Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colin Woodward divides American into 11 "Nations" based on the original settlements and population migrations. He argues that the influence of the original settlers is bigger in developing a region's culture than subsequent population migrations (and provides evidence to that effect). However, he does say that ranges can grow and shrink at the expense of each other. (I haven't gotten very far into the book, but I've got the basic concept down, if you have any questions).
So, what do you think of this map as broad cultural regions of the United States?
The Far West: The one region where environmental factors truly trumped ethnic ones. High, dry, and remote, the interior west presented conditions so severe that they effectively destroyed those who tried to apply the farming and lifestyle techniques used in Greater Appalachia, the Midlands, or other nations. With minor exceptions this vast region couldn't be effectively colonized without the development of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and other irrigation systems. As a result, the colonization of much of the region was facilitated and directed by large corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government itself, which controlled much of the land. Even if they didn't work for one of the companies, settlers were dependent on the railroads for transportation of goods, people, and products to and from far-off markets and manufacturing centers. Unfortunately for the settlers, their region was treated as an internal colony, exploited and despoiled for the benefit of the seaboard nations. Despite significant industrialization during World War II and the Cold War, the region remains in a state of semi-dependency. The region tends to revile the federal government for interfering in its affairs, while it rarely challenges its corporate masters.
The premise of the book is that the first eight continually fought with each other to try to expand at another's expense and that the only time this country has really been united in ideology was during the Revolutionary War. I won't go into any more details than I have, but I was wonder if anyone had any thoughts.
I disagree with the section about the far west. While the above quote does mention exceptions, I believe the extend of Mormon colonization goes beyond "minor." They arrived in the Salt Lake valley in 1847 and in the next 30 years established around 400 settlements throughout the section labeled Far West. The Mormons were driven there by persecution back east and sought to establish settlements that were as independent as possible from the east and that worked together for the greater whole. Most of this 30 year period occurred before the transcontinental railroad was completed. That was in 1870 so 23 out of the 30 years occurred without it and was definitely not "facilitated and directed by large corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government."
The settlements spread across Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, California and Arizona, and into southern Alberta and into northern Mexico. You can read more about it here. I don't believe this is a minor exception.
This is really cool...and a fairly accurate description for the most part. Seeing something labeled "Appalachia" extending all the way in to West Texas and New Mexico is strange but somewhat understandable in a strictly "cultural" standpoint.
I think it could have used a different name. He calls them borderlanders a few times. Frontiersmen would have also worked. It's the Daniel Boone/Davy Crockett type. He tends to name areas based on where they're first settled, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Also FWIW - Mercer County NJ is lumped with NYC as opposed to Philly on this map, wonder if that was a move
Lastly NOVA and up is Midlands, somewhat interesting to me as to me living in Philly I always felt more connection with NJ/NY than NOVA
He doesn't address Mercer directly. From his perspective, though, New Netherland has been shrinking at the expense of Midland as the original Dutch colony went down to Delaware. (It may be expanding again, I don't know if he addresses it). That said, because he drew lines by counties, I suspect he used a voting map and CSA designations to help him decide things. He says many counties are border areas that can go either way. I'd bet Mercer goes either way.
This sort of thing has been done before with Albion's Seed and the Nine Nations of North America from back in the early 80s. It's interesting, but a few things confuse me.
For one, the Midlands. I'll have the really read the book before I understand it, but it seems to be a region that snakes around several other regions, going from Southern New Jersey and Philadelphia through the center of Pennsylvnia and south of the Great Lakes through most of Iowa into before branching off to the north to wrap around Ontario and also diverging south into the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle region to the corners of New Mexico and Colorado. This is a very large region with a lot of different areas that I wouldn't immedietly associate with each other--especially the Mid-Atlantic portion with places like Iowa or Western Ontario or Oklahoma. I'm not sure what they're getting at here.
Yankeedom feels a little broad as well--though I can see what they're doing by making a connection between the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes and New England.
The western states are pretty typical of these sorts of maps--and fairly easy to divide in some ways between the coastal west, interior west, and the border region. They use the dividing line of the Monterrey County/San Luis Obispo County border as the dividing line betwen the Left Coast and El Norte--which is often used as the border of Northern California and Southern California in defining the regions--extended to the east along the Kern County line. However, for what the author is trying to do, it might be a little off. Monterrey County(except for the Monterrey Peninsula) and San Benito County are both highly agricultural areas with much higher percentages of Hispanics than San Luis Obispo County to the south(56% and 55% vs. about 20% in SLO County).
In fact the counties with the highest percentages of Hispanics in California--with the exception of Imperial County right on the border, are actually all outside of the author's boundaries of El Norte--either in the Central Valley grouped with The Far West or the Salinas Valley counted as part of the Left Coast. Lumping in the Rio Grande Valley with central New Mexico with Los Angeles and San Diego might make sense in a broader sense. However if you're going simply on Hispanic influence, the southern parts of the Central Valley(also true for San Bernadino County) fit in more with this region than they would with say Wyoming or Utah or the interior of British Columbia or Alberta.
I think Greater Appalachia is a bit overdone, and the brief description completely ignores the influence that German immigrants have had in much of it's territory. I feel like the region as a whole does make some sense, but the variation in that region is very significant.
There's significant variation in every region. He wrote a book on the difference between Massachusetts and Maine. I think it's easier to refer to this as an oversimplification based on historic migration patterns. I would be shocked if he doesn't address the German immigration into "Appalachia." I'll get back to you on it at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradjl2009
I also found it strange the Midland area was essentially a circle with how it went from Southern Jersey back to the Plains, then north into Canada and back down to include most of Ontario.
He talks about Midlanders who fled to Canada after the Revolution. I'll get back to you when I read that section, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marat
I disagree with the section about the far west. While the above quote does mention exceptions, I believe the extend of Mormon colonization goes beyond "minor." They arrived in the Salt Lake valley in 1847 and in the next 30 years established around 400 settlements throughout the section labeled Far West. The Mormons were driven there by persecution back east and sought to establish settlements that were as independent as possible from the east and that worked together for the greater whole. Most of this 30 year period occurred before the transcontinental railroad was completed. That was in 1870 so 23 out of the 30 years occurred without it and was definitely not "facilitated and directed by large corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government."
The settlements spread across Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, California and Arizona, and into southern Alberta and into northern Mexico. You can read more about it here. I don't believe this is a minor exception.
He does mention the Mormon Corridor in the introduction. He says you could argue that Mormons have carved out their own, distinct nation. He decides to not give the Mormon nation its full weight in the book.
He also said that there are enclaves within the broader regions. For example, Milwaukee is arguably a Midlander city in the midst of the Yankee Midwest. Kentucky Bluegrass Country is a Tidwater enclave embedded in Greater Appalachia.
I disagree with Central MD being part of "the Midlands"; while Baltimore is similar to Pittsburgh in some ways, people Montgomery/Howard/Baltimore counties overall have more in common with people in the Northeast. I get what he's saying in terms of matching them to original settlers, but it's not really apparent in the modern cultural sensibilities; people here are much more into the "rat race" mentality and lack the sort of "reserved/polite niceness" you see in much of the Midwest.
This sort of thing has been done before with Albion's Seed and the Nine Nations of North America from back in the early 80s. It's interesting, but a few things confuse me.
For one, the Midlands. I'll have the really read the book before I understand it, but it seems to be a region that snakes around several other regions, going from Southern New Jersey and Philadelphia through the center of Pennsylvnia and south of the Great Lakes through most of Iowa into before branching off to the north to wrap around Ontario and also diverging south into the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle region to the corners of New Mexico and Colorado. This is a very large region with a lot of different areas that I wouldn't immedietly associate with each other--especially the Mid-Atlantic portion with places like Iowa or Western Ontario or Oklahoma. I'm not sure what they're getting at here.
Yankeedom feels a little broad as well--though I can see what they're doing by making a connection between the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes and New England.
The western states are pretty typical of these sorts of maps--and fairly easy to divide in some ways between the coastal west, interior west, and the border region. They use the dividing line of the Monterrey County/San Luis Obispo County border as the dividing line betwen the Left Coast and El Norte--which is often used as the border of Northern California and Southern California in defining the regions--extended to the east along the Kern County line. However, for what the author is trying to do, it might be a little off. Monterrey County(except for the Monterrey Peninsula) and San Benito County are both highly agricultural areas with much higher percentages of Hispanics than San Luis Obispo County to the south(56% and 55% vs. about 20% in SLO County).
In fact the counties with the highest percentages of Hispanics in California--with the exception of Imperial County right on the border, are actually all outside of the author's boundaries of El Norte--either in the Central Valley grouped with The Far West or the Salinas Valley counted as part of the Left Coast. Lumping in the Rio Grande Valley with central New Mexico with Los Angeles and San Diego might make sense in a broader sense. However if you're going simply on Hispanic influence, the southern parts of the Central Valley(also true for San Bernadino County) fit in more with this region than they would with say Wyoming or Utah or the interior of British Columbia or Alberta.
It's hard to place the mid-southern California counties like Moneterrey, SB County and SLO County, etc. Cities like Santa Barbara and Ventura seem to fit better with the Left Coast while others like San Luis, Santa Maria, Salinas, Oxnard fit better with the El Norte. It doesn't always make sense geographically though if this wasn't going strictly by counties the author could have had a sliver going down the coast between Monterrey and Ventura (so thin that even Santa Maria and Salinas got left out).
Los Angeles is tricky, in some ways I think it fits better with Left Coast (politically and more recent culturally) but in other ways I can see the El Norte (demographically). Also with its history of railroads and a center for trade in the west, perhaps it could go in the Far West (would make sense as a tie-in to the City vs. City thread about what city is most like LA and Denver is a popular choice)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
