U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-26-2011, 01:17 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,110,365 times
Reputation: 5741

Advertisements

Greetings Y'all,

Some of you may have seen this recently published book by Collin Woodard, titled American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.

I haven't read it yet myself, but a friend of mine sent me several links about it and it does look very interesting. Essentially, his thesis is that there are 11 seperate regional cultures on the North American continent, and quite a few different ones within the United States (which is most of the focal point of the book). These seperate entities obviously do not follow state lines, but the main point is that during the history of the nation, some of the "regions" (especially what he calls "Yankeedom" and the "Deep South") have been at odds with one another from the beginning and that the nation has never really been "one", and never exactly intended to be "holistic", but rather, a federation of states/cultures bonded by a common purpose. However, this made for problems with different outlooks and visions and ethnic groups -- and subsequent divisions -- that carry on to the present day.

Anyway, some of the above probably is better suited for the political forum, so the main thing I really wanted to share/ask here on this one are the opinions on the "Cultural Regions" divisions which Woodard outlines...?

On this link, if one "looks inside" the book, you can scroll down just a bit and get an idea of how he divides it (going so far as county by county), plus a brief summary of the history and outlook of each:

Amazon.com: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (9780670022960): Colin Woodard: Books

Here is another one that might also give a general idea:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/wp-cont...-map-large.jpg

I'd say "Yankeedom" and "Deep South" look about right. The former includes New England and parts of the Northeast, and stretches over to include all or parts of the Great Lakes states. The Deep South goes from southern North Carolina down to north Florida, thru the Gulf States (excluding far northern mountain areas of Alabama and Georgia), up along the Arkansas/Tennessee delta areas, and into East Texas.

"El Norte" seems good too, as it includes most of the interior SW as well as far west and south Texas.

The one I have a problem with is "Greater Appalachia." Speaking as a Texan, IHMO, it goes wayyyy too far north into Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, etc. Other than the very southern tier of those states, there just isn't all that much in common --historically or culturally -- with states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, north Alabama and Georgia, and most of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

The "Midlands" should be stretched down to take in all but those very southern areas of the Lower Midwest. And the Upper/Western South designated seperately (whether "Upper/Western South" or "Greater Appalachia"...which I can see could be used interchangeably if the said Midwest areas were excluded).

So look it over and give opinions...?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2011, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Very interesting map. Never seen such a division.

I can see the deep south extending to San Antonio because I know Texas history and don't visit texas for a weekend and assume that things were always the way it was on my weekend trip. What surprises me is the Appalachian extension from the Carolinas to almost El paso.

I know a lot of our Early residents were from the Appalachian region but they basically assumed a deep south type of living earlier on.

Interesting tho that they have the entire Texas Triangle in the deep south region. An area that now has over 20 Million residents. Texas takes in many influences, I don't know why so many instantly typecast it as Western or SWern? I guess it is the media
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 01:30 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,131 posts, read 9,901,913 times
Reputation: 6423
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Greetings Y'all,

Some of you may have seen this recently published book by Collin Woodard, titled American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.

I haven't read it yet myself, but a friend of mine sent me several links about it and it does look very interesting. Essentially, his thesis is that there are 11 seperate regional cultures on the North American continent, and quite a few different ones within the United States (which is most of the focal point of the book). These seperate entities obviously do not follow state lines, but the main point is that during the history of the nation, some of the "regions" (especially what he calls "Yankeedom" and the "Deep South") have been at odds with one another from the beginning and that the nation has never really been "one", and never exactly intended to be "holistic", but rather, a federation of states/cultures bonded by a common purpose. However, this made for problems with different outlooks and visions and ethnic groups -- and subsequent divisions -- that carry on to the present day.

Anyway, some of the above probably is better suited for the political forum, so the main thing I really wanted to share/ask here on this one are the opinions on the "Cultural Regions" divisions which Woodard outlines...?

On this link, if one "looks inside" the book, you can scroll down just a bit and get an idea of how he divides it (going so far as county by county), plus a brief summary of the history and outlook of each:

Amazon.com: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (9780670022960): Colin Woodard: Books

Here is another one that might also give a general idea:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/wp-cont...-map-large.jpg

I'd say "Yankeedom" and "Deep South" look about right. The former includes New England and parts of the Northeast, and stretches over to include all or parts of the Great Lakes states. The Deep South goes from southern North Carolina down to north Florida, thru the Gulf States (excluding far northern mountain areas of Alabama and Georgia), up along the Arkansas/Tennessee delta areas, and into East Texas.

"El Norte" seems good too, as it includes most of the interior SW as well as far west and south Texas.

The one I have a problem with is "Greater Appalachia." Speaking as a Texan, IHMO, it goes wayyyy too far north into Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, etc. Other than the very southern tier of those states, there just isn't all that much in common --historically or culturally -- with states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, north Alabama and Georgia, and most of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

The "Midlands" should be stretched down to take in all but those very southern areas of the Lower Midwest. And the Upper/Western South designated seperately (whether "Upper/Western South" or "Greater Appalachia"...which I can see could be used interchangeably if the said Midwest areas were excluded).

So look it over and give opinions...?
The map looks like a giant version of gerrymandered Congressional districts! Especially the bizarre "Midlands" and "Appalchian" areas.

Anyway, I am skeptical of this map. For instance, is Louisana really that French enough anymore to group it with Quebec as part of "New France"?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 02:00 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,110,365 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Very interesting map. Never seen such a division.

I can see the deep south extending to San Antonio because I know Texas history and don't visit texas for a weekend and assume that things were always the way it was on my weekend trip. What surprises me is the Appalachian extension from the Carolinas to almost El paso.

I know a lot of our Early residents were from the Appalachian region but they basically assumed a deep south type of living earlier on.
HTL? If you (or anyone else) check out the "Look Inside the Book" part of the first link (posted again below)? Then scroll down just a bit, and there is a little bit better "fine-tuned" breakdown (which goes to county and county, even) vis a vis the "broad" one outlined in the latter link.

Amazon.com: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (9780670022960): Colin Woodard: Books

On the Appalachian part? I agree -- and I haven't even read the book yet! LOL!. That is, I just don't see a common history and culture of the Upper/Western South with so many parts of the Lower Midwest...at least as far north as the author stretches it.

Also, again noting the county by county breakdown which is sorta discernable by the link provided, it appears that the Appalachian area is not so close to El Paso as the "broad" map makes it appear. Instead, it pretty well "cuts off" the trans-pecos and far south Texas areas and puts it into El Norte...which makes sense...at least today!...

Last edited by TexasReb; 11-26-2011 at 02:30 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 02:16 PM
 
5,858 posts, read 14,044,713 times
Reputation: 3482
Yankeedom puts the Eastern Dakotas in with Nova Scotia and everything in between? Whoa! I'll have to check out the book for his rationale on that one!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 02:45 PM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,205,748 times
Reputation: 2078
That map is ridiculous. No way does Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis belong in the same cultural region as Oklahoma City and Dallas, and I've studied cultural geography extensively myself.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 02:58 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,110,365 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
That map is ridiculous. No way does Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis belong in the same cultural region as Oklahoma City and Dallas, and I've studied cultural geography extensively myself.
Again, agreed! IMO, the "Greater Appalachian" area (as designated) has serious problems. If it was used interchangeably as to refer to the "Upper/Western South, then I could see the point.

However, when it takes in so much of the Lower Midwest as inclusive, then it "loses it." Those areas (most of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, etc) save the very southern tier of counties, should be classified as part of the "Midlands"...at the least.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,227,179 times
Reputation: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
That map is ridiculous. No way does Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis belong in the same cultural region as Oklahoma City and Dallas, and I've studied cultural geography extensively myself.
I would draw the Midlands to include just over 50% of Missouri, including St. Louis and Kansas City, just about all of Illinois except for those parts on latitudes south of St. Louis, Indiana except near the Ohio River, and Ohio except south and east of Cincinnati. In between the "Greater Appalachia" region I would place a transition zone ending at the Ohio River for Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and at a line connecting Joplin, Springfield, and Cape Girardeau in Missouri. I agree though. There is no way I would ever place the cities you mentioned in addition St. Louis or Kansas City in the same category as Louisville, Oklahoma City or Tulsa. Geographically speaking, this map is a poor representation as well. Western "Appalachia" if there is one west of the Mississippi would be the Ozarks and Ouachita Mountains....even then there is no continuous culture that can be connected there today. This region extends into the Midwest, Upper South, and Deep South, so the cultural varies enormously.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,227,179 times
Reputation: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Again, agreed! IMO, the "Greater Appalachian" area (as designated) has serious problems. If it was used interchangeably as to refer to the "Upper/Western South, then I could see the point.

However, when it takes in so much of the Lower Midwest as inclusive, then it "loses it." Those areas (most of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, etc) save the very southern tier of counties, should be classified as part of the "Midlands"...at the least.
At least 50% of Missouri should be classified as part of the Midlands as well. The other 50% should be classified as 25% Midland-Greater Appalachia mix and 25% Greater Appalachia. If you factor in the bootheel, that might add about an extra 10% of southerness. Overall, Missouri is culturally, geographically, and economically more Midland, all factors considered.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
That map is ridiculous. No way does Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis belong in the same cultural region as Oklahoma City and Dallas, and I've studied cultural geography extensively myself.
In the Map OKC and Dallas are in the Deep South.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top