View Single Post
Old 12-02-2019, 02:41 PM
Corry El is online now
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,062
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
It does, however, expose a fundamental flaw in the concept behind the whole book, one that effectively renders the idea of "11 nations" meaningless.
I don't entirely agree. Like I said, defining 'cultural nations' as contiguous geographic regions is a quite limited description of cultural geography IMO. However it's not meaningless. Who mainly settled *and dominated* various areas of the US* is important to the dominant local culture in many cases. Again I believe it's a meaningful not meaningless insight that what's so different about NY is partly an echo of New Netherlands, though it's also that NY is so much more Jewish than the rest of the US, etc. It's a number of things, but the Dutch are part of it. Likewise there's no denying that original predominantly Scots-Irish settlement of Appalachia is part of what makes it distinct, true of the white South in general to some degree. More to it than original settlers of the region yes, meaningless no.

And in terms of those 'who settled' effects, it's not 'racist' to not have Native or African American regions as was the complaint as I read it. That's just historical reality. The Europeans dominated, not them.

*let's leave out 'nations' which cross the border with Canada or Mexico which introduces another big diluting factor, that places are part of different (actual) countries. Although I don't think the observation of the cultural similarity of 'mainstream' American upper Midwesterners and people from some parts of Canada is 'meaningless', it's kind of obvious actually. It's just even less of the whole picture once you're talking of people in actually different countries.