There's a book that gives a similar treatment to the state of California: The Seven States of California, by Philip Fradkin, published 1997. I'm wary of templates like these, because of the temptations of sweeping generalizations--supporting the thesis requires a lot of discipline and research, if facile sophistry is to be avoided. It's so easy to get reductive and stereotypical when examining topics in this fashion. But I found that Fradkin did an excellent job. He balanced history, ethnic settlement, and population demographics with physical geography, and the cultural geography and economic shifts that emerged to stamp the separate regions with their predominating character. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-seven-states-of-california/paper
From reading this post, it sounds like Woodward took a similar approach, and speaking as someone who's both well read in American history and well-traveled from coast to coast, Woodward's taxonomy--the way he outlines and defines the regions distinctly--seems to be fairly accurate. This one goes on my reading list.
Yes!! As I recall, Colin Woodward cites Albion's Seed on several occasions, but adds additional info and more layers. I went back and read Albion's Seed after finishing American Nations. Both very interesting.
I was going to say this, but this goes a bit farther and I’m not sure, as a geographer, that this is an improvement. In fact, pretty sure it is not. It’s an embellishment. Geographers have long recognized that the American experiment is colliding with its own regional identities, and those regional identities are likely to ultimately grow to overpower the “United States” in matters of importance. Capitalism is only exacerbating the situation. But the US is too big, and the breakup along fault lines of cultural significance that fall along geographic delimitation is only a matter of time. Whether that is a good or bad thing will depend on where you happen to live. As an Appalachian, correctly identified in this particular regional analysis, I can damn well assure you we won’t be uniting with what is now eastern New Mexico or even Texas. That’s a laughable concept, especially as it completely ignores the indigenous folk who live in these lands, and will play a not insignificant role in how things play out.
Interesting. This is not my work (I wish), but that of Colin Woodard. And I’m nowhere near a geographer. But I am an ethnic Texan and I can assure you we are not going to be lining up to unite with Appalachia, either. But it is very interesting to see the sort of first causes of regional identity. Where it goes from here, who knows?
Yes, I was familiar with Woodward and read your post as an endorsement. A wise person once said, “The future will be like nothing you can imagine.” But it does draw u in, doesn’t it? Thank you for sharing your thoughts and giving us a chance to weigh in and ponder.
I do, but rarely. I should do it more. If you are writing about that abrupt spin into the Holocene I would be down for reading. History is one of my other obsessions, because it has pretty much taught me that geography always prevails.
Also- this dude NEVER spent even an hour in what he terms the “New France” area. “Consensus building”??? That is the deepest, darkest, most ass-backward, neo-feudal, part of the Deep South. There is a reason that New Orleanians say “Louisiana: 3rd World and Proud of it!”
Agree. I grew up in New Orleans. The city might be (somewhat)blue politically in a huge sea of red, but it's VERY much still entrenched in the Deep South/class/social standings thing.
I read that book and it changed the way I viewed American History big time. Especially the youngest sons of English Lords who didn't get a Title were referred to as Gentlemen. So you see the hierarchal South with the Wealthy Southern Gentleman at it's head, and the speech by a Southern Senator before the Civil War referring to poor people as "mudsills". In other words poor people are in the mud, necessary to support the structure and wealth of those at the top. It was exactly what the American Revolution was against. Unfortunately they never went away and the South has risen again with its authoritarian structure. Hard to see it voted into power again.
When I was younger I thought it would have made more sense for the USA to have formed 4 separate countries with access to water. Individually they would have had less motivation to interfere with the rest of the world, ie Vietnam. Now I'm hoping you guys can hold it together. Best of luck from Canada.
Your plan makes as much sense as any. Reminds of when I was 8 and proposed that we solve the problem of pollution by shooting all the garbage into space. My dad seemed impressed by my proposal but sadly, it was never implemented. And yes, I also hope the U.S. holds it together. I'm watching nervously from here in Sweden.
That reminds me of my proposal when I was around 6 or 7. Why did we need to fly in airplanes when we could just go up and hover in a helicopter while the Earth turned underneath and come down when the right spot was underneath. Totally missed the atmosphere and the speed of rotation issues. 😄
It appears your 8-year-old idea was misunderstood or, perhaps, because of our nation's history, "garbage" was understood to mean "human garbage". And since "shooting all the garbage" to other nations won't actually work, they wooed & hired a guy who has a company that builds rockets. So....
Just give it another minute. The idea will come out of someone's mouth, if it hasn't already.
What do you think about some type of merger of certain regions of the US with certain regions of Canada, specifically something like a Pacifica or Cascadia encompassing British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii & possibly Alaska?
Geographically that makes sense. I don't think Canada can defend the far north on our own. For Canadians that mostly live near the boarder anyway it would be nice to have a wider range we can travel in. Currently we can mostly move about east and west while most Americans can travel east, west, south and north.
Politically I'm not sure it would work at this time in history, we're similar but different.
I'm very much for California Oregon and Washington joining Canada if they would have us. We bring a lot of Industry and revenue with us which would be beneficial for everyone. And we have Hollywood and Disneyland.
Fair point. I would think to write something like this, you would have to pick a snapshot in time. Huge currents are always shifting and swirling, as you point out. It's one of the things I like about the U.S. It's so sad to me when I read about those Icelandic genetic studies and there's zero variations in DNA because the population is stable over millennia. Dull!
If you look worldwide, there are about 200 UN-recognised countries among the 8 billion or so people. Add in the unrecognised but effectively-independent ones like Taiwan and Transinistra and you get up to 250 or so.
From that you get an average of 30-40 million people per country. Of course, population like so much else is actually distributed on a power curve, with a few big ones like China and India, and a heap of tiny ones like the various island states.
Probably it's hard to have a single culture among hundreds of millions of people. The Chinese are having to use labour camps to make it happen.
Since you had a Civil War and the many Indian Wars, this shows that the “animating idea” wasn't enough - you needed armed force. You needed force to drive out the Amerindians, you needed force to hold slaves, them force to liberate them. Later you needed force to create apartheid, and force to end it.
And today you have a homicide rate 5-8 times higher than other Western countries, police shootings 12-20 times higher, as well as all manner of other violent crime. And people look forward to elections with fear, lest there be violence with them, too.
Force has kept the US existing as a nation, not an animating idea. The US is of course not unique in this. It is neither exceptionally good, as Americans imagine, nor exceptionally bad as it's enemies imagine.
For me, America was always a hugely disparate mix of peoples with disparate cultures, ideals, even languages. But the glue that held them together was Common Purpose - the idea of THE American Dream and the idea that anyone could make it. All striving together and in competition for the common goal. For decades I thought and said that if ever Americans stopped believing The Dream was available to them, then their differences would quickly tear American society apart.
As time went on, I realised that it would be the end of cheap fossil fuels that would probably be the trigger for The Dream to fail. Without cheap fossil fuels, American cannot afford it's Middle Classes anymore, and that is now the case - the Middle Classes find themselves going backwards, with more debt, less spending money, and far less chance of their kids having even as good a life as their parents.
So America is dividing on wealth, race, culture, geography, heritage, skin colour, religion, language, education, politics, and a dozen other differences that can be used as a reason to dislike, or even hate, someone else.
A few years ago I read a research paper that proposed that America would split up into a southern Black community, a Hispanics south west community, and a centre and East Coast white Anglo saxon community.
Today I'm more inclined towards regional warlords, like the ancient dukedoms of England and France, for example. One look at the current election map shows how divided, politically and geographically, America is divided, but within those bipartisan maps are very different idealsm local politics and regional variations.
I think we will all get more insight in the next few months.
Interesting! I would really like to see the research paper you mention, if you have a link handy. And I completely agree about middle class life and its downward trajectory. It's happening very quickly, too. And this talk of warlords makes me think I'll continue to put off that trip home to visit family and friends. I have very little experience in dealing with warlords.
I had a quick search and couldn't find the research paper I remember, but mostly because the search came up with dozens of hits! The idea that i thought was a bit extreme a few years ago, now seems to be becoming mainstream - even recent books about it.
At a quick glance, this link seems closest (in geographical spilt at least) to the paper I remember.
It’s an interesting idea to think the US is really a federation of extremely diverse mini countries, but the idea doesn’t take into account a common language, the long American tradition of physical mobility, the way mass media and the internet have homogenized the country, educational homogeneity, and the manner in which commerce transcends regionalism. McDonalds in one town is like McDonalds 2000 miles away, where the same products are offered, ordered in English, in suburbs, inner cities, truck stops, and shopping malls that are drearily similar.
Regional differences are now quaint and cute, but certainly not seismic.
It's worth remembering that there is no just blue and red. My son lives here in the Far West in Seattle and is totally Red at this point, sad to say. My wife's brother, a deep red Trump supporter in Spokane, voted for Harris this year because he could not stand what Trump did with national security issues. This county has been purple for many decades. Our winner take all election process enhances that. It will be the end of us all.
He forgot the Black Belt, the Afro American Nation, that stretches from New York down through Maryland and then further South and West until you reach Houston.
I can't speak for Colin, but I understand his work as a snapshot in time that precedes the Great Migration. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this.
Woodard is a good read, but forcing everything into the mold of early settlement patterns has limitations. I think most people in Cincinnati, for example, would see themselves as Midwestern, along with most people in Milwaukee.
The Midwest is distinct from the Mid-Atlantic, Greater Appalachia, and Yankeedom. The Midwest is Superman, it is Dorothy Gale, it is Abraham Lincoln. It is defined by three Gs: Grain, Grids, and Germans. If a region is missing at least one, it isn't the Midwest.
By "grain," think not only of corn but the old Northwest Territory and the democratic ambition, distinct from more hierarchical New England and the South, to stand squarely with your fellows.
By grids, think of pragmatism and how everything here results from human agency -- where we decide to put a turnpike, a canal, a railroad -- and how technology from steamboats to automobiles can determine the rising and declining fortunes of millions of people. Appropriations bills determine whether a Racine or a Sandusky becomes a Chicago or not. Woodard is wrong -- the Midwest is built on government intervention, all of the way back to the days when Henry Clay persuaded it to follow the path of tariffs and industrialization.
For Germans, think not only of the various immigrant swarms from Europe that define this place but also of Gemütlichkeit. It is nice, missing the hard edge of the east. (If Superman is from the Midwest, Batman is a Yankee.) The Midwest is written in a major key with open sonorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gem%C3%BCtlichkeit
I know that but how does “grain” equal “the old Northwest Territory and the democratic ambition, distinct from more hierarchical New England and the South, to stand squarely with your fellows.”
There is a sunny, everyman, democratic ethos in the Midwest rooted in independent farmers that predates urbanization and industrialization, which differs from other parts of the country. For example, when filmmakers are looking for something wholesome, they will often code things Midwest.
If you need real people, here is a recent conversation between Katie Halper and Thomas Frank. Halper has straight-faced East Coast energy, while Frank's demeanor is classic Midwestern.
I’ve seen this before, and it’s persuasive as regards the US (as far as I can tell), but I’ve always found the extension to Canada unconvincing. The landscape and built form may similar on both sides of the border, but the culture and values differ more than most Americans realise; one particularly striking example is that Canadians are half as likely to agree that ‘a father should be master in his own home’ (a measure of patriarchality), and the most patriarchal province still scores lower than any part of the United States.
The Seven Years War put New France in Britain's hands with minimal means to manage it, and then was soon followed by the US revolution that saw people loyal to the crown moving to British North America to fill the void. I agree that Western Canada and the Western US are a single region, but Southern Ontario is distinct in its 19th century formative time clinging to the empire and resisting US attempts to annex it.
American Nations is an amazing book and really crystallized for me my upbringing in the South. I mean it is spot on. Cannot obviously confirm how the other “nations” are presented but I think it’s worth throwing time reading.
A relatively recent book to check out is Break It Up, by Richard Kreitner which focuses on more kinetic political disunionist impulses in the national DNA which we will potentially see engaged from here on. I would add that the French piece of this includes not just Canada and South Louisiana but the entire Mississippi River basin and their (French + Creole) differing attitudes about Indian relations. Continued secessionist attitudes are in the ascendant and the story to watch regardless of how you map the country.
This is what I was going to say too - if nothing else, the New France section isn’t big enough, and the Mississippi Coast should definitely be a part of New France - cities from Bay St. Louis to Ocean Springs are just funky little New Orleans outposts. I’d venture to include the Alabama coast too, but Mobile seems to fit into the Deep South cultural definition quite squarely, despite being colloquially called “little New Orleans.” The Gulf Coast in general is a strange region - maybe it should be its own nation entirely
I have lived in various states of Yankeedom and do not think I could survive in any other part. Yet, if these sectors are so exclusive, wouldn't we all benefit from pressing for stronger states' rights?
It’s a fair question. I don’t know how well the state v federal checks and balances are going to check and balance these days. There are so many unknowns.
Expanding on that thought; Roe v Wade. To the states. Where it belongs. No federal protection or prohibition (either way). Allow Yankeedome to treat it to their lights and values. The same in New Appalachia. That’s democracy at the closest, most organic level. That argument is even MORE salient when considering the clear moral and ethical fissures this post addresses. We aren’t one people - are we? We can’t agree on a single moral tradition and set of values - can we? The free will of Massachusetts Yankees isn’t superior to Thou Shalt Not Kill of New Appalachia.
Inuit are not first Nations! The are culturally, linguistically, and genetically very distinct. They also arrived before the Europeans, but not very long before; compared to how long First Nations have been here. They occupy a land that no other group living does, did, or can occupy, so they aren't contemporary colonists. They are indigenous and have continually occupied their land for at least 1300 years, possibly for even 3500 years in some areas. They should have their own spot on here separate from First Nations.
Long live Palestine, Nunavik and Nunavut. Maybe some day Nunavik will be free from Quebec apartheid, tyranny, and Occupation.
Sounds remarkably similar to the main thrust of Albion's Seed, published way back in 1989. Scott Alexander's book review: https://web.archive.org/web/20200422190639/https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/
And The Nine Nations of North America, which was published in 1981. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America
A great book. Still relevant.
Anne, thank you for this link! Looks very interesting. Will take a look.
There's a book that gives a similar treatment to the state of California: The Seven States of California, by Philip Fradkin, published 1997. I'm wary of templates like these, because of the temptations of sweeping generalizations--supporting the thesis requires a lot of discipline and research, if facile sophistry is to be avoided. It's so easy to get reductive and stereotypical when examining topics in this fashion. But I found that Fradkin did an excellent job. He balanced history, ethnic settlement, and population demographics with physical geography, and the cultural geography and economic shifts that emerged to stamp the separate regions with their predominating character. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-seven-states-of-california/paper
From reading this post, it sounds like Woodward took a similar approach, and speaking as someone who's both well read in American history and well-traveled from coast to coast, Woodward's taxonomy--the way he outlines and defines the regions distinctly--seems to be fairly accurate. This one goes on my reading list.
I replied likewise before I saw you’d said this.
Yes!! As I recall, Colin Woodward cites Albion's Seed on several occasions, but adds additional info and more layers. I went back and read Albion's Seed after finishing American Nations. Both very interesting.
both these books were in my book club reading and made a huge impact on my thinking of my own experience as an American
Hi Michael! Thank you for this — will take a look!
I was going to say this, but this goes a bit farther and I’m not sure, as a geographer, that this is an improvement. In fact, pretty sure it is not. It’s an embellishment. Geographers have long recognized that the American experiment is colliding with its own regional identities, and those regional identities are likely to ultimately grow to overpower the “United States” in matters of importance. Capitalism is only exacerbating the situation. But the US is too big, and the breakup along fault lines of cultural significance that fall along geographic delimitation is only a matter of time. Whether that is a good or bad thing will depend on where you happen to live. As an Appalachian, correctly identified in this particular regional analysis, I can damn well assure you we won’t be uniting with what is now eastern New Mexico or even Texas. That’s a laughable concept, especially as it completely ignores the indigenous folk who live in these lands, and will play a not insignificant role in how things play out.
Interesting. This is not my work (I wish), but that of Colin Woodard. And I’m nowhere near a geographer. But I am an ethnic Texan and I can assure you we are not going to be lining up to unite with Appalachia, either. But it is very interesting to see the sort of first causes of regional identity. Where it goes from here, who knows?
Yes, I was familiar with Woodward and read your post as an endorsement. A wise person once said, “The future will be like nothing you can imagine.” But it does draw u in, doesn’t it? Thank you for sharing your thoughts and giving us a chance to weigh in and ponder.
Do you write on Substack? I’d love to learn more about geography. I live in Sweden and am getting a little obsessed about the Younger Dryas.
I do, but rarely. I should do it more. If you are writing about that abrupt spin into the Holocene I would be down for reading. History is one of my other obsessions, because it has pretty much taught me that geography always prevails.
Also- this dude NEVER spent even an hour in what he terms the “New France” area. “Consensus building”??? That is the deepest, darkest, most ass-backward, neo-feudal, part of the Deep South. There is a reason that New Orleanians say “Louisiana: 3rd World and Proud of it!”
Agree. I grew up in New Orleans. The city might be (somewhat)blue politically in a huge sea of red, but it's VERY much still entrenched in the Deep South/class/social standings thing.
Or Nine Nations of N America
I read that book and it changed the way I viewed American History big time. Especially the youngest sons of English Lords who didn't get a Title were referred to as Gentlemen. So you see the hierarchal South with the Wealthy Southern Gentleman at it's head, and the speech by a Southern Senator before the Civil War referring to poor people as "mudsills". In other words poor people are in the mud, necessary to support the structure and wealth of those at the top. It was exactly what the American Revolution was against. Unfortunately they never went away and the South has risen again with its authoritarian structure. Hard to see it voted into power again.
Yes immediately Albion’s Seed came to mind.
You anticipate me, Mr. Arnold. I congratulate you.
When I was younger I thought it would have made more sense for the USA to have formed 4 separate countries with access to water. Individually they would have had less motivation to interfere with the rest of the world, ie Vietnam. Now I'm hoping you guys can hold it together. Best of luck from Canada.
Your plan makes as much sense as any. Reminds of when I was 8 and proposed that we solve the problem of pollution by shooting all the garbage into space. My dad seemed impressed by my proposal but sadly, it was never implemented. And yes, I also hope the U.S. holds it together. I'm watching nervously from here in Sweden.
It just has to break orbit and it becomes another planet’s problem and even if it doesn’t it will burn up on re-entry.
Yes, that was all part of my calculations…
That reminds me of my proposal when I was around 6 or 7. Why did we need to fly in airplanes when we could just go up and hover in a helicopter while the Earth turned underneath and come down when the right spot was underneath. Totally missed the atmosphere and the speed of rotation issues. 😄
It appears your 8-year-old idea was misunderstood or, perhaps, because of our nation's history, "garbage" was understood to mean "human garbage". And since "shooting all the garbage" to other nations won't actually work, they wooed & hired a guy who has a company that builds rockets. So....
Just give it another minute. The idea will come out of someone's mouth, if it hasn't already.
What do you think about some type of merger of certain regions of the US with certain regions of Canada, specifically something like a Pacifica or Cascadia encompassing British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii & possibly Alaska?
Geographically that makes sense. I don't think Canada can defend the far north on our own. For Canadians that mostly live near the boarder anyway it would be nice to have a wider range we can travel in. Currently we can mostly move about east and west while most Americans can travel east, west, south and north.
Politically I'm not sure it would work at this time in history, we're similar but different.
I'm very much for California Oregon and Washington joining Canada if they would have us. We bring a lot of Industry and revenue with us which would be beneficial for everyone. And we have Hollywood and Disneyland.
Fair point. I would think to write something like this, you would have to pick a snapshot in time. Huge currents are always shifting and swirling, as you point out. It's one of the things I like about the U.S. It's so sad to me when I read about those Icelandic genetic studies and there's zero variations in DNA because the population is stable over millennia. Dull!
I have long pondered the idea that the U.S. may be too big to be a single nation. I have to read this book!
I hope you do. It’s so interesting’
If you look worldwide, there are about 200 UN-recognised countries among the 8 billion or so people. Add in the unrecognised but effectively-independent ones like Taiwan and Transinistra and you get up to 250 or so.
From that you get an average of 30-40 million people per country. Of course, population like so much else is actually distributed on a power curve, with a few big ones like China and India, and a heap of tiny ones like the various island states.
Probably it's hard to have a single culture among hundreds of millions of people. The Chinese are having to use labour camps to make it happen.
Since you had a Civil War and the many Indian Wars, this shows that the “animating idea” wasn't enough - you needed armed force. You needed force to drive out the Amerindians, you needed force to hold slaves, them force to liberate them. Later you needed force to create apartheid, and force to end it.
And today you have a homicide rate 5-8 times higher than other Western countries, police shootings 12-20 times higher, as well as all manner of other violent crime. And people look forward to elections with fear, lest there be violence with them, too.
Force has kept the US existing as a nation, not an animating idea. The US is of course not unique in this. It is neither exceptionally good, as Americans imagine, nor exceptionally bad as it's enemies imagine.
It would seem that today only banks are too big to fail.
A very interesting analysis.
For me, America was always a hugely disparate mix of peoples with disparate cultures, ideals, even languages. But the glue that held them together was Common Purpose - the idea of THE American Dream and the idea that anyone could make it. All striving together and in competition for the common goal. For decades I thought and said that if ever Americans stopped believing The Dream was available to them, then their differences would quickly tear American society apart.
As time went on, I realised that it would be the end of cheap fossil fuels that would probably be the trigger for The Dream to fail. Without cheap fossil fuels, American cannot afford it's Middle Classes anymore, and that is now the case - the Middle Classes find themselves going backwards, with more debt, less spending money, and far less chance of their kids having even as good a life as their parents.
So America is dividing on wealth, race, culture, geography, heritage, skin colour, religion, language, education, politics, and a dozen other differences that can be used as a reason to dislike, or even hate, someone else.
A few years ago I read a research paper that proposed that America would split up into a southern Black community, a Hispanics south west community, and a centre and East Coast white Anglo saxon community.
Today I'm more inclined towards regional warlords, like the ancient dukedoms of England and France, for example. One look at the current election map shows how divided, politically and geographically, America is divided, but within those bipartisan maps are very different idealsm local politics and regional variations.
I think we will all get more insight in the next few months.
Interesting! I would really like to see the research paper you mention, if you have a link handy. And I completely agree about middle class life and its downward trajectory. It's happening very quickly, too. And this talk of warlords makes me think I'll continue to put off that trip home to visit family and friends. I have very little experience in dealing with warlords.
I had a quick search and couldn't find the research paper I remember, but mostly because the search came up with dozens of hits! The idea that i thought was a bit extreme a few years ago, now seems to be becoming mainstream - even recent books about it.
At a quick glance, this link seems closest (in geographical spilt at least) to the paper I remember.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breaking-up-america-into-a-series-of-nation-states-based-on-political-identity--theorist-and-author-alexander-moss-publishes-new-book-analyzing-what-could-soon-happen-to-the-most-powerful-nation-on-earth-301552861.html
Now I may have to go buy it myself too!
Ha! Thank you for this. Much appreciated.
PS, the author Alexander Moss has a substack too.
It’s an interesting idea to think the US is really a federation of extremely diverse mini countries, but the idea doesn’t take into account a common language, the long American tradition of physical mobility, the way mass media and the internet have homogenized the country, educational homogeneity, and the manner in which commerce transcends regionalism. McDonalds in one town is like McDonalds 2000 miles away, where the same products are offered, ordered in English, in suburbs, inner cities, truck stops, and shopping malls that are drearily similar.
Regional differences are now quaint and cute, but certainly not seismic.
It's worth remembering that there is no just blue and red. My son lives here in the Far West in Seattle and is totally Red at this point, sad to say. My wife's brother, a deep red Trump supporter in Spokane, voted for Harris this year because he could not stand what Trump did with national security issues. This county has been purple for many decades. Our winner take all election process enhances that. It will be the end of us all.
Yes, agreed. Right now, it’s hard to see how this gets better.
He forgot the Black Belt, the Afro American Nation, that stretches from New York down through Maryland and then further South and West until you reach Houston.
I can't speak for Colin, but I understand his work as a snapshot in time that precedes the Great Migration. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this.
Woodard is a good read, but forcing everything into the mold of early settlement patterns has limitations. I think most people in Cincinnati, for example, would see themselves as Midwestern, along with most people in Milwaukee.
The Midwest is distinct from the Mid-Atlantic, Greater Appalachia, and Yankeedom. The Midwest is Superman, it is Dorothy Gale, it is Abraham Lincoln. It is defined by three Gs: Grain, Grids, and Germans. If a region is missing at least one, it isn't the Midwest.
By "grain," think not only of corn but the old Northwest Territory and the democratic ambition, distinct from more hierarchical New England and the South, to stand squarely with your fellows.
By grids, think of pragmatism and how everything here results from human agency -- where we decide to put a turnpike, a canal, a railroad -- and how technology from steamboats to automobiles can determine the rising and declining fortunes of millions of people. Appropriations bills determine whether a Racine or a Sandusky becomes a Chicago or not. Woodard is wrong -- the Midwest is built on government intervention, all of the way back to the days when Henry Clay persuaded it to follow the path of tariffs and industrialization.
For Germans, think not only of the various immigrant swarms from Europe that define this place but also of Gemütlichkeit. It is nice, missing the hard edge of the east. (If Superman is from the Midwest, Batman is a Yankee.) The Midwest is written in a major key with open sonorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gem%C3%BCtlichkeit
This is a handy rule! Thank you
Thank you, Jason. I suppose the real question is how much of these character traits have survived time.
I din’t get what you mean by “grain” beyond corn.
I’m not much of a farmer, but I understand wheat, oats, rice, barley, sorghum, rye, and millet are all considered grains.
I know that but how does “grain” equal “the old Northwest Territory and the democratic ambition, distinct from more hierarchical New England and the South, to stand squarely with your fellows.”
This quote does not appear in my article.
No it’s in his comment, Laura! Great post though!
There is a sunny, everyman, democratic ethos in the Midwest rooted in independent farmers that predates urbanization and industrialization, which differs from other parts of the country. For example, when filmmakers are looking for something wholesome, they will often code things Midwest.
Saving Private Ryan: Mrs. Ryan gets the bad news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCbVhZ3Bedo
A Catch With Dad - Field of Dreams (9/9) Movie CLIP (1989) HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_wnD6jxREU
Superman vs Train | Superman (1978)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkC4dTuPFY
If you need real people, here is a recent conversation between Katie Halper and Thomas Frank. Halper has straight-faced East Coast energy, while Frank's demeanor is classic Midwestern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm6iB39jFvs
I’ve seen this before, and it’s persuasive as regards the US (as far as I can tell), but I’ve always found the extension to Canada unconvincing. The landscape and built form may similar on both sides of the border, but the culture and values differ more than most Americans realise; one particularly striking example is that Canadians are half as likely to agree that ‘a father should be master in his own home’ (a measure of patriarchality), and the most patriarchal province still scores lower than any part of the United States.
This is news to me. I definitely wouldn't cut it in Canada. It's a matriarchy around here, both in my house and in Sweden generally.
The Seven Years War put New France in Britain's hands with minimal means to manage it, and then was soon followed by the US revolution that saw people loyal to the crown moving to British North America to fill the void. I agree that Western Canada and the Western US are a single region, but Southern Ontario is distinct in its 19th century formative time clinging to the empire and resisting US attempts to annex it.
Interesting. Not my wheelhouse but I would love to see how Colin would answer.
American Nations is an amazing book and really crystallized for me my upbringing in the South. I mean it is spot on. Cannot obviously confirm how the other “nations” are presented but I think it’s worth throwing time reading.
I agree. It explained so much.
As a Canadian I would thank Mr. Woodward to keep his boundary making, vaguely wild west Serif fonts, and tiny stars the hell out of Canada.
Ha ha. You know encroachment is a risk having us for a neighbor.
A relatively recent book to check out is Break It Up, by Richard Kreitner which focuses on more kinetic political disunionist impulses in the national DNA which we will potentially see engaged from here on. I would add that the French piece of this includes not just Canada and South Louisiana but the entire Mississippi River basin and their (French + Creole) differing attitudes about Indian relations. Continued secessionist attitudes are in the ascendant and the story to watch regardless of how you map the country.
Clark, thank you for the suggestion. I'll look for it. Thanks for reading.
This is what I was going to say too - if nothing else, the New France section isn’t big enough, and the Mississippi Coast should definitely be a part of New France - cities from Bay St. Louis to Ocean Springs are just funky little New Orleans outposts. I’d venture to include the Alabama coast too, but Mobile seems to fit into the Deep South cultural definition quite squarely, despite being colloquially called “little New Orleans.” The Gulf Coast in general is a strange region - maybe it should be its own nation entirely
Interesting argument. I think you better write a book, too!
I have lived in various states of Yankeedom and do not think I could survive in any other part. Yet, if these sectors are so exclusive, wouldn't we all benefit from pressing for stronger states' rights?
It’s a fair question. I don’t know how well the state v federal checks and balances are going to check and balance these days. There are so many unknowns.
Expanding on that thought; Roe v Wade. To the states. Where it belongs. No federal protection or prohibition (either way). Allow Yankeedome to treat it to their lights and values. The same in New Appalachia. That’s democracy at the closest, most organic level. That argument is even MORE salient when considering the clear moral and ethical fissures this post addresses. We aren’t one people - are we? We can’t agree on a single moral tradition and set of values - can we? The free will of Massachusetts Yankees isn’t superior to Thou Shalt Not Kill of New Appalachia.
It’s beautiful and very messy.
Yes, it would absolutely argue for stronger state rights. The political equivalent of organic produce. And for all the same compelling reasons.
The car's malfunction is provided by capital...
Stop American greed?
Sounds good to me!
Inuit are not first Nations! The are culturally, linguistically, and genetically very distinct. They also arrived before the Europeans, but not very long before; compared to how long First Nations have been here. They occupy a land that no other group living does, did, or can occupy, so they aren't contemporary colonists. They are indigenous and have continually occupied their land for at least 1300 years, possibly for even 3500 years in some areas. They should have their own spot on here separate from First Nations.
Long live Palestine, Nunavik and Nunavut. Maybe some day Nunavik will be free from Quebec apartheid, tyranny, and Occupation.