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.
I find his stuff to be extremely interesting. I think I would agree with his description of Yankeedom overall, even though my particular area of Yankeedom is much less pro-government and doesn't fit his description perfectly. It is obviously easy to poke holes in generalizations, because they are... generalizations. That's the whole point.
However, he does seem to begin with the premise that North=good and South=bad, and Northern politics = good and Southern politics = bad. And then he takes off from there and describes everything through that lens. That is the impression that I get.
He is pretty dismissive of certain regions. I actually toned down what I perceived as unflattering commentary (but tried to keep the gist of it). He does base his regions on earlier studies, so I would like to see the contradictory studies.
As for specific points, he doesn't say that celebration of racism is the defining feature of the Deep South today. That would be a respect for tradition and authority. He does say that race defines voting pattern--Republican for Whites and Democrat for Blacks (and the opposite 60 years ago).
It's pretty obvious dude clearly has a dislike of the south.
Anyways blacks tend to vote heavy democrat everywhere not just the south so let's move this out of the picture. 2nd Democrats also tend to win most minorities in general everywhere. Technically most whites in most states actually vote republican there's only a few states where this isn't true. In fact if you took minorities out of some of the blue states up north some of them would turn red.
But I think What he was trying to do is exploit the "southern strategy" But see this is what happens when you "argues that the influence of the original settlers is bigger in developing a region's culture than subsequent population migrations " You would ignore change.
Which states swinging fails to line up with his map? If anything, I think he went too closely to voting patterns, with some counties that are put in one region or another purely on voting patterns (there are areas where he clearly started drawing around the 2008 voting map). He describes Midland as the true swing voters. The states that are swinging tend to be because of voters from "El Norte." Colorado doesn't quite jive because Denver and Boulder aren't quite the rest of Colorado, but Hispanic voters had a major impact on the state. But the main reason I disagree with that categorization is that he doesn't say these are the regions that are set in stone. He says that they reflect 2010.
Again "argues that the influence of the original settlers is bigger in developing a region's culture than subsequent population migrations" What?
Quote:
He describes a Deep South/Appalachia split in Texas as the Houston-Dallas rivalry. I can't get into specifics until I've read it.
Appalachia is not Texas. Appalachia is name after the Appalachian how the hell is the plains Appalachia? Dude is so wrong that. DFW and OKC aren't like any city culturally and demographically Appalachian.
Houston and Dallas do have a rivalry but that doesn't make Dallas Appalachia. I think he knew Dallas was southern but he didn't want to chunk Dallas in with the deep south so he threw it with Appalachia. Which is a million times odder.
Again, how do you know if you haven't read the book?
You must be one of those people who only look at pictures in the books and magazines, and think you've read the articles.
Each regions assumed cultural identity is summarized in the OP. As a lifelong resident of "El Norte" I'd say it's inaccurate.
Many of the counties included were never settled by Spanish speakers but English speakers, not to mention the huge Native American population who would take exception to his idea of what the original culture of the area was.
I'm not saying any one language or culture should dominate this guy's invented region, and the reality is the native, Spanish, and English cultures are all mixed in the region and define it's identity. On an everyday everyperson's perspective though, anyone from any race or language in the Southwest shares a lot more culture with the rest of America than with just their region.
Greater Appalachia extends wayyy too far. There is nothing in Texas that is remotely like Appalachia.
I don't think that he is trying to say it is Appalachia. I think the point is he is showing who settled where more than anything. So Greater Appalachia would basically mean that the original European settlers in the "Greater Appalachia" region were primarily Scotch-Irish and of a somewhat similar mindset.
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
I don't see NOVA counties on this map as Midland. It appears as though Midland starts at the MD border with greater NOVA split between Tidewater and Greater Appalachia. But, then again, the map is so small I can't quite tell.
It's interesting to me that NC is the only Southern state that's truly split among three "Nations".
I don't see NOVA counties on this map as Midland. It appears as though Midland starts at the MD border with greater NOVA split between Tidewater and Greater Appalachia. But, then again, the map is so small I can't quite tell.
Southern boundary of Midlands along the East Coast is entirely in Maryland and Delaware - Washington County, Frederick County, Montgomery County, Howard County, Baltimore County + City, Harford County, Cecil County, and New Castle County.
DC seems to be a part of Tidewater, but I can't really tell.
Appalachia is not Texas. Appalachia is name after the Appalachian how the hell is the plains Appalachia? Dude is so wrong that. DFW and OKC aren't like any city culturally and demographically Appalachian.
Houston and Dallas do have a rivalry but that doesn't make Dallas Appalachia. I think he knew Dallas was southern but he didn't want to chunk Dallas in with the deep south so he threw it with Appalachia. Which is a million times odder.
If you can get past the name a second, it might not be as bad. It's not that Dallas is Appalachia, but that it was settled by the same frontiersmen who settled Appalachia (originally Scots-Irish, but with influxes of Germans). John Neely Bryan was from Tennessee with settlers from Northwest Arkansas.
I would add the Tampa Bay area and the Orlando-Osceola County area as part of the Spanish Caribbean.
I agree. I was gonna say the same thing. Orlando based on current demographics, and Tampa based on both it's Pre-WWII Spanish/Cuban history and on its current demographics.
Last edited by polo89; 02-12-2013 at 09:10 PM..
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.
