is a lot of money;rnthe hvo Jew ish federadons on both sidesrnof the bay do w ell to raise that in a goodrnyear.rnSt. Petersburg already has a Holoeau.strnMnseimi, with an active educationalrnprogram; it is among the biggest in thernUnited States. Why a statue as well?rnSomeone got a bright idea and ran withrnIt.rnIt’s a good example of how personalrnwhims replace proportion, balance, andrnpublic discussion of the public interestrnin Jewish cominunit)’ affairs. I personal-rnK’ think that three million dollars wouldrnbe much better spent on building thernJewish future in this lovelv count)’—onrnsynagogues, schools, and youth programsrn—than on elaborately, expensively,rnmemorializing the tragic past (for arnsecond time, no less). But what I findrnmost interesdng in this bizarre inidadvernis how private enterprise is taking overrnthe “organized Jewish community.” OrganizedrnJewry is going out of business,rnand disorganized, self-motivated, amateurishrnJewish hobbvists are taking over.rnThat is what we have come to. Therernwas a time, not long ago, when the Jewishrnfederations presented themselves asrnthe “Jewish community’s central address,”rnwhere everyone met to discussrnJewish public policy and to decide howrnJewish business should be carried on.rnThere was an age when most money forrnJewish causes was raised through Jewishrnfederadon drives. But the dme of a Jewishrncommonwealth, the age of a Jewishrnpublic interest, gae wa’ to entrepreneurialrnJew ishness: Do as you like, and ifrnyou can get away with it, well and good.rnThe “Jewish community” be damned.rnPersonal and amateur family foundationsrnhave replaced public, professionallyrnadministered philanthropy. Eew familyrnfoimdations take a broad andrnenlightened view of Jewry as a whole, Judaismrnand its rec|uirements, the Jewishrncommunit)’ and what it needs to do torncarry out its responsibilities; many privaternfoundations fund onK- private causesrnand individual whims. I can documentrnthe damage, the corruption of Jewish values,rnthe utter contempt for Judaism, thatrnthe “Jewish” family foundations havernbrought about.rnBut here in a small and provincial cornerrnof the Jewish world, widi weak federationsrnand a vast popidation of MarranornJews (who do not wish to present themselvesrnas Jews at all), matters have deterioratedrneven more dramadeally. Now, forrna major project such as this, the is where Jewish public policy is discussed,rnand the discussion is after thernfact. Someone got into her mind arnbright idea, and the next thing we know,rnshe has chosen a sculptor, selected hisrnpiece, and decided that the best thingrnthat the Jewish communit)’ can do withrnthree million dollars is to fill up a municipalrnpark on the waterfront with yetrnanother holocaust memorial. How selfindulgent!rnHow short-sighted! Howrngrotescjue!rnBut to this we have come. About fivernyears ago, a local Jewish dermatologistrn(so I recall; he could have been a dendstrn—it was something with a “d”) got itrniirto his head that the local RomanrnCatholic bishop should speak to the Jewishrncommunih of Tampa Bay. So he invitedrnhim to address die Jew ish communit)’.rnThe bishop accepted the invitation,rnassuming that the dendst had some sortrnof official standing to offer it, and a datern8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn