logo
The History Behind Canadian Boycotts of American Whiskey

The History Behind Canadian Boycotts of American Whiskey

Yahoo08-04-2025

A worker removes bottles of American-made Jack Daniel's whiskey from a shelf at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) Queen's Quay store in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. Credit - Christopher Katsarov Luna—Bloomberg/Getty Images
American whiskey is flying off of the shelves in Canada, although surely not for the reason American whiskey makers would like. In response to President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian imports to the U.S., many Canadians are boycotting American goods, particularly whiskey.
Viral videos show Canadian liquor store employees pushing carts with popular American whiskey brands like Jack Daniels and Maker's Mark into the back of stores, instead encouraging consumers to 'buy Canadian.'
While there are economic and political reasons for targeting whiskey in trying to retaliate against the U.S., there is an additional motive at play. Canadians are trying to damage an American industry that has long sought to position itself as central to the U.S.'s history and identity. For example, in 2011 Jack Daniels, the number one selling whiskey in the U.S., launched its 'As American As' advertising campaign. The ads depicted images of classic Americana—blue jeans, cowboy hats, and white picket fences—while a voiceover claimed: 'We're the creators of things born of an independent spirit.' Other popular American whiskey brands like Bulleit, 1792, and High West proclaim their association with the American frontier and perceived American values like individualism and perseverance.
Yet, despite this imagery, the whiskey industry has been shaped by global forces for close to a century. These forces helped it to grow in the post-World War II period as American cultural influence spread around the globe. Today, it leaves whiskey producers vulnerable to the sorts of boycotts now taking place in Canada.
Using Tariffs to Try to Turn Canada into American State Backfired in the Past
The history of American whiskey, its rise to global prominence, and its status as a symbol of American identity are rooted in a unique confluence of factors.
In the early 20th century, prohibition crippled the whiskey industry. Many distillers shuttered and those that survived did so by producing medicinal whiskey or pivoting to other industries. At the end of Prohibition in 1933, whiskey distilling boomed in the U.S. as restrictions against mass production ended. Nonetheless, producers faced an uphill battle. Whiskey retained an association with criminality and drunkenness—one that whiskey makers were desperate to break.
World War II again laid the industry low, as distilleries were repurposed to produce industrial alcohol for the war effort. As the war ended, it provided an unexpected boost to American whiskey production, albeit in two indirect ways.
The U.S. emerged as a dominant economic power, which led to rapid expansion of American industry, including whiskey production. Whiskey became a key export that followed the rise of American cultural and economic influence abroad. Additionally, the war introduced many American soldiers to whiskey, and as they returned home, they brought with them a taste for the spirit.
The postwar economic boom, coupled with rising disposable income and the expansion of consumer culture, fueled whiskey's golden age in the 1950s and 1960s. As global markets adjusted to America's economic expansion in this period, whiskey remained a staple of U.S. exports. The Bourbon Institute, a trade society formed in 1958, fought to lower trade restriction on American whiskey abroad, eventually removing almost all trade barriers in Europe.
The increasing demand for American goods abroad meant that the spirit, once primarily a domestic product, became a key player in international trade in the 1950s and 1960s. The Bourbon Institute framed this growth explicitly in cultural terms. In 1960, its president William J. Marshall, proclaimed, 'The bourbon industry feels that its product is a distinctively unique American product and that the sale of this product plays its part in the broader program of having American ways and products known throughout the world.'
This shift reinforced whiskey's role as a symbol of American craftsmanship, while also tying it to the country's broader economic influence on the world stage. Overseas, American advertising for whiskey retained the claims of Americana and frontier individualism that championed brands like Jack Daniels and Jim Beam as uniquely American even as they flooded foreign markets.
However, despite this branding, the whiskey industry was not immune to changing consumer preferences. By the 1970s, a new generation of American drinkers increasingly turned to vodka and lighter spirits, seeing them as more modern and fashionable, than whiskey. Especially given the linkage between vodka and the USSR in Cold War imagery, the spirit became cooly subversive in a way whiskey couldn't match. That left the whiskey industry, like so many other types of American manufacturers, to confront a period of decline, with sales dropping and many historic distilleries closing their doors. By the 1980s, fewer than 100 distilleries remained in operation in the U.S., a stark contrast to the postwar boom years.
As distilleries shuttered, it also sparked the consolidation of the industry. Over the ensuing decades, a handful of conglomerates came to dominate the American whiskey industry, acquiring smaller family-run distilleries at a rapid pace. Today, the spirit of individuality heralded in whiskey advertisements is not reflected in its production. By 2015, eight companies produced roughly 99% of all whiskey made in the U.S.
Why Trump's Threats to Canada Will Continue to Backfire
In fact, many of America's most popular whiskey brands are currently owned by international conglomerates with enormous financial portfolios: Jim Beam (owned by the Japanese company Suntory Global Spirits), Bulleit (owned by the British company Diageo), and Wild Turkey (owned by the Italian company Campari Group) are but a few of the American-made brands currently part of a global network of capital.
This reality exposes how claims that whiskey is a uniquely American product—an industry rooted in the frontier, perseverance, and economic independence—are as much industry mythmaking as fact. The American whiskey industry has long been shaped by global forces, from the export and advertising of whiskey abroad to the increasing dominance of international conglomerates.
This history helps explain why Canadians have targeted American whiskey in their boycotts. Indeed, Bourbon, Tennessee Whiskey, and other American-made whiskeys come overwhelmingly from states that voted for Trump, especially Kentucky and Tennessee. Canadian politicians are leveraging this partisan divide. Last month, the Premier of British Columbia, David Eby directed British Columbia's state-run liquor stores to stop purchasing American liquor from 'red states.'
Canadians want to target the heart of a movement that sees itself as being about American identity and they see no better means than by boycotting an industry that still markets itself as distinctly American. Even 60 years later, Bourbon distillers still trumpet a 1964 congressional resolution declaring their spirit 'a distinctive product of the United States.' Writer Reid Mitenbuler recounts that American whiskey and bourbon distillers rely on 'the values implied by the frontier iconography found on countless bourbon bottles [which] are inherently American: individualism, self-sufficiency, practicality, and guts.'
American whiskey relies on these claims of authenticity and tradition to sell the industry's product. That may need to change for the industry to thrive at a moment when the U.S. is antagonizing many countries around the globe
This branding played a key role in elevating American whiskey around the globe in the post-war period when U.S. influence was burgeoning globally. Yet, the international marketplace that has shaped the whiskey industry for a century is susceptible to political forces. That means it isn't immune to the consequences of geopolitical disputes and shifting consumer preferences worldwide. Today, as the Trump administration courts opprobrium abroad, the industry's identity and branding leaves it uniquely exposed and vulnerable, as the Canadian boycott efforts spotlight.
E. Kyle Romero is an assistant professor at the University of North Florida. He studies the history of American foreign policy, immigration politics, and global consumer economics.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@time.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content

Hamilton Spectator

time27 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content

OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.

Today in History: June 8, Trump indicted on classified document charges
Today in History: June 8, Trump indicted on classified document charges

Boston Globe

time32 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Today in History: June 8, Trump indicted on classified document charges

In 1789, in an address to the US House of Representatives, James Madison proposed amending the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. In 1949, George Orwell's novel '1984' was first published. In 1966, a merger was announced between the National and American Football Leagues, to take effect in 1970. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, 34 American crew members were killed when Israel attacked the USS Liberty, a Navy intelligence-gathering ship in the Mediterranean Sea. (Israel later said the Liberty had been mistaken for an Egyptian vessel.) In 1968, US authorities announced the capture in London of James Earl Ray, the suspected assassin of civil rights leader the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In 1978, a jury in Clark County, Nev., ruled the so-called 'Mormon Will,' purportedly written by the late billionaire Howard Hughes, was a forgery. Advertisement In 1995, US Marines rescued Captain Scott O'Grady, whose F-16C fighter jet had been shot down by Bosnian Serbs on June 2. In 2009, North Korea's highest court sentenced American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to 12 years' hard labor for trespassing and 'hostile acts.' (The women were pardoned in early August 2009 after a trip to Pyongyang by former President Bill Clinton.) In 2017, former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before Congress, asserted that President Trump fired him to interfere with Comey's investigation of Russia's ties to the Trump campaign. In 2021, Ratko Mladić, the military chief known as the 'Butcher of Bosnia' for orchestrating genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the Balkan nation's 1992-95 war, lost his final legal battle when UN judges rejected his appeal and affirmed his life sentence. In 2023, PresidentTrump was indicted by a grand jury in Miami on 37 felony counts related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents that had been moved to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Florida home. (The case against Trump was abandoned following Trump's November 2024 presidential election victory.)

New disputes emerge ahead of US-China trade talks in London
New disputes emerge ahead of US-China trade talks in London

Hamilton Spectator

time43 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

New disputes emerge ahead of US-China trade talks in London

BEIJING (AP) — U.S.-China trade talks in London this week are expected to take up a series of fresh disputes that have buffeted relations, threatening a fragile truce over tariffs. Both sides agreed in Geneva last month to a 90-day suspension of most of the 100%-plus tariffs they had imposed on each other in an escalating trade war that had sparked fears of recession . Since then, the U.S. and China have exchanged angry words over advanced semiconductors that power artificial intelligence, 'rare earths' that are vital to carmakers and other industries, and visas for Chinese students at American universities. President Donald Trump spoke at length with Chinese leader Xi Jinping by phone last Thursday in an attempt to put relations back on track. Trump announced on social media the next day that trade talks would be held on Monday in London. Technology is a major sticking point The latest frictions began just a day after the May 12 announcement of the Geneva agreement to 'pause' tariffs for 90 days. The U.S. Commerce Department issued guidance saying the use of Ascend AI chips from Huawei , a leading Chinese tech company, could violate U.S. export controls. That's because the chips were likely developed with American technology despite restrictions on its export to China, the guidance said. The Chinese government wasn't pleased . One of its biggest beefs in recent years has been over U.S. moves to limit the access of Chinese companies to technology, and in particular to equipment and processes needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors. 'The Chinese side urges the U.S. side to immediately correct its erroneous practices,' a Commerce Ministry spokesperson said. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wasn't in Geneva but will join the talks in London. Analysts say that suggests at least a willingness on the U.S. side to hear out China's concerns on export controls . China shows signs of easing up on rare earths One area where China holds the upper hand is in the mining and processing of rare earths . They are crucial for not only autos but also a range of other products from robots to military equipment. The Chinese government started requiring producers to obtain a license to export seven rare earth elements in April. Resulting shortages sent automakers worldwide into a tizzy. As stockpiles ran down, some worried they would have to halt production. Trump, without mentioning rare earths specifically, took to social media to attack China. 'The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,' Trump posted on May 30. The Chinese government indicated Saturday that it is addressing the concerns, which have come from European companies as well. A Commerce Ministry statement said it had granted some approvals and 'will continue to strengthen the approval of applications that comply with regulations.' The scramble to resolve the rare earth issue shows that China has a strong card to play if it wants to strike back against tariffs or other measures. Plan to revoke student visas adds to tensions Student visas don't normally figure in trade talks, but a U.S. announcement that it would begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students has emerged as another thorn in the relationship. China's Commerce Ministry raised the issue when asked last week about the accusation that it had violated the consensus reached in Geneva. It replied that the U.S. had undermined the agreement by issuing export control guidelines for AI chips, stopping the sale of chip design software to China and saying it would revoke Chinese student visas. 'The United States has unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions,' the ministry said in a statement posted on its website. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a May 28 statement that the United States would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.' More than 270,000 Chinese students studied in the U.S. in the 2023-24 academic year. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store