When Canada was created it debated if it was best to seek political solidarity by creating a single political identity or was it wiser to build a citizenship that made space for all communities. This article argues there was no attempt to unite Canadians around a single national loyalty but only to join an array of diverse communities whose members might adopt a shared citizenship. Since 1867, Canada has adopted different approaches to creating citizenship to maintain political solidarity. Diversity has been an integral part of that narrative. Keywords: Canada; diversity; citizenship; nation-building; George-Etienne Cartier; Justin Trudeau DOI: 10.14712/23363231.2020.2 © 2019 The Authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License , which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Editorial

This paper intends to shed light on the memory of the Armenian Genocide among the Armenian diaspora in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. I will focus on the patterns of promoting remembrance found in the local Armenian press and literature, on initiatives of the Armenian General Benevolent Union/Parekordzagan (AGBU) to celebrate the ninetieth and hundredth anniversaries of the Genocide, and on analyzing the cityscape of Plovdiv in terms of the monuments, the museum, and the cemetery of its Armenian community. To that end, I will employ information collected during interviews, articles from Plovdiv’s main Armenian newspaper, and data I gathered while visiting the community’s public spaces. I will demonstrate the importance of collective memory and remembrance of the Genocide to the preservation of the internal cohesion of the Armenian community of Plovdiv and its ethnic identity. Taking a socio-anthropological approach, I will argue that the maintenance and promotion of a specific “postmemory” of the Genocide depends heavily on the activities and initiatives of the main diaspora organization, the AGBU, on its selection of specific symbols, and on the emotional content of its communications.Keywords: Armenian Genocide; Bulgaria; collective memory; commemorative practices; diasporaDOI: 10.14712/23363231.2019.13 © 2019 The Authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Probing the intersection of Memory Studies and International Relations, this article traces the uses of collective memory in late Cold War US Transatlantic relations. First it surveys the existing scholarly literature on the topic and critiques some selected methodological models. Next it discusses the politics of cultural memory in the United States itself. In its main body, the study focuses on the core of the use of memory in US Transatlantic relations: historical reasoning in the fields of 1) foreign policy decision-making, and 2) public or cultural diplomacy. The author argues that while the US government may not have had a centrally articulated and overarching policy for the use of collective memory in US diplomacy, such a policy can nevertheless be assembled out of its foreign policy training and the cultural diplomacy practices of the United States Information Agency, both of which continued throughout the 1990s, the first period of the post-Cold War era. Keywords: United States, Cold War, memory, foreign policy, cultural diplomacy, transatlantic relations DOI: 10.14712/23363231.2015.79