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.
Really? I guess it works as long as you don't mind someone completely leaving out most of the continent.
The focus areas are the most populated areas, the areas around them will associate with the one they have the strongest economical and geographical with ties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm123
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 do agree that it's quite flawed, though.
As some one who took Texas history in DFW no where did they credit "Appalachia" but rather the south in general. So it's a weird narrative in itself. The best I can do is switch the term to upper south to break from the actually cultural region of Appalachia. I think he was referring to the upper south anyways.
But I already assume that's what he was, that why I so in disagreement "He argues that the influence of the original settlers is bigger in developing a region's culture than subsequent population migrations" So he saying Appalachia frontiersmen "in which it's not taught that way in DFW" have a bigger a influence in developing the region's culture than the subsequent population migrations. Yeah very Flawed but that's a understand statement. Mass migrations cause cultural changes, half the people who live in sunbelt cities are less the 3 generational southerners.
And there's off stuff like New France, Louisiana history is much different than Quebec. Louisiana was also part of New Spain, most of the architectural of New Orleans is actually Spanish. And Quebec doesn't have the African influences Louisiana has. But let me guess Acadians?
What going on with DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta are they international metropolitan area? How did he decide that they needed to be split?
I agree, there was a sort of anti-south feel about it. Overall, I thought the analysis and breakdown was pretty awesome, but there seemed to be an anti-South bias.
I agree, there was a sort of anti-south feel about it. Overall, I thought the analysis and breakdown was pretty awesome, but there seemed to be an anti-South bias.
He seems to like what he calls Appalachia. I'll check if that's true when I get to the chapter introducing it.
He seems to have mostly disdain for the South. The closest thing to a positive is when he compares it to Ancient Rome. We'll see if my mind is changed when I get there. I did learn some interesting things about New Spain (particularly its north) and New France (particularly about the Mestis).
He also should have gone more in-debt about The Spanish Caribbean region. Is it just a subset of the deepsouth, or it's own region all together?
The Spanish Caribbean is, in his opinion, an entirely separate region that didn't even enter into the United States until recently. He does not follow its history in his book. This is a contrast with "El Norte," which is the oldest settlement in the United States. St. Augustine was once a part of El Norte, but has since been taken over by the Deep South.
I read his first chapter on the early Tidewater and it seems mostly positive if you are ok with certain aspects of its culture. It was a rural region with landed aristocrats who were expected to behave like English gentlemen (which included showing benevolence to inferiors). The only difference being that they did not dis-inherent 2nd and 3rd sons like the English did. They enjoyed liberty, but not equality. There was an emphasis on respect and tradition as well. The two events that shaped Tidewater was (1) the planting of tobacco in 1617 and (2) Royalists fleeing England to the Tidewater in 1640. Combined with all the rivers of the Chesapeake region (and later North Carolina), someone could put an estate practically anywhere. A ship would come right to your personal port and you'd unload luxuries from England and sell off tobacco. Btw, for an issue of classification: Virginia and North Carolina were founded by corporations, while Maryland was a royal charter given to an individual. This makes Maryland more similar to Pennsylvania, so it's sometimes called a Middle Colony. But tobacco focus and practice of offering land for servitude was modeled on Virginia. At some point he thinks that Midland moved into Maryland, but I haven't got there yet.
He does talk of two negatives, which are unavoidable. The first is the hell hole that was Jamestown. He calls it a poorly planned, corporate-sponsored military post. The plan was to follow the Spanish model--that is subjugate the Indians and have them do all your labor while you look for gold. The only problem is that the Indians were not impressed. The vast majority of the Jamestown population died, only to be replaced by more people from the Virginia Company. The Indians lost a war of attrition to the hapless English (who rebelled against John Smith because he forced them to work six hours a day). The second unavoidable problem was servitude. Originally White "slaves" were forced to go to Virginia to do the work for the aristocrats. The need increased after tobacco. If they survived for five years, they were given a bit of land and, if successful, could buy their own servants. The first Black slaves were like this (one ended up owning slaves himself). It could be cruel, but it wasn't racist. The problem is that the number of poor former servants outnumbered the aristocrats 8-1 and rebelled several times. The solution was to adopt the permanent African slave model found in Barbados.
On to Yankeedom, which is being portrayed as a weird mix of religious intolerance and social enlightenment.
The Spanish Caribbean is, in his opinion, an entirely separate region that didn't even enter into the United States until recently. He does not follow its history in his book. This is a contrast with "El Norte," which is the oldest settlement in the United States. St. Augustine was once a part of El Norte, but has since been taken over by the Deep South.
I read his first chapter on the early Tidewater and it seems mostly positive if you are ok with certain aspects of its culture. It was a rural region with landed aristocrats who were expected to behave like English gentlemen (which included showing benevolence to inferiors). The only difference being that they did not dis-inherent 2nd and 3rd sons like the English did. They enjoyed liberty, but not equality. There was an emphasis on respect and tradition as well. The two events that shaped Tidewater was (1) the planting of tobacco in 1617 and (2) Royalists fleeing England to the Tidewater in 1640. Combined with all the rivers of the Chesapeake region (and later North Carolina), someone could put an estate practically anywhere. A ship would come right to your personal port and you'd unload luxuries from England and sell off tobacco. Btw, for an issue of classification: Virginia and North Carolina were founded by corporations, while Maryland was a royal charter given to an individual. This makes Maryland more similar to Pennsylvania, so it's sometimes called a Middle Colony. But tobacco focus and practice of offering land for servitude was modeled on Virginia. At some point he thinks that Midland moved into Maryland, but I haven't got there yet.
He does talk of two negatives, which are unavoidable. The first is the hell hole that was Jamestown. He calls it a poorly planned, corporate-sponsored military post. The plan was to follow the Spanish model--that is subjugate the Indians and have them do all your labor while you look for gold. The only problem is that the Indians were not impressed. The vast majority of the Jamestown population died, only to be replaced by more people from the Virginia Company. The Indians lost a war of attrition to the hapless English (who rebelled against John Smith because he forced them to work six hours a day). The second unavoidable problem was servitude. Originally White "slaves" were forced to go to Virginia to do the work for the aristocrats. The need increased after tobacco. If they survived for five years, they were given a bit of land and, if successful, could buy their own servants. The first Black slaves were like this (one ended up owning slaves himself). It could be cruel, but it wasn't racist. The problem is that the number of poor former servants outnumbered the aristocrats 8-1 and rebelled several times. The solution was to adopt the permanent African slave model found in Barbados.
On to Yankeedom, which is being portrayed as a weird mix of religious intolerance and social enlightenment.
Interesting. Jamestown was a failure indeed. St.Augustine and Northern Florida being taken over by the Deep South is pretty accurate. I think they were innaccurate about Tampa though. Tampa should be part of the Spanish Caribbean, based off of History and Current demographics. Orlando should also be added to Spanish Caribbean based on current demographics.
I've reached the part of the American Revolution, where some of these dynamics start to play out.
New England took place in a popular rebellion founded by people who actively hated the new British elite imposing its will on the colonies. They favored independence earlier than anyone and they effectively had it by 1776 (cemented with the Battle of Saratoga, which was won by New England troops). They formed local militias (minutemen) that elected their own military leaders. They didn't take kindly to orders from superiors until the Generals learned to explain them.
New York City was a loyalist stronghold. The Dutch (20% of the population) feared if the Colonists won, they would lose their religious and economic freedom and that other regions such as New England would engulf them. New England settlers had already taken most of up-state New York and eastern Long Island. During the war, NYC's population swelled to 33,000 by refugee loyalists. After the war, however, 30,000 loyalists from the Greater New York area fled to England, Canada, and the Caribbean.
The Midland area of Northern Delaware, West (South) New Jersey, Philadelphia, and pockets of Maryland was primarily pacifist. They wanted to reconcile differences, proposing a Continental legislature that would work side-by-side with Parliament with both able to veto each other. The British strategy in PA and S. Jersey was to move slowly so as to not kill civilians (a hearts and minds strategy).
The Borderlanders (Great Appalachia) were not unified in the slightest, opposing whomever they saw as the greatest threat to their freedom. They were all Presbyterian Scots-Irish (start at Cumberland County, PA, go west to Donegal, PA and trace a line down the Appalachians picking out all the Scottish town names--that's where they lived). They fought with each other a lot as different clans had different loyalties. They provided much of the manpower of the Revolution (along with New England Yankees). "Don't Tread on Me" is a lose translation of the Scottish motto "Nemo me impune lacessit." A British officer called the rebel armies the "line of Ireland" and George III referred to the conflict as "a Presbyterian War." Like I said, they weren't unified, though. Virginia and Pennsylvania backcountry supported the revolution and they took over the government in PA. The Carolinas descended into civil war.
The Tidewater gentry were also split. They were opposed to the taxes on tobacco, but that didn't necessarily mean that they favored independence. However, the Piedmont elite (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason) had greater interaction with those of the backcountry and saw economic opportunity in expanding beyond the Appalachians (a line the British drew). The lowland elites, particularly in North Carolina tended to be loyalists.
The Deep South participated in the boycott of British goods, thinking the British would cave. When the British declared war, they feared that their way of life could be overthrown. There were lots of rumors of the British planning on arming slaves. They weren't really opposed to the crown, though. George actually rejoined after the British invaded. Charleston initially resisted, but once occupied pledged allegiance to the crown to protect their personal property.
I've reached the part of the American Revolution, where some of these dynamics start to play out.
New England took place in a popular rebellion founded by people who actively hated the new British elite imposing its will on the colonies. They favored independence earlier than anyone and they effectively had it by 1776 (cemented with the Battle of Saratoga, which was won by New England troops). They formed local militias (minutemen) that elected their own military leaders. They didn't take kindly to orders from superiors until the Generals learned to explain them.
New York City was a loyalist stronghold. The Dutch (20% of the population) feared if the Colonists won, they would lose their religious and economic freedom and that other regions such as New England would engulf them. New England settlers had already taken most of up-state New York and eastern Long Island. During the war, NYC's population swelled to 33,000 by refugee loyalists. After the war, however, 30,000 loyalists from the Greater New York area fled to England, Canada, and the Caribbean.
The Midland area of Northern Delaware, West (South) New Jersey, Philadelphia, and pockets of Maryland was primarily pacifist. They wanted to reconcile differences, proposing a Continental legislature that would work side-by-side with Parliament with both able to veto each other. The British strategy in PA and S. Jersey was to move slowly so as to not kill civilians (a hearts and minds strategy).
The Borderlanders (Great Appalachia) were not unified in the slightest, opposing whomever they saw as the greatest threat to their freedom. They were all Presbyterian Scots-Irish (start at Cumberland County, PA, go west to Donegal, PA and trace a line down the Appalachians picking out all the Scottish town names--that's where they lived). They fought with each other a lot as different clans had different loyalties. They provided much of the manpower of the Revolution (along with New England Yankees). "Don't Tread on Me" is a lose translation of the Scottish motto "Nemo me impune lacessit." A British officer called the rebel armies the "line of Ireland" and George III referred to the conflict as "a Presbyterian War." Like I said, they weren't unified, though. Virginia and Pennsylvania backcountry supported the revolution and they took over the government in PA. The Carolinas descended into civil war.
The Tidewater gentry were also split. They were opposed to the taxes on tobacco, but that didn't necessarily mean that they favored independence. However, the Piedmont elite (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason) had greater interaction with those of the backcountry and saw economic opportunity in expanding beyond the Appalachians (a line the British drew). The lowland elites, particularly in North Carolina tended to be loyalists.
The Deep South participated in the boycott of British goods, thinking the British would cave. When the British declared war, they feared that their way of life could be overthrown. There were lots of rumors of the British planning on arming slaves. They weren't really opposed to the crown, though. George actually rejoined after the British invaded. Charleston initially resisted, but once occupied pledged allegiance to the crown to protect their personal property.
This is still very apparent today on Sundays at the Linc
This is still very apparent today on Sundays at the Linc
Hahaha. It seems that was lost at some point.
I'm definitely noticing that this book paints a picture with too broad of a brush. He seems to acknowledge differences in a way that seems to pretend that there aren't differences. He talks about how the boarderlanders tended to be lawless and that they robbed law-abiding boarderlanders. It's weird how he doesn't seem to notice obvious contradictions like that.
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.
