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.
In the book Woodard addresses the mobility of the country as does the book "The Big Sort." Basically when people move from one place to another they tend to move to areas where the political views match their own often having more extreme views than the people living there.
As for someone who's not from the north, all I can say is that New York city/Upstate New York split where I'm from is famous.
Again the map is based upon the original colonial clusters of different groups of people and their migrations west across the continent. Greater Appalachia is the area where the Scots Irish spread west across the continent. Tidewater is the area Virginia Cavaliers spread out across in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. The Midlands is the people of the Pennsylvania colony and their spread west. As you can see in the link it is shown in the DNA of the people who live their now. Genetic clusters of Americans based on descent match exactly what is shown on the map. https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/...s-nature-c.png
Basically it shows up in the DNA because the cultures shown were so distinct from one another that people who lived in those cultures do to prejudice, religion, politics, ethnic preference etc. tended to mate with one another and thus even today the people who live there today are genetically related to another.
Its also shown in politics where Yankeedom whether in New England, Upstate New York, and the Upper Midwest tend toward voting for democrats (except when a more communitarian candidate like Trump runs) and the republicans there tend to be more moderate, the Midlands runs through most of the swing states in the Midwest and can go either way in elections, Greater Appalachia favors republican candidates in elections, and the whites of the Deep South vote almost like an ethnic block against the democrats.
And how does this Woodard support the bold? People often move for jobs, not politics. We (DH and I) moved from Illinois (corrupt, socialist) to Colorado (not quite so corrupt, Libertarian both right and left.)
As far as people in the upper midwest, there is a heritage of Scandinavian and German that there is not in New England. They may both vote blue, but that's where a lot of the similarity ends. They're not the same culturally. And how does Woodard (or anyone) explain the libertarian west?
In the book Woodard addresses the mobility of the country as does the book "The Big Sort." Basically when people move from one place to another they tend to move to areas where the political views match their own often having more extreme views than the people living there.
As for someone who's not from the north, all I can say is that New York city/Upstate New York split where I'm from is famous.
Again the map is based upon the original colonial clusters of different groups of people and their migrations west across the continent. Greater Appalachia is the area where the Scots Irish spread west across the continent. Tidewater is the area Virginia Cavaliers spread out across in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. The Midlands is the people of the Pennsylvania colony and their spread west. As you can see in the link it is shown in the DNA of the people who live their now. Genetic clusters of Americans based on descent match exactly what is shown on the map. https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/...s-nature-c.png
Basically it shows up in the DNA because the cultures shown were so distinct from one another that people who lived in those cultures do to prejudice, religion, politics, ethnic preference etc. tended to mate with one another and thus even today the people who live there today are genetically related to another.
Its also shown in politics where Yankeedom whether in New England, Upstate New York, and the Upper Midwest tend toward voting for democrats (except when a more communitarian candidate like Trump runs) and the republicans there tend to be more moderate, the Midlands runs through most of the swing states in the Midwest and can go either way in elections, Greater Appalachia favors republican candidates in elections, and the whites of the Deep South vote almost like an ethnic block against the democrats.
First I get that there will never be a perfect map that will please everybody, if no other reason there are too many overlapping cultures.
But the problem is that someone can make a map and can find just about any excuse as for their reasoning. For instance, you mention the Yankeedom states as voting for the Democrats, that is fine until you remember for much of their history they voted for the Republicans. Same with other parts of the country. Over the past 200 years, the parties have changed in popularity as has many of the issues. You cannot just take one moment in history and use it to define entire "nations".
You also mention the famous New York City/Upstate split. But I would contend that has more to do with population density and urban versus rural (indeed Upstate cities tend to vote the way NYC does) then it has to with "Dutch DNA" from New Netherland. In fact, if we are going to talk about New Netherland, the Hudson Valley and the Capital District are probably more New Netherland than the New York City area. Instead they are part of Yankeedom.
And how does this Woodard support the bold? People often move for jobs, not politics. We (DH and I) moved from Illinois (corrupt, socialist) to Colorado (not quite so corrupt, Libertarian both right and left.)
As far as people in the upper midwest, there is a heritage of Scandinavian and German that there is not in New England. They may both vote blue, but that's where a lot of the similarity ends. They're not the same culturally. And how does Woodard (or anyone) explain the libertarian west?
I agree with you, I don't think most people moving are overly concerned with the politics of the place they are moving too. Otherwise far less people from "Yankeedom" and "New Netherland" for instance, would ever had moved South.
But having said that, I do know some people who mention politics when they are looking at a new location. For instance, I have heard Liberals mention Ithaca upstate and Burlington in Vermont. At the same time, I have also heard people say they just want to get out of New York because of the Liberals! So it is true that some people care about the politics, I just don't think it the majority.
I agree with you, I don't think most people moving are overly concerned with the politics of the place they are moving too. Otherwise far less people from "Yankeedom" and "New Netherland" for instance, would ever had moved South.
But having said that, I do know some people who mention politics when they are looking at a new location. For instance, I have heard Liberals mention Ithaca upstate and Burlington in Vermont. At the same time, I have also heard people say they just want to get out of New York because of the Liberals! So it is true that some people care about the politics, I just don't think it the majority.
What I'm more familiar with is people who want to live in a "liberal" town/suburb vs a "conservative" one, and vice versa. For ex, the southern suburbs of Denver lean conservative (with many exceptions) and the northern burbs lean more liberal, again, with exceptions.
If someone wants to move based on politics (which is unusual) they don't have to move out of state (with few exceptions such as Oklahoma where every county is red) and often times they don't even have to leave their own metro. Many big liberal cities have at least one red suburban county in their metro. Even a very liberal place like NYC has Republican voting Staten Island and some red counties in New Jersey. Or a liberal in a red state can usually move to a large county in their state or a college town to be with like minded people. Today there is a bigger political divide in this country between big cities and smaller towns than there is between regions.
And how does this Woodard support the bold? People often move for jobs, not politics. We (DH and I) moved from Illinois (corrupt, socialist) to Colorado (not quite so corrupt, Libertarian both right and left.)
As far as people in the upper midwest, there is a heritage of Scandinavian and German that there is not in New England. They may both vote blue, but that's where a lot of the similarity ends. They're not the same culturally. And how does Woodard (or anyone) explain the libertarian west?
He supports the bold using very extensive research on the topic collected by scholars in books like "The Big Sort" among other research. Your statement that people don't move for politics contradicts all of the data we have on the subject.
Both your question on the Scandinavian heritage of the Upper Midwest and the Libertarian west are explained in the book. Yankees first settled the Upper Midwest and were later joined Scandinavians and Germans on the frontiers of those areas. The Scandinavians especially had a very similar communitarian cultural outlook as the Yankees (as they do in their own home countries today) and fit into their worldview quite well.
In the book the libertarian west is explained thusly.
The Far West: Climate and geography have shaped all of the nations to some extent, but the Far West is the only one 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 deployment of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and 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 the companies, settlers were dependent upon railroads for transportation of goods, people, and products to and from far-off markets and manufacturing centers. Unfortunately for the settlers, the region was treated like 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. Its political class tends to revile the federal government--often aligning it with the Dixie coalition--while demanding it continue to receive federal largesse. It rarely challenges its corporate masters, who maintain a near-Gilded Age levels of influence over Far Western affairs.
A cursory glance at the map is not enough to form an opinion on it. You have to read the book and research the data supporting or going against it.
Lol, I was actually wondering how you would feel about what was done to Appalachia. Especially to northern Pennsylvania and the southern tier of New York.
To me, Appalachia is the mountain and hill country that runs from the southern tier of New York down to northwestern Alabama. It certainly does not include areas along the Mississippi River!
But I think you can see one of the problems with this eleven nations map. The map maker puts most of the USA and Canada into very overly broad categories to the extent that they are almost generic. Then there are a few exceptions like Tidewater and New Netherland which he breaks off to show more detail. But that brings up the question - Is Tidewater really more unique that it deserves to be a separate nation while the uniqueness of nearby Appalachia is lost in a giant "Greater Appalachia"?
No separate Appalachia, no recognition of Texas subculture, no Gulf Coast, no Upper Midwest, no New England, no Canadian Maritimes (just another part of Yankeedom), no distinction between Northwest and Southwest - just a giant Far West. And is South Florida really part of the Spanish Caribbean?
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
Lol, I was actually wondering how you would feel about what was done to Appalachia. Especially to northern Pennsylvania and the southern tier of New York.
To me, Appalachia is the mountain and hill country that runs from the southern tier of New York down to northwestern Alabama. It certainly does not include areas along the Mississippi River!
But I think you can see one of the problems with this eleven nations map. The map maker puts most of the USA and Canada into very overly broad categories to the extent that they are almost generic. Then there are a few exceptions like Tidewater and New Netherland which he breaks off to show more detail. But that brings up the question - Is Tidewater really more unique that it deserves to be a separate nation while the uniqueness of nearby Appalachia is lost in a giant "Greater Appalachia"?
No separate Appalachia, no recognition of Texas subculture, no Gulf Coast, no Upper Midwest, no New England, no Canadian Maritimes (just another part of Yankeedom), no distinction between Northwest and Southwest - just a giant Far West. And is South Florida really part of the Spanish Caribbean?
You pretty much nailed it. This map is like a game of Risk, not so much a map of reality.
He supports the bold using very extensive research on the topic collected by scholars in books like "The Big Sort" among other research. Your statement that people don't move for politics contradicts all of the data we have on the subject.
Both your question on the Scandinavian heritage of the Upper Midwest and the Libertarian west are explained in the book. Yankees first settled the Upper Midwest and were later joined Scandinavians and Germans on the frontiers of those areas. The Scandinavians especially had a very similar communitarian cultural outlook as the Yankees (as they do in their own home countries today) and fit into their worldview quite well.
In the book the libertarian west is explained thusly.
The Far West: Climate and geography have shaped all of the nations to some extent, but the Far West is the only one 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 deployment of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and 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 the companies, settlers were dependent upon railroads for transportation of goods, people, and products to and from far-off markets and manufacturing centers. Unfortunately for the settlers, the region was treated like 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. Its political class tends to revile the federal government--often aligning it with the Dixie coalition--while demanding it continue to receive federal largesse. It rarely challenges its corporate masters, who maintain a near-Gilded Age levels of influence over Far Western affairs.
A cursory glance at the map is not enough to form an opinion on it. You have to read the book and research the data supporting or going against it.
Perhaps a link? I'm telling you, in my entire adult life, which spans 50 years, I have never heard anyone say they moved anywhere for politics. Oh, there are a few people I guess who move to Idaho or Montana to be part of the Aryan Nation and stuff like that, but normal people? I live in a state of transplants. I have never heard anyone say they moved to Colorado for politics. Skiing, camping, mountain biking, or employment yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
Lol, I was actually wondering how you would feel about what was done to Appalachia. Especially to northern Pennsylvania and the southern tier of New York.
To me, Appalachia is the mountain and hill country that runs from the southern tier of New York down to northwestern Alabama. It certainly does not include areas along the Mississippi River!
But I think you can see one of the problems with this eleven nations map. The map maker puts most of the USA and Canada into very overly broad categories to the extent that they are almost generic. Then there are a few exceptions like Tidewater and New Netherland which he breaks off to show more detail. But that brings up the question - Is Tidewater really more unique that it deserves to be a separate nation while the uniqueness of nearby Appalachia is lost in a giant "Greater Appalachia"?
No separate Appalachia, no recognition of Texas subculture, no Gulf Coast, no Upper Midwest, no New England, no Canadian Maritimes (just another part of Yankeedom), no distinction between Northwest and Southwest - just a giant Far West. And is South Florida really part of the Spanish Caribbean?
Totally agree.
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.
