The 11 Nations of North America

Wolfpaw

Banned
So I'm currently reading the excellent "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Culture Of North America" by Colin Woodard.

It's excellent so far, and I was wondering if anyone around here was familiar with it.

Here's Woodard's map of the "11 Nations."

woodward-map.jpg


Here's a brief on each of the Nations.

Yankeedom: Founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay as a Calvinist New Zion, Yankeedom from the outset placed a great emphasis on education, local political control, and communal utilitarianism even at the price of individual self-denial. Yankees have the greatest faith in the potential of government to improve people's lives, tending to see it as an extension of the citizenry and a bulwark against aristocrats, corporations, or outside powers. Yankee history has been characterized by by a conscious project to build a more perfect society through social engineering, relatively extensive citizen involvement in the political process, and the aggressive assimilation of foreigners. Settled by stable, educated families, Yankeedom has always had a middle-class ethos and considerable respect for intellectual achievement. The religious zeal has waned, but the heritage of "secular Puritanism" lives on. Yankeedom has been locked in nearly perpetual conflict with the Deep South for control of the federal government since the moment such a thing existed.

New Netherland: Modeled on its namesake, the short-lived colony of New Amsterdam was from the start a global commercial trading society: a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, speculative, materialistic, mercantile, free trading, raucous, and not-entirely democratic city-state where no one ethnic or religious group has ever been in charge. New Netherland nurtured two Dutch innovations considered "subversive" by most European states: a profound tolerance of diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry. Forced on other nations at the Constitutional Convention, these ideas have been passed down in the Bill of Rights. While losing the upper Hudson and Delaware Valleys to Yankeedom and the Midlands, respectively, New Netherlands is today comprised of the five boroughs of New York City, the lower Hudson Valley, northern New Jersey, western Long Island, and southwestern Connecticut. A center of global commerce, New Netherland has long been the front door for immigrants, who've made it the most densely populated part of North America. Its population is greater than that of many European nations and its influence over North American media, publishing, fashion and intellectual and economic life is hard to overstate.

The Midlands: Arguably the most "American" of nations, the Midlands was founded by English Quakers who welcomed people of many nations and creeds to their utopian colonies on the shoes of Delaware Bay. Pluralistic and organized around the middle-class, the Midlands spawned the culture of Middle America and the Heartland, where ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate to apathetic. The only part of British North America to have a non-British majority in 1775, the Midlands has long been an ethnic mosaic dominated since the 1600s by Germans. Like Yankees, Midlanders believe society should be organized to benefit ordinary people, but they are extremely skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, as many of their tyranny-fleeing ancestors had been. Apart from being the home of the "standard American" dialect, the Midlands prove a bellwether for national political attitudes, and the key "swing vote" in every national debate from the abolition of slavery to the 2008 election. It shares the key "border cities" of Chicago (with the Yankees) and St. Louis (with Greater Appalachia). It also has an important extension in southern Ontario where many Midlanders settled after the Revolution. While less cognizant of its national identity, the Midlands nonetheless plays an enormously influential moderating role in continental politics, as it agrees with only parts of its neighbors agendas.

Tidewater: The most powerful nation during the Colonial and Early Republican periods, Tidewater has always been a fundamentally conservative nation, with a high value placed on respect for authority and tradition and very little on equality or public participation in politics. This is unsurprising being a nation founded by the younger sons of English gentry who sought to reproduce the semifeudal manorialism of the English countryside, where economic, political, and social affairs were run by the aristocracy. Originally successful, these self-styled "Cavaliers" raised a country gentleman's paradise in the Chesapeake lowlands, with indentured servants, and later slaves taking the part of the peasants. Profoundly influential in the founding of the United States, the Tidewater elites were responsible for many of the aristocratic inflections in the Constitution, including the Electoral College and Senate, both of whose memberships were to be appointed by state legislators, not chosen by the electorate. Cut off from expanding to the west by Greater Appalachia, the Tidewater's power has waned since the 1830s and it has lost ground to both its Midland rivals to the north and its Deep Southern allies in the Atlantic Piedmont.

Greater Appalachia: Founded in the early eighteenth century by by wave upon wave of rough, bellicose settlers from the war-ravaged Borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands. Lampooned by popular media as "rednecks," "hillbillies," "crackers," and "white trash," these clannish Scots-Irish, Scots, and north English frontiersmen spread across the highland South and into the North American river valleys, clashing all the way with Indians, Mexicans, and Yankees. Formed in a state of near-constant upheaval in the British Isles, a warrior-ethic was fostered alongside a deep commitment to individual liberty and personal sovereignty. Intensely suspicious of aristocrats and social reformers alike, these American Borderlanders despised Yankee teachers, Tidewater lords, and Deep Southern aristocrats. Despite much of the region fighting for the Union during the civil war, their resistance to the liberation of black slaves during Reconstruction drove Greater Appalachia into its lasting alliance with Tidewater and the Deep South. Greater Appalachia has historically provided a large proportion of the U.S. military, from officers like Andrew Jackson, Davey Crockett, and Douglas MacArthur, to the present soldiers in Afghanistan. They also gave the continent bluegrass and country music, stock car racing, and Evangelical fundamentalism. Greater Appalachia's people have often had a poor awareness of their cultural origins, with many Scots-Irish responding to heritage questions with "American" and even "Native American."

The Deep South: Founded by Barbados slave lords as a West Indies-style slave society, for much of American history the Deep South has been the bastion of white supremacy, aristocratic privilege, and a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was a privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. It remains the least democratic of the nations, a one-party entity where race remains the primary determinant of one's political affiliations. From its beachhead at Charleston the Deep South expanded through the Southern lowlands before having its territorial ambitions in Latin America halted. In frustration, the Deep South dragged the federation down into a bloody civil war in an effort to carve out its own nation-state alongside its reluctant Tidewater and smattering of Appalachian allies. Successfully resisting the Yankee-led occupation, the Deep South became the center for the state's rights movement, racial segregation, and labor and environmental deregulation. Having forged an uneasy "Dixie" coalition with Tidewater and Greater Appalachia in the 1870s, the Deep South is locked in an epic battle with Yankeedom and its Left Coast and New Netherlands allies for control of the federation.

New France: The most overtly nationalistic of the nations, possessing a nation-state-in-waiting in the form of the Province of Quebec. Founded in the early 1600s, New French culture blends the folkways of ancien regime northern French peasantry with the traditions and values of the aboriginal people they encountered in northeastern America. Down-to-earth, egalitarian, and consensus driven, the New French have been recently revealed by pollsters to be (by far) the most liberal nation in North America. Long oppressed by their British overlords, the New French have, since the mid-20th century, imparted many of their attitudes to the Canadian federation, where multiculturalism and negotiated consensus are treasured. They are indirectly responsible for the reemergence of First Nation.

El Norte: The oldest of the Euro-American nations, El Norte dates back to the sixteenth-century establishment of the Spanish imperial outposts of Monterrey and Saltillo on the northern fringes of Mexico. This resurgent nation spreads from the US-Mexico border for a hundred miles or more in either direction, where its overwhelmingly Hispanic society has long been a hybrid of Anglo- and Spanish America, with an economy tilted more towards the United States than Mexico City. While Americans see the southwestern borderlands as a place apart, dominated by a culture with an alien language and norms, many Mexicans find their nortenyo kinsmen to be overwhelmingly Americanized. Nortenyos have a well-earned reputation for being more independent, self-sufficient, adaptable, and work-centered than many Mexicans from the more densely populated hierarchical society of of the Mexican core. Long a hotbed of democratic reform and revolutionary fervor, the northern Mexican states have more in common--historically, culturally, economically, gastronomically--with the United States' Hispanic southwestern borderlands than they do with the rest of Mexico, despite being split by an increasingly-militarized border not entirely unlike East and West Germany.

The Left Coast: A Chile-shaped nation pinned between the Pacific and the Cascade and Coast mountain ranges, the Left Coast extends in a strip from Monterey, California, to Juneau, Alaska, including four decidedly progressive metropolises: San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. A wet region of staggering natural beauty, it was originally colonized by two groups: missionaries, merchants and woodsmen from New England (who arrived by sea and controlled the towns) and farmers, prospectors, and fur traders from Greater Appalachia (who arrived by wagon and dominated the countryside). Originally founded to be a "New England on the Pacific," the Left Coast combines the Yankee faith in good government and social reform to a commitment to individual self-exploration and discovery. The Left Coast has been the birthplace of the modern environmental movement and the global information revolution (home to Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Twitter, and Silicon Valley), and the cofounder (along with New Netherland) of the gay rights movement, the peace movement, and the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The closest ally of Yankeedom, it battles constantly against the libertarian-corporate agenda of its neighbor, the Far West.

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.

First Nation: Like the Far West, First Nation encompasses a vast region with a hostile climate: the boreal forests, tundra, and glaciers of the far north. The difference, however, is that its indigenous inhabitants still occupy the area in force--most of them having never given up their land by treaty--and still retain cultural practices and knowledge that allow them to survive in the region on its own terms. Native Americans have recently begun reclaiming their sovereignty and have won both considerable autonomy in Alaska and Nunavut and a self-governing nation-state in Greenland, which stands on the threshold of full independence from Denmark. As inhabitants of a new--and very old--nation, First Nation's people have a chance to put native North America back on the map culturally, politically, and environmentally.
 
Last edited:

Abhakhazia

Banned
That's a fairly inaccurate and oversimplified map.

Exactly.


We ARE not with teh ev0l racists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky, nor the hicks in West Virginia. We are with the midlands, or Yankeedom.

Also, Chicago is a corrupt Communist dictatorship. ;)
 
Uggg....

I'd like to start out by saying that the first sort of map like that I saw is from "Nine Nations of North America", and so I sort of look at things that way, but some of the splits make *no* sense...

What does make sense...

Pretty much everything west of Denver. The "Rainy liberals" from a point on the Pacific coast North staying west of the Cascades, a Heavily Mexican oriented section in the South and most of the remainder in one place...

South Florida separate from the rest, Quebec whatever you call it and maybe the Native Nation...

What doesn't, MIDLANDS! Philadelphia and Toronto are in the same Nation, that I'm fine with, but that Nation includes the Oklahoma Panhandle and not Buffalo? I'd love to do a compare and contrast between Toronto and the Oklahoma Panhandle.

It looks like an attempt to build a Jesusland/United States of Canada type map by county from the 1860 presidential election (with Lincoln, Douglas, Bell and Breakinridge corresponding to Yankeedom, midlands, greater appalachia and Deep South) and then attaching Southern Ontario to the Midlands because it isn't Quebec, it isn't far west, it isn't native and they didn't vote for Lincoln.

As for pulling out the Tidewater, why not just add it to the Midlands, everything about it is somewhere between Toronto and the Oklahoma Panhandle, of course that's true for most of Australia, New Zealand, Wales and Poland.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'd like to start out by saying that the first sort of map like that I saw is from "Nine Nations of North America", and so I sort of look at things that way, but some of the splits make *no* sense
Woodard does a way better job of providing historical context than the 9 nations guy did. That being said, 9 Nations is good as a snapshot of the period it discusses.

What doesn't, MIDLANDS! Philadelphia and Toronto are in the same Nation, that I'm fine with, but that Nation includes the Oklahoma Panhandle and not Buffalo? I'd love to do a compare and contrast between Toronto and the Oklahoma Panhandle.
I'm assuming that Buffalo is considered one of the "border cities," linking Yankeedom with the Midlands, like Chicago (and St. Louis for Appalachia).
midlands, greater appalachia and Deep South) and then attaching Southern Ontario to the Midlands because it isn't Quebec, it isn't far west, it isn't native and they didn't vote for Lincoln.
It's the Midlands because most of its settlers were of the same type that comprised Pennsylvania and the Delaware Valley, with many of them having moved to Ontario from those places after the Revolution.
 
Woodard does a way better job of providing historical context than the 9 nations guy did. That being said, 9 Nations is good as a snapshot of the period it discusses.

I'm assuming that Buffalo is considered one of the "border cities," linking Yankeedom with the Midlands, like Chicago (and St. Louis for Appalachia).
It's the Midlands because most of its settlers were of the same type that comprised Pennsylvania and the Delaware Valley, with many of them having moved to Ontario from those places after the Revolution.

Yes, Nine Nations is a snapshot of the 1980s, but keeping the Tidewater (the populated sections at least) separated from the deep south, reduces the borders in that area to a snapshot of the 1800s. (and *that* based on the differences in desires at the Constitutional Convention between Virginia and South Carolina)

Having Buffalo as a border town would equally apply to Erie and Cleveland and to some extent Detroit, reducing true "Yankeedom" to two segments separated by hundreds of miles...

The more that I read the description, the more the Midlands are defined by what they aren't or what they don't believe. This is a "Nation"? (and I still find the idea of trying to put Ontario and Western Oklahoma in the same *anything* to be bizarre.
 
Very happy to see that the South remains a racist, backwards, monolith.

Also, I can attest from personal experience that southern New Jersey and Oklahoma are exactly the same. No difference whatsoever.
 
I think its fair to say that for the foreseeable future, no matter what happen we'll be label a different nation due to different language/cultural inheritance we have.

The funny thing is though that in term of value, I pretty sure that you will find part of rural quebec (the same apply for other "nations") that have more in common in term of outlook with other more distant one in a similar situation then they have with then closer urban "countrymen". Coming from Montreal, I probably in many ways share a lot more with other nations' urban centers then I have with a farmer from the beauce or a madelinot fisherman.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I think its fair to say that for the foreseeable future, no matter what happen we'll be label a different nation due to different language/cultural inheritance we have.

The funny thing is though that in term of value, I pretty sure that you will find part of rural quebec (the same apply for other "nations") that have more in common in term of outlook with other more distant one in a similar situation then they have with then closer urban "countrymen". Coming from Montreal, I probably in many ways share a lot more with other nations' urban centers then I have with a farmer from the beauce or a madelinot fisherman.
Well that's the whole urban/rural divide right there. This is more about cultural settlement patterns in North America.
 
Well that's the whole urban/rural divide right there. This is more about cultural settlement patterns in North America.

but that's my point, the ethnicities might have had a certain influence in the founding period but changes over time means that they do not reflect current realities. A map that wanted to show the various "cultural areas" of north america would actualy be a patchwork if it wanted to be truly representative.
 
Well that's the whole urban/rural divide right there. This is more about cultural settlement patterns in North America.

That's right, what I find interesting about this map is the attempt to find in the original settlement patterns the roots of modern cultural divisions.

In my ASB (link below) I have the concept of the different groups of British settlers coming to think of themselves as coming from different ethnic groups, called "stocks" in that TL. More or less, they are Yankee, Pennsylvanian, Tidewater, and Carolinian, besides the Newfoundlanders and Caribbean settlers who had much less geographic spread. This reminds me of that, so I thought I'd plug my project.
 
My problem with these maps is the following:

LA County and Orange County both appear as being part of "El Norte" because they both have a majority mexican/hispanic population. Cool. But I am hispanic and I lived here a good portion of my life; however I have never felt in touch with the "El Norte" culture, probably because I was originally from Mexico City and like the author here tend to lump Norteños, Chicanos and Tejanos together as something different from a Capitalino/Defeño.

At the same time one of my best friends - now living in LA - is originally from South Texas and is as "Tejano" as it gets. He doesn't identify with the LA Chicano culture because - even though this author and myself lumped it together - he finds it different. In the same way I can distinguish what part of Mexico City someone is by slight (but present) differences in accent.

You can create a nation out of anything. I can assume that anyone can make similar division and lumpings of pseudo-subnations to fit their own idiosyncrasies. This author thought the Oklahoma Panhandle and Toronto had more in common between each other than Toronto and Buffalo (although my guess is he didn't want to offend Canadians by placing Toronto in the Yankeedom.

I am going to take a wild guess, and assume this guy is from Pennsylvania, which he divided into three different "nations" and placed it fairly close to a fourth (and possibly strangest creation) Tidewater. And meanwhile has likely only been to "The Far West" to ski and gambling since that is the only connection I see between BC, Utah, and Vegas.
 

d32123

Banned
I am going to take a wild guess, and assume this guy is from Pennsylvania, which he divided into three different "nations" and placed it fairly close to a fourth (and possibly strangest creation) Tidewater. And meanwhile has likely only been to "The Far West" to ski and gambling since that is the only connection I see between BC, Utah, and Vegas.

Not to even mention the fact that he lumped everything from Western BC to Southern California in one group. I'll grant you that Seattle and Portland are kind of similar but having just gone to the Bay Area recently I can assure you that Northern California is more culturally similar to Los Angeles than the Puget Sound area.
 
I LOVE THIS BOOK.

To those of you who say that the cultural groupings aren't accurate...well, of course they're not perfect. But Woodard has already mentioned that it isn't one-hundred percent accurate, and he's mentioned the concept of border cities and areas.

(I agree all of Oklahoma and northernmost Texas would be 'Greater Appalachian', for example. Also far more of middling America would be 'Midlander' if I had to choose, myself - all of Kansas and Nebraska, and more of central Indiana/Ohio/Illinois and a good chunk of eastern Colorado so only a sliver of southernmost Illinois and Indiana are Appalachian and westernmost Colorado is Far West).

As Wolfpaw said, he's looking at it in a historical context of finding the earliest settlement patterns to find modern cultural clashes within Anglo-America.

------

I've traveled through most of the eastern US and can see how these groupings fit in particular there. Of course there's going to be lots of variations within the groupings. After all, I come from the Tidewater area and can see how different south Delaware, eastern Maryland, all of Virginia, and northern North Carolina can be...I've traveled extensively through it the most in my life. But I can also say anyone would be foolish to say they're as similar as the Deep South Classic, where I was stationed at during military service (Augusta, GA and Pensacola, FL). Tidewater and the Deep South are related but still distinct.

Similarly, I've noted differences in Ohio between the northernmost parts and middling/southern parts, which were, of course, settled by New England Yankees and Pennsylvanians respectively.

Hell, look up histories of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, even northern Ohio and Illinois you'll find mentions of them being settled by Yankees once the Erie Canal was made.

------

All in all, it's a very useful and interesting book.
 
Top