The United States is not "One Nation".

[ThinkerX]

The OP's map is a variant of the old 'Nine Nations of North America' from the early 1980's, a notion put together by journalists who spent a lot of time crisscrossing the continent. 

 

To an extent, it is accurate, and occasional not-quite-joke efforts have been made to secede from the US in a manner roughly corresponding to the OP's map.  (Or make other border alterations).  'Cascadia' - coastal Washington, Oregon, and California, combined with coastal BC and SE Alaska - is one such.  Very environmentally active, politics tending towards socialism.  And then there are the various schemes to partition California or eastern and western Washington state.  The Deep South is another example, one with bloody roots: it corresponds roughly to the old Confederacy.  Boarders here talk about the lingering effects of that all the time - the built in racism, class mentality, extreme conservatism and backwardness, and so on.  This is especially relative in national politics: proposals that are quite acceptable on the 'Left Coast' are viewed as near literal treason in the 'Deep South.'  This turns up repeatedly in the electoral maps.

 

I would also note that federal level district boundaries correspond at least roughly to the OP's map - IRS, USPS, and maybe the judiciary.  So, even if not official, the distinctions are made in at least some places.

 

[Bonesy]

Pizza, soda pop and Coke.

I think I'm with Ini here. This shit is tired and a distraction from the conversation that is supposed to be happening. At least the BBQ non sequitur was informing while still irrelevant.

[MercenaryChef]

Is this at all tied with your secession fetish, scot?

I have lived and traveled all over the US and Canada. Both nations have a vast array of different people with different beliefs and values. A lot of times they are geographical in connection.  

But things are a lot more nuanced than homeboy's sci-fi map.  In the left coast of Oregon where I am from you only have progressive thought and liberal dominance in the few population areas. Drive even 30 minutes from Portland and you are in a rural conservative nightmare.  

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Thinkx,

Woodward acknowleges a number of different people who had this idea for attempting to define North America along cultural lines including Joel Garruex from the Washingtion Post and The Nine Nations of North America (which I own and read in the early 1990's).

MC,

It is about looking at the predominant cultures in various parts of North America, their origins, the vauge boundaries that delinate them, and how they influence life and political issues in North America.  None of the Authors I've referred to in this thread is advocating secession (or am I). 

They are pointing out the lack of cultural homogeneity or perfect cultural heterogeneity in North America and attempting to give rough guides as the locales and defining features of what they see as break down of North America's cultures.

Your example of the difference between cultures Portland and Eastern Oregon is deliniated in Woodward's book in the difference between "the Left Coast" and "The Far West" and is discussed at some length.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Marcus,

Your assertion is grossly over simplistic.

 

Do you have a favorite College or Professional sports team?  Do you enjoy rivalries with other teams make jokes about their fans?  People always tribalize.  Its just aomething humans do.  As such we shouldn't hand wave it away by claiming there is one human culture.

I am not claiming there is one human culture, rather I am claiming humanity shouldn't segregate anymore then they already do, national boarders are fine. Scott, the world isn't about boundaries or cultural values, it's about finding the place  you belong, making more artificial barriers doesn't help.

He didn't call it 'one human culture', he called it 'human', as in 'human nature'. In the world we currently live in, the national borders are about as definite as it gets to distinguish different cultural identities. Different dialects are useless, I grew up on a small island, perhaps 300 square miles, less than 15,000 inhabitants when I lived there, and there were still lots of different local dialects on the island, there would be regional difference as far as employment went, you could point out small cultural differences, but in the big picture it would be all pointless.

Likewise, you can make maps of the US showing different ways of speaking, different sports people follow, different political ideologies among the majority, and so on, but all of these maps will be different with only random similarities - you simply can't make broad conclusions about different cultures within the US. There will always be those in Austin feeling more in common with people from Park Slope than Santa Fe.

pretty much this

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Marcus,

Neither I nor the authors I'm discussing are advocating increased segregation based on culture.  What they are talking about is recognizing the divisions that exist and the nature of their nominal distribution.

[Jaxom 1974]

I'm still lost to the actual point though, Scot.  On it's face, it's an interesting concept, but I admit I'm totally lost on what's going on here.  The United States, as a nation, could be multiple nations...because of culture?  Just because I don't look at some things the same as people on either coast, it doesn't mean I think of those folks as any less American as I.

If I remember, I'll try to find this book in the library next time I'm there and skim through to see if it's something I want to check out more in depth. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jaxom,

The point, to a degree, is semnatic.  The US, while a single Nation-State, is multiple "Nations".  The differences discussed, while they talk about predominant political positions, are not "polticical" in the sense that the "Nations" discussed are of a cultural nature not a political nature.

[Commodore]

that's not who we are

[Marcus Agrippa]

Marcus,

Neither I nor the authors I'm discussing are advocating increased segregation based on culture.  What they are talking about is recognizing the divisions that exist and the nature of their nominal distribution.

Scott, the issue is why does need to be discussed and why does it MATTER. That's the issue, we have a lot of things worth discussing on this planet. What is rape, what is murder, what is justice, how do we treat moons, does any planetary colonization directly belong to earth, its countries or a corporation, why do we still use the Georgian calendar, why is New Jersery a state, why race exists, why the constitution is protected like its some sort of perfect piece of paper, and so forth. Recognize this would only be for something as basic as marketing, and even then the world is a smaller place then it was 30 years ago. These divisions aren't even remotely similar.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

As to the Constitution that's easy.  It is the fundamental law of the US.  If it is easy to change it is easy to remove the existing liberty protections enacted by it.

[Aemon Stark]

Jaxom,

The point, to a degree, is semnatic.  The US, while a single Nation-State, is multiple "Nations".  The differences discussed, while they talk about predominant political positions, are not "polticical" in the sense that the "Nations" discussed are of a cultural nature not a political nature.

See, I don't agree. Do Americans think of themselves - broadly speaking as a generalization - as distinct regional/cultural nations? 

Nations and nationalism derive mainly from 19th century thought, and while we might distinguish ethnocultural and "civic" nationalism, they overlap to some extent. Regional identity is not synonymous with national identity, even though it most certainly can be at times. Any state can have a variety of regional and/or local identities that nonetheless are not typically conceived of as separate "nations". 

[Jaxom 1974]

See, I don't agree. Do Americans think of themselves - broadly speaking as a generalization - as distinct regional/cultural nations? 

Nations and nationalism derive mainly from 19th century thought, and while we might distinguish ethnocultural and "civic" nationalism, they overlap to some extent. Regional identity is not synonymous with national identity, even though it most certainly can be at times. Any state can have a variety of regional and/or local identities that nonetheless are not typically conceived of as separate "nations". 

I'll check out the book.  I will.

But right now, I think I'm having issues with the use of "nation" in a synonymous manner as "region". 

[DanteGabriel]

I'm still lost to the actual point though, Scot.  On it's face, it's an interesting concept, but I admit I'm totally lost on what's going on here.  The United States, as a nation, could be multiple nations...because of culture?  Just because I don't look at some things the same as people on either coast, it doesn't mean I think of those folks as any less American as I.

If I remember, I'll try to find this book in the library next time I'm there and skim through to see if it's something I want to check out more in depth. 

For me, the most salient point from the book was that there are some pretty fundamental differences in ideas about the role of government and the most advantageous values to foster in civic society.

In particular, the author's thesis goes, two of these "nations" became leaders of dueling coalitions (from Woodard's own condensation): 

YANKEEDOM. Founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay by radical Calvinists as a new Zion, Yankeedom has, since the outset, put great emphasis on perfecting earthly civilization through social engineering, denial of self for the common good, and assimilation of outsiders. It has prized education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and broad citizen participation in politics and government, the latter seen as the public’s shield against the machinations of grasping aristocrats and other would-be tyrants. Since the early Puritans, it has been more comfortable with government regulation and public-sector social projects than many of the other nations, who regard the Yankee utopian streak with trepidation.

 

DEEP SOUTH. Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations. 

Woodard proposes that the other nations have aligned themselves with one or the other, with the coalitions shifting from time to time (national elections often turn on how the middle-of-the-road Midlands votes -- i.e. Pennsylvania and Ohio). The Deep South swallowed Tidewater and has a strong alliance with Appalachia. The Left Coast is strongly allied with Yankeedom, and New Netherland, which is cosmopolitan and business-driven, tends to ally with Yankeedom as well, except in matters of business regulation.

So for me, it just helps explain what I see in electoral politics. And the Appalachian alliance with the slavelords helps explain the core of the modern Republican coalition.

Obviously people's mileage may vary. Woodard himself is a Yankee so I suspect one can find bias in it, but I'm a Left Coaster who's settled in Yankeedom and I'm all in on Woodard's thesis and the value judgments he couldn't help but make. The funny thing is, I explained this book to my brother, who is a wealthy business owner in a Third World country, and he said, "Wealthy elite supported by cheap labor? I guess I'm a Deep Southerner."

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

I'm very Greater Appalachia/Midlands which makes sense given my family background.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

What nation is one nation then? Sure people from New York and Lousiana may on average have different cultural values, but so do people from London and Manchester, Berlin and Munich, Beijing and Shanghai, or Tokyo and Osaka. What of it?

[Gneisenau]

I suppose that is one way to distance oneself from Donald Trump

[DanteGabriel]

What nation is one nation then? Sure people from New York and Lousiana may on average have different cultural values, but so do people from London and Manchester, Berlin and Munich, Beijing and Shanghai, or Tokyo and Osaka. What of it?

I would be just as interested in an analysis of the regional cultures that shape British or Chinese or Japanese politics. Not everything has to be profound. It's just an interesting added perspective.

[Bonesy]

Now that's an interesting thread proposal. This one (apologies Scot) started off kinda ham-fisted.

[DanteGabriel]

Now that's an interesting thread proposal. This one (apologies Scot) started off kinda ham-fisted.

I checked out some of the Canadian politics thread after the Trudeau win and there's clearly some of the same regional dynamic going on there, right?