American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard

Feb 18, 2013 Jork rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Journalist and amateur historian Colin Woodard makes a lot of interesting assertions on the back of thin evidence. Splitting North America into eleven competing “nations,” or more accurately, cultural archetypes, Woodard goes to great lengths to explain the history of the United States, not as a single hegemonic unit, but as many smaller, competing units within a federal framework.
Woodard himself explains his work as a synthesis, and looking through the footnotes of American Nations, one wonder...more Journalist and amateur historian Colin Woodard makes a lot of interesting assertions on the back of thin evidence. Splitting North America into eleven competing “nations,” or more accurately, cultural archetypes, Woodard goes to great lengths to explain the history of the United States, not as a single hegemonic unit, but as many smaller, competing units within a federal framework.
Woodard himself explains his work as a synthesis, and looking through the footnotes of American Nations, one wonders at the paucity of original sources, or at the scarcity of secondary sources. Woodard puts forth broad claims about the American history or regional characteristics on the strength of few sources, to wit: McCullough’s John Adams as the primary resource on the Adams presidency. In all, Woodard’s view of his pet regions remains terribly surface.
Though his argument is engagingly presented, Woodard’s pessimistic impression, not only about the current state of inter-regional solidarity, but about the entire history of inter-regional solidarity, lends itself to Woodard’s worldview and worse, his surface-only approach to North American history. The primary drive behind the book emerges in the final two chapters, where Woodard engages in straight-faced left wing sloganeering, engineering the villainy of the Deep South against the social progressive good guys in so-called “Yankeedom.” Despite the shifting regional alliances from colonization to today mapped throughout the book, Woodard insists that the primary cultural movers retain the traditional North-South focus despite his earlier explanation that such a cultural axis possessed more complexity than he later shows. In Woodard’s estimation, all other regional groups are basically vassal-states, one way or another, to this cultural axis.
In the end, Woodard’s view of regionalism, complete with names too cutesy to take seriously, presents interesting ideas, and a new way of interpreting old history, but cannot carry the freight necessary to make a compelling argument from the sources. When Woodard begins to fantasize about a United States without the former Confederacy as a socialist paradise more like Canada or Europe, he loses the thread of his own argument entirely and drifts into irrelevance. Woodard ought to try his hand at Alternate History, and leave this rank fantasy behind.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 17, 2013 Bob Pearson rated it 3 of 5 stars

I really give this book 3.5. The thesis is quite intriguing -- that America is actually composed of 11 (count 'em) different nations, and the outcome of domestic political events is the function of the interplay among these relatively distinct groups. Moreover Woodard posits that these 11 nations have persisted in their original orientation over time, in fact since the moment they arrived on the North American continent. To think about this notion, you might remember THE EUROPEANS by Luigi Barzi...more I really give this book 3.5. The thesis is quite intriguing -- that America is actually composed of 11 (count 'em) different nations, and the outcome of domestic political events is the function of the interplay among these relatively distinct groups. Moreover Woodard posits that these 11 nations have persisted in their original orientation over time, in fact since the moment they arrived on the North American continent. To think about this notion, you might remember THE EUROPEANS by Luigi Barzini (1984), a marvelous book in which the author attempted with wit and insight to capture the essence of the separate European cultures as a guide to the future. True but not complete. Let us be happy that Colin Woodard is not a European. If he were, he might be telling us how certain it was that the European Union, much less the Euro, would be collapsing in failure. So the un-intriguing part of the book is Woodard's increasingly more difficult task as he proceeds through American history of shoehorning post-Independence America into his categories.

In fairness, it's neat to read about the characteristics identified with each group (and they do sound plausible) and then think of people you've met from that region or background with precisely those identifiers. By the time you reach the end of the book, however, the real plot line is clear: Woodard cannot stand Bush 43, hates the Deep South, loves the notion that Native Americans had and have higher life values than any of the European "nations", and even supposes in one brief section that northern Mexico might want to secede and join the United States! This could be an unusual theory indeed, and began to cause this reader to wonder just how accurate his other judgments might have been.

The one point of real disagreement, however, is more personal. History is not simply a function of trends with roots going back centuries. We do and must reinvent our futures in the present we are given if we intend to progress. For example, the European Union, for better and worse, is a courageous attempt to overcome history and move beyond a Europe of rivals to a Europe of common stakeholders. Time will tell whether it works. For the American South, since the end of the Civil Rights era, the region has outpaced the rest of the country in economic growth, and race relations have improved enormously. This is so not solely because African-Americans fought, sacrificed and bled for their proper place in American society, but because millions of Southern whites recognized the error in their history and were prepared to see it change for the better. I'm a little surprised Woodard wrote such a negative book three years after Barack Obama became president. I'm a bit disappointed that his enviable ability to turn a clever phrase overwhelmed his opportunity to capture a deeper truth -- the American will to reach perfection, no matter how distant. (less)

3 likes · like · see review

Dec 14, 2011 Edmund Davis-Quinn rated it 3 of 5 stars

Very interesting book.

Nice research.

Found it a little dry.

Library copy that already overdue so going to return.

Makes very interesting points about settlement patterns.

More eastern/early American centered then Western centered.

Would like to hear more about the First Nations of much of Canada, especially Northern Canada.

The development of El Norte/Mexamerica (Joel Garreau's term in Nine Nations of North America *****) will be one of the most interesting things to see in the next few years.

Good boo...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 04, 2013 Jim Mullen rated it 4 of 5 stars

I don't care how much American history you know, or think you know, this book, awkwardly sub-titled “A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures,” is a revelation. I'll give you an example of my own -- where is the oldest building made by Europeans in the U.S? If you grew up in the Northeast, you're probably thinking it’s in Boston or Philadelphia. Went to school in the Southeast, maybe it’s in St. Augustine or New Orleans. So where you grew up has a lot to do with what you think you know. D...more

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 01, 2013 Kristine rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, history

Forget the conventional North America map and take a look instead at the map on the cover of AMERICAN NATIONS...

Yankeedom? New Netherland? the Midlands? Tidewater? Greater Appalachia? The Deep South? New France? El Norte? The Left Coast? the Far West? First Nation?? What kind of North American map is that??

Well, even folks who think they don't know much about geography surely know plenty enough to do a double-take. And that's what happened to me. I saw that map and meant to keep walking, but...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 16, 2013 Pete Jones rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book starts as what appears to be a well researched look at how 11 different regions of the United States (nations, as the author calls them) have shaped the culture and politics of the United States. As the book progresses, it turns into something approaching a screed. At the end of the book, it’s clear that the author is a dyed in the wool citizen of Yankeedom and that in his opinion only Yankeedom and its progeny (according to his research) the Left Coast have it right. The real problem...more

like · see review

Nov 25, 2012 Cal rated it 4 of 5 stars

Woodard provides an interesting premise: that regional cultures in North America are relatively stable over time. Though people will affect demographics some by movement, the essential character of a place will show traits it acquired with its founding.

Each "nation" is covered re its social/cultural history, which provides a fascinating story behind some of the enduring regional personalities. Consider, for example, the tint of cautious elitism to Yankee NE, or the clannish isolation of Appalach...more

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 24, 2012 Craig Patton rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I have believed for a long time that as Americans, we do not have one, unified culture but that we are a collective a cultures based upon our history, geographical location, and the ethos of those who helped to build and create these United States.

The fist 3/4 of this book is an excellent read in which the author makes the argument that The United States is really made up of 11 distinct cultures and lays-out the how each culture came to be and the conditions that have lead to their development....more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 10, 2012 Jeff rated it 5 of 5 stars

American Nations by Colin Woodard details the "nations" which inhabit North America above Mexico City. I find it very helpful in understanding different cultural traditions within the U.S. and how they have inter-played.While it is difficult to substantiate the continuation of the founding cultures over almost four centuries of occupation, it still makes a good deal of sense to me. Coming from a church background, I see these traditions marked in the variety of church cultures, from the Pilgrim...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 08, 2012 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: adult, nonfiction, historical, politics, not-graphic

A very fascinating and enlightening read. I thought I might be able to save time by just reading the introduction to absorb the main ideas, but I was immediately hooked and devoured it to the end. And couldn't stop talking about it to friends and family. Of course, part of the reason it appealed to me in the first place was a desire to refresh and strengthen my knowledge of U.S. history, which isn't nearly as strong as I'd like it to be, but the sociological lens is what most strongly intrigued...more A very fascinating and enlightening read. I thought I might be able to save time by just reading the introduction to absorb the main ideas, but I was immediately hooked and devoured it to the end. And couldn't stop talking about it to friends and family. Of course, part of the reason it appealed to me in the first place was a desire to refresh and strengthen my knowledge of U.S. history, which isn't nearly as strong as I'd like it to be, but the sociological lens is what most strongly intrigued me and kept me reading. I was generally familiar with most of the facts presented, but they'd never been presented to me through this frame before.

The basic idea is that our regional differences aren't things that just developed over time, but that they reflect identities, values, and beliefs that have been generally consistent for centuries and continue to shape and assimilate those who move into their domains to this day. Different national, cultural, class, and religious groups first settled different geographic areas of the continent and spread over time, preserving their worldviews as they grew and accepted new immigrants. Political factions and their approaches to government, education, freedom, individuality, community, and more--from our earliest history through to the present day--are reflections of these "national" identities.

Most importantly, the nations have cultures and values that are often legitimately in conflict with each other, and our history is a long and continuous process of struggle and negotiation between the nations, an unending fight for power and influence that still defines our political battles today.

The thing I found most fascinating is just how consistent the identities have been and how little they've changed from their (generally) European roots.

The thing I found most enlightening is how the larger context gives perspective to our current struggles, that all this has happened before and all this will happen again, with the balance generally maintained in a greater cohesive whole. Applied right, it's an analysis that should dampen the urgency, fear, and anger of political debates, increase understanding of opposing positions and open us to other viewpoints.

A very worthwhile read that I highly recommend.(less)

like · see review

Aug 14, 2012 Christoph rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Reading the reviews of this book on goodreads I am struck by how little people know about American history, and that is, the American continent, not the false association of America as the United States. The fact is that the thesis presented in American Nations is not really a very innovative concept, but more of a nuanced one. The melting pot versus salad bowl concept has been around for going on generations now. The historian David Hendrickson just a few years ago put out a book, Peace Pact, w...more Reading the reviews of this book on goodreads I am struck by how little people know about American history, and that is, the American continent, not the false association of America as the United States. The fact is that the thesis presented in American Nations is not really a very innovative concept, but more of a nuanced one. The melting pot versus salad bowl concept has been around for going on generations now. The historian David Hendrickson just a few years ago put out a book, Peace Pact, with the thesis that during the revolution each of the 13 colonies acted like individual nation-states and provided some speculation as to what would have happened if federalism had failed producing a Europe of the west. The author himself provides a few inspirational jumping points along the way of this notion. Quite frankly, this model of American history should be all but apparent and is clearly compelling, evident by the numerous testimonials amongst the reviews from a seemingly diverse group of readers.

Woodard in this analysis of American history provides a strongly reasoned, objective review of origins of the American continent. He brilliantly historicizes the cultural origins of each region of the country tracing them from creation to the eventual presiding of the dominant culture then analyzes the tensions and bonds created amongst these regions. Having spent time or lived in almost all of these regions (except those of the Canadian northeast), these contrasts are woefully apparent. The majority of my time was spent in the Deep South, and his characterization of this bastion of authoritarianism and anti-equality is spot-on. I am struck by Woodard's ability to objectively view both historical and contemporary culture with the exact same non-partisan eye, yet with the acute familiarity and sense of belonging to each of these cultures.

At the end of the day, it is important to note with any sociological analysis, especially one rooted in historicity, that this is a model. Applying too much weight to this view of society is detrimental because this is not "how things are" but merely a way of deciphering the complexity of interpersonal and intersocial relations of the United States.

Perhaps the greatest aspect of this analysis is the conclusion here. The purpose of this book is not just a new historical tradition in a vein attempt to gain notoriety or provide a pop historical trend, but the results of this analysis are prescriptive. Woodard cautions strongly that many of the conditions that got us into our current partisan landscape are not inevitabilities let alone unfixable. A strong need to understand all of our means of becoming the cultures we have grown up is necessary if we wish to work ourselves out of the contemporary social problems that we are immersed in. Ironically, it is none of the cultural traditions of Yankeeness or Southerness or even Westerness that he sees as the model for salvation of the American way of life. The saving grace of America is indigenous. If this continent is to stop the ever-increasing decline and even possible foreign exploitation slowly working its way into our institutions, we must adopt the sustainable and cooperative traditions of native Inuits. That alone is worthy of another volume.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 03, 2012 Carl rated it 4 of 5 stars

To me, this book offered a brand new perspective on American history. The main point of the book is that there are eleven different “nations” in North America, with different histories, cultures, and ideals. These nations are contained in the three large “federations” of the continent – Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but some of the nations are geographically in two different federations. Examples of the author’s nations are Yankeedom, Deep South, and El Norte.

In the author’s view, the e...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 27, 2012 Frank Roberts rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, political-science

The first 3/4 of this book receive 4.5 stars. The final 1/4 receive only 1 star.

For the first 3/4 of this book, Woodard follows the ground blazed by such works as Albion's Seed, in identifying and exploring the various "nations" that are part of the American federation of states. Each has its own culture and history, and norms and values have remained amazingly constant over centuries. The various nations have vied for supremacy over the course of the US, with Yankeedom and Dixie being in bitte...more The first 3/4 of this book receive 4.5 stars. The final 1/4 receive only 1 star.

For the first 3/4 of this book, Woodard follows the ground blazed by such works as Albion's Seed, in identifying and exploring the various "nations" that are part of the American federation of states. Each has its own culture and history, and norms and values have remained amazingly constant over centuries. The various nations have vied for supremacy over the course of the US, with Yankeedom and Dixie being in bitter opposition and the various other nations usually swinging from one side to the other. Each culture has its own definition of freedom, all of which together (IMO) enrich America as a whole.

However, in the final 1/4 of the book, as Woodard turns to more recent history, his own partisanship and bias shows to such an extent that the book loses its power. Woodard clearly is on the side of the Yankees, and he derisively portrays the modern "Red State" coalition as the direct inheritors of a racial oligarchy, and as obstructionists to the great paradise into which his own meddling messianic Yankees would lead us all, if we would only lose our ignorance and follow.

Woodard fails to understand what his own liberal counterparts claim to hold so dear: that E Pluribus Unum requires diversity--true diversity, not the lockstep of modern liberal thinking. Differing views of liberty are good for America. It would be the end of our (one) Nation if any of the cultural nations Woodard identifies won a final victory. We need the laissez faire libertarianism of the West, the Don't Tread on Me ferocity of Greater Appalachia, the Chivalry of the Tidewater, the Nobility of the Deep South, the Tolerance of the Midlands, the Enterprise of the Left Coast, and even the Communitarianism of Yankeedom. All of these contributions make America a great nation.

The answer is not for the Yankees to win their final victory and all of us to follow their modern-day secular puritans into a Social Democratic Utopia. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 07, 2012 Brandon rated it 4 of 5 stars

There's something inherently compelling about this narrative. I found myself talking about the ideas in this book nonstop to my friends and anyone who would listen. It's a powerful explanation for the evolution of politics and power in the US.

I'm always interested in stories that explore the nature and development of power-and this book definitely scratches that itch. Towards the end, I found myself making connections with recent political developments. Of course Republicans emphasize a strong m...more There's something inherently compelling about this narrative. I found myself talking about the ideas in this book nonstop to my friends and anyone who would listen. It's a powerful explanation for the evolution of politics and power in the US.

I'm always interested in stories that explore the nature and development of power-and this book definitely scratches that itch. Towards the end, I found myself making connections with recent political developments. Of course Republicans emphasize a strong military, military victory is important in cementing Appalachian allegiance to the Southern faction and military spending does the same for the Far West. Democratic strategy seems to rely on bringing El Norte into the Northern alliance, with hopes that its dramatic growth will lead to power in the Far West, as well as shaping narratives to divide faction members and hopefully pull the Midlands in as a temporary member.

I, like other reviews, felt that the author at times seemed to lose his equanimity. The author's view towards these conflicts is, by no means, unbiased. At the same time, and acknowledging my own potential fault here, I don't think he is off base here. It has the feel of someone who recognizes that the other side uses a different language and consequently gives up and just says his peace. If one side's solution to every government issue is tax cuts, then maybe it's saying something more than just what they think the immediate problem requires. If the other side's solution is always more thorough regulation, that also tells us something about the underlying political viewpoint. Even when it got incendiary, while the implication was his, the facts did not appear to be wrong. I would not have called the Dixie bloc policies as devoted an economy of "low-wage resource colonies", but with "right to work", low minimum wage, weak social safety nets and limited government intrusions on business, that doesn't seem inherently wrong.

I found this book fascinating and had trouble putting it down. I couldn't stop talking about it or recommending it to friends. I learned about historical events I only knew as a sentence in a history book. I know that even if I don't totally buy the narrative of the past, this view will definitely color how I view things from here on out.

Will it change your political leanings? No
Will it make you think about them? Yes
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

May 06, 2012 John Parris rated it 3 of 5 stars

It was good, but particularly toward the end became more the author's opinion rather than statistical evidence or other facts. He is from Maine and allowed his predjudices to show. According to him, all Southerners (comprised of Tidewater, Deep South, and Appalachia) are Republicans, conservative, racist, backward and so on with the usual stereotypes. New Englanders are, of course, progressive, educated, and egalitarian, though he does admit to past intolerance. I live here and let me tell you t...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 08, 2012 Sharon rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

Growing up in the South I always wondered why my family was so different from those around us. We were friendly with the people in our community but when serious discussions came up my parents grew quiet. Our friends and neighbors had no such reservations. They were opinionated and always eager for a fight of any kind whether with fists or words. We lived side and by side and spoke the same language but I always got the sense that we were just not ‘one of them.’

My family was never really gung ho...more Growing up in the South I always wondered why my family was so different from those around us. We were friendly with the people in our community but when serious discussions came up my parents grew quiet. Our friends and neighbors had no such reservations. They were opinionated and always eager for a fight of any kind whether with fists or words. We lived side and by side and spoke the same language but I always got the sense that we were just not ‘one of them.’

My family was never really gung ho when it came to discussions about the Confederacy or flying the flag. They were proud of being southern but it seemed to stop there. They were Republicans back in the days when everyone else was a Democrat. We just did not ‘fit’.
Doing family history I learned that my mother’s people were New England Quakers who gradually made their way into the south. My father’s people lived in the North Carolina Highlands where they intermarried with the Cherokee. This was all very interesting but I honestly thought it was all ancient history until I read this book American Nations.

A light suddenly came on in my head. My mother’s people came out of Yankeedom! They were also Quakers. My father’s people were those Borderlanders who lived in Appalachia and remained loyal to the Union because they hated the southern planters of the Tidewater and the ‘fake’ aristocracy they believed they wished to bring to America.

If this sounds like some kind of secret code rest assured it is not. Colin Woodard has outlined a theory as to why America is so divided along cultural and political lines. It all goes back to the very beginnings of this country where politics and culture were determined by who settled where and what their dreams were.

All of the different groups brought positives and negatives with them when they decided to settle here. Some wished to recreate the old world in a new setting, such as the younger sons of the British aristocracy who settled in the Tidewater and the Deep South. Some, like the Puritans and Pilgrims of New England wanted a brand new utopia, a city on the hill in Yankeedom. The German settlers of the Midlands wanted nothing more than to farm and raise their families in a place free of restrictions and restraint. In New Amsterdam the Dutch opted for a multi-cultural commerce center that became New York City. The Scots Irish came here because they could. They were the tough ones not afraid of a good fight who settled the wilderness and formed a civilization without a government in Appalachia.

Even today living in this area which was settled by all of these groups you can see faint reminders of these earlier cultures all around us. Is it too fantastical to think that sitting down with a varied group of residents we could find out just by listening to the tone of their conversation who their ancestors were? Perhaps but I believe it is possible.

The book answered so many questions. Why was integration so much harder to implement in the Deep South? Why are the states of the Pacific Northwest in the ‘blue’ category? Why did the Scots Irish not side with the rest of the south until AFTER the Civil War?

The negatives of each group are also highlighted. Yankeedom brought the concept of the town hall meeting and democracy but they were also religiously intolerant. New Netherlands gave us slavery which was taken advantage of in the Tidewater and Deep South. The Scots Irish were the Marines of their day. They were the first to fight and never backed down from a challenge. Unfortunately this tenacity could also translate into just plain old hard headiness which caused many a roadblock politically and socially.

The role of religion in each ‘nation’ is discussed in detail. He also includes the similar developments in Canada which is valuable information for serious students of this school of though. He gives several chapters to the earlier Spanish explorations, the French settling of the Gulf Coast and to later immigrant arrivals. Who settled where and why in the American West is given equal time which was knowledge that I admit that I had always before skimmed over.

I would however caution the reader that Woodard can seem to come across in the later chapters as caustic toward certain regions and certain ideals. If you are of Scots Irish descent you might want to take him to task for this and I fully expect you will but otherwise it is an interesting and fascinating read for all of those out there wondering ‘Why are we the way we are and how did we come to this? Will we ever truly be a ‘United’ nation?
(less)

9 likes · like · see review

Apr 22, 2012 Alan rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

Picked up a copy at the International Studies Association conference. Love the Penguin booth!

I found the book's argument compelling, if a bit simplistic. The author goes beyond the north-south divide to explain how settlement patterns in the early days of the European colonization of North America set up the various rivalries and divisions still present and obvious to anyone picking up a newspaper. Of course, almost ever modern country, from "melting pots" like the US and Brazil to seemingly ho...more

like · see review

Nov 22, 2012 Bill Bruno rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A provocative thesis, and I think very useful. He breaks the US down into eleven separate ethnographic nations and argues that US history was shaped by their relative power. His definition of the different regions and their origins is a good one.

However, the author does occasionally oversimplify and miss things. For example, when discussing the impact of New Nederland (essentially the NYC area), he credits it with getting a Bill of Rights established in this country by offering amendment recomme...more A provocative thesis, and I think very useful. He breaks the US down into eleven separate ethnographic nations and argues that US history was shaped by their relative power. His definition of the different regions and their origins is a good one.

However, the author does occasionally oversimplify and miss things. For example, when discussing the impact of New Nederland (essentially the NYC area), he credits it with getting a Bill of Rights established in this country by offering amendment recommendations along with ratification. However, both Massachusetts and New Hampshire (parts of Yankeedom) had initiated similar pressure by offering recommended amendments along with ratification and they did so before New York.

He attributes the different treatment of slaves in the Deep South (as opposed to Tidewater) to its different ethnographic origins, with it having its origins with Barbadian slave owners. However, much of that may also have been a function of the greater demand for slaves as the cotton-gin made cotton grown in the western areas of Deep South more profitable and the clearing away of swampland in South Carolina also created a greater demand for slaves. Neither was the case in Virginia (Tidewater in the book) and there is no convincing reason given why economic/geographic factors were trumped by cultural ones.

His analysis of New York's ambivalent attitude towards prosecuting the Civil War leans on the mercantile character of New Netherland, which did make money over slavery but overlooks the impact of the white working-class who may have feared economic competition from free blacks. The killing of blacks during the Draft Riots of 1863 wasn't a function of New Netherland mercantile sensibility but working class insecurity and racism.

His assertion that Bell won a narrow majority in Texas is simply wrong, Breckinridge outpolled him 3-1. I'm also curious as to how the author would explain why Douglas perfomred in the areas of Indiana and Illinois that were on the Ohio River while Bell was the stronger performer in those areas of Kentucky that were on the southern side. According to the books map, both areas are Greater Appalachia.

His attempt to define the KKK as a Greater Appalachia phenomenon overlooks Klan activity in the Deep South during Reconstruction.

One can also look as his portrayal of Yankeedom as an anti-imperialist stronghold. Although that may be true regarding the areas taken from Spain, the push for the annexation of Hawaii came Americans whose origins on those islands were missionaries from Yankeedom.

The book as a fundamental soundness and his ethnographic paradigm is a useful mode of analysis. However, it is probably more useful to think of the "nations" as a factor in US history and avoid the apparent monocausal line taken by the author.(less)

like · see review

Dec 30, 2012 Edward rated it 4 of 5 stars

Woodard, Colin, AMERICAN NATIONS, A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (2011) read 12-2012
“One nation, under God, indivisible . . .” - that’s the myth that we tend to think of when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Woodard points out that we tend to use “nationhood” and “statehood” interchangeably when in fact, they’re different. A “nation” is a group of people that shares a common culture and experiences while a “nation” is a political entity. When the thirteen co...more Woodard, Colin, AMERICAN NATIONS, A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (2011) read 12-2012
“One nation, under God, indivisible . . .” - that’s the myth that we tend to think of when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Woodard points out that we tend to use “nationhood” and “statehood” interchangeably when in fact, they’re different. A “nation” is a group of people that shares a common culture and experiences while a “nation” is a political entity. When the thirteen colonies formed a union, it was a state, not a nation. At that time, there was a wide diversity of cultures and values which were cobbled together with a constitutional document that was full of inherently uneasy compromises which the Civil War nearly shattered barely half a century later.
Woodward identifies eleven of these regional cultures or states which cover not only the 50 states but overlap the arbitrary borders that separate us from Canada and Mexico. Some were here from the beginning such New England (called Yankeedom), New France, New Netherlands (now called New York City and its boroughs), the eastern Tidewater region, and the Deep South. Others came later and are identified as Greaer Appalachia, the Midlands, the Far West, El Norte, the Left Coast, and First Nation (northern Canada). The so-called Blue States and Red States break down in geographical terms along the cultural lines that he identifies.
As to the argument that Americans are highly mobile and make these cultures meaningless, he claims that if anything they are becoming more distinct. Sure, there are always exceptions to his classifications, but people, given a choice, tend to congregate with other people who share their values so the regions remain fairly fixed.
To give a few early examples of how these cultures came about, New England was made up of people who were deeply committed to Purtian religious values, local control, and self-government. These people shared little in common with Tidewater aristocrats who tended to live as if they were royalty in England, and even less with the southern colonies which relied for their existence on slavery. Appalachia was settled by Scottish and Irish who had been battling with landlords for centuries and were frequently lawless group. Midlanders were made up of people who uneasily straddled some of these cultural differences and tended to make compromises. All this is oversimplified,, of course, but Woodward says the differences never really disappeared, and are with us today, two hundred and fifty years later, not a long period of time as history goes.
He finds an interesting parallel between the Continental Congress and some of its deliberations and the creation of the European Union which is now threatening to fracture over economic differences between rich and poor countries. If anything, there may be more differences between the different regions of North America than there are in Europe.
An example of his argument: “The Far West, uniquely in North America, is the one place where environment really did trump the cultural heritage of settlers, imposing challenges that Euro-Americans tried to solve through the deployment of capital-intensive technologies – hard rock mines, railroads, telegraphs, Gatling guns, barbed wire, hydroelectric dams. As a result the Far West has long been an internal colony of the continent’s older nations and federal government which possessed the necessary capital. Its people are still often deeply resentful of their dependent status, but have generally backed policies guaranteed to preserve the status quo.”
This attitude toward the federal government is a conflicted one that applies to other regions as well – on the one hand despising it, and on the other dependent upon it. The conservative shift toward greater individual autonomy in the 2nd half of the 20th century could bring about, the author contends, a breakup of the federal union. Inconceivable? Not at all, he thinks. Part of his conclusion: “The majority of Yankees, New Yorkers, and Left Coasters simply aren’t going to accept living in an evangelical Christian theocracy with weak or nonexistent social, labor, or environmental protections, public school systems, and checks on corporate power in politics.” On the other side, “most Deep Southerners [and alliances] will resist paying higher taxes to underwrite the creation of a public health insurance system, a network of unionized and avowedly secular public schools” and all kinds of taxpayer-subsidized public infrastructure projects.
Are the differences between these different regions so great that no compromises can be found? You might think Woodard exaggerates them to give his thesis more credence. But given domestic politics in 2012, and concerns in many quarters of the world that the most powerful national on earth is incapable of governing itself, the sign of an empire in decline, his historical explanation of how this came about becomes more convincing.
(less)

like · see review

Jun 08, 2012 McKenzie rated it 4 of 5 stars

4 stars

Colin Woodward’s American Nations explores the ethnocultural heritage of the different regions of the United States, arguing that we are in fact comprised of stateless nations whose values, political aims, and habits are directly related to the original settlers of each area. For instance, Yankeedom (New England) was originally settled by the Puritans, and their descendants are still focused on creating a society emphasizing social equality, moral values, and hard work; Tidewater (Virgini...more 4 stars

Colin Woodward’s American Nations explores the ethnocultural heritage of the different regions of the United States, arguing that we are in fact comprised of stateless nations whose values, political aims, and habits are directly related to the original settlers of each area. For instance, Yankeedom (New England) was originally settled by the Puritans, and their descendants are still focused on creating a society emphasizing social equality, moral values, and hard work; Tidewater (Virginia) was originally settled by English aristocrats who were interested in preserving the feudal way of life by asserting dominance over lower classes. Woodward successfully argues that these original values have shaped the course of American history, tracing the decisions of each region in the years leading up to the American Revolution, Civil War, and today’s battles over abortion/women’s rights, gay rights, the size of government, healthcare, oil drilling, and other national concerns.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, not only because it was a great refresher on my American history, but because the points he made were so interesting, and I kept trying to talk to people around me about this book (hoping they would read it so we could talk more about it). I agree with other reviewers that Woodward shows his bias at the end of the book, in that he outlines the Yankee agenda as more logical than the Deep South agenda (though as someone who agrees with him, I wasn’t offended by his arguments). I downgraded this book to four stars mostly based on his treatment of the Far West, which is where I grew up. His dismissal of this region as being a colonial region reliant on government support and therefore subject to support whichever party currently offers the best chance of continuing that support while simultaneously providing individual freedom seems to not capture my own experience of growing up in Colorado. He does not adequately describe the values of the region, which I think is going to be just as important as El Norte in the future.

I highly, highly recommend this book; it was fascinating and has given me an entirely new way to look at our national politics. I will especially be paying attention to how the various nations vote in the upcoming presidential election, though not because I think we are immediately at risk of dissolving, like the former Soviet Union, as Woodward suggests.
(less)

like · see review

Dec 02, 2011 Tony Diaz rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

Enduring regional cultures trump borders and propel history in this confident, readable cultural history. Almost a dozen supra-ethnic "nations" or tribes, established with the earliest regional settlement waves, define enduring cultural and political dynamics across North America's federal states. The author christens these half-recognized nations with buzzwords rooted in colonial history and political invective: the Mexican-American frontier's Nortenos, Canada's and Louisiana's New French, New...more

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 21, 2012 Doreen rated it 4 of 5 stars

I really enjoyed this book, more for the cogency of the historical application than for the odd way Colin Woodard thought to use his thesis to forecast possible futures (as a feminist, I found the sexist position of the Greenlanders almost as offensive as the racist theories of the Deep South.) I did think he had a solid case for the 11 different nations, though it's odd that the First Nation is really only dealt with in the epilogue. Otherwise, it's a thought-provoking look at the different soc...more

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 14, 2012 Jerry rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

I found this a very interesting book which provides a lot of insight on the red state, blue state cultural distinctions that exist today. I did not find this book as good as David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, but it does describe more American cultures including Spanish and French.

It's "nations" are: El Norte (Spanish), New France (Quebec and Creole Louisiana), Tidewater, Yankeedom (New England), New Netherland (New York City), Deep South, Midlands (Pennsylvania), Greater Appalachia (Border...more

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 23, 2013 Cheryl Gatling added it

I had just been listening to some crazy political rhetoric, thinking (as a lot of people have been thinking lately), "Dude, who hijacked my country?" when I saw this book. It explains a lot. Why are other people so crazy, so irrational, so uncooperative? Isn't this country founded on the idea of all of us banding together to achieve the common good? Well, yes and no. If you were a New England Yankee, it was. If you were from Appalachia, you fought in the Revolution for the express purpose of pre...more I had just been listening to some crazy political rhetoric, thinking (as a lot of people have been thinking lately), "Dude, who hijacked my country?" when I saw this book. It explains a lot. Why are other people so crazy, so irrational, so uncooperative? Isn't this country founded on the idea of all of us banding together to achieve the common good? Well, yes and no. If you were a New England Yankee, it was. If you were from Appalachia, you fought in the Revolution for the express purpose of preserving your right to do whatever you damn well pleased, which included running around and mouthing off and beating people up. If you were a Tidewater aristocrat, you fought for the right of rich men to remain rich and become richer, and screw your poorer neighbors. Colin Woodard argues that there never was a unified American culture, but a collection of regional cultures, which have been arguing and working at cross purposes since the very beginning. He describes the characteristics of each "nation" (he names eleven), and demonstrates how they got that way. Then he narrates the major events of our history in the context of which "nation" did what. The battles, famous decisions, and famous speeches are familiar, but he puts them in a new light. It seems too simplistic to be true, but it all makes sense. How can the "nations" have maintained their character while being deluged by immigrants, you might ask? Because the immigrants adopted the cultures of their new homes. And wouldn't our mobile society dilute the differences? You'd think, but our internal migrations may have even enhanced the differences, since people gravitate to areas where they feel most comfortable. Some reviewers have claimed that Woodard, being a Yankee from Maine, painted the Yankees in the best light. I didn't think so (and being from Upstate New York makes me a Yankee, too). I thought his Yankees came off as priggish, self-righteous, busybodies who want to turn everyone else into clones of themselves. I thought the "nations" that looked the best were the Midlanders ("Just leave me alone, and let me run my farm.") and New Netherlanders ("Whatever. Want to buy some stuff?"). This book was a strange comfort to me. People have not gone crazy. They have always been crazy. Can we do anything about it? Woodard suggests it isn't going to change a whole lot. Things change, but they don't change. Yankeedom gave up its defining religion, but not the social activism that sprang from it. The Deep South gave up its cherished slavery, but not the attitudes that went with it. But I don't know. Attitudes can change. Look at the progression of opinion on gay marriage in just a few years. I have hope that we can learn to come closer together. (But of course, as a Yankee, I would think that, since Yankees are always trying to change the world.) A fascinating book. (less)

like · see review

Sep 10, 2012 Su rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a chewy and fascinating look at American history through the lens of 11 "nations," internal cultures that don't obey state lines and that have grown out of the cultures that settled each area. The first 3/4 of the book was eye-opening, giving me a perspective on American history I hadn't been exposed to before. Although I know quite a bit about the history, I learned new things from this book. I would re-read the book again, up to the twentieth century, when the author's political leanin...more

like · see review

May 31, 2013 David Montgomery rated it 3 of 5 stars

An intriguing but flawed book. Woodard's thesis — that America is best understood not as a single culture, or a handful, or a multiplicity, but a discrete 11, whose different values have shaped the country's history — draws on good scholarship and is compelling. The execution is highly uneven, however. Much of the book seems too polemical, as Woodard's contemporary liberalism colors his takes on the virtues and vices of the various cultures. Moreover, the book is most interesting in the distant...more

like · see review

Jan 01, 2012 Bill rated it 4 of 5 stars

The auuthor views history of the North American continent through the prism of distinct regional cultures which he terms "nations" from the time the first Europeans settled. It is a thought provoking and different take on history than which we are familar. The author maintains that these distinct original cultures continue to drive our political, social and religious differnces today it in spite of the massive immigration the last two centuries and increased mobility of the population. Whether o...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jul 13, 2012 Orion rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book is a great melding of geography, history, and contemporary issues; it answers many of the questions I have asked myself regarding all three. The model Woodard provides for understanding America holds up quite well, and helps in understanding what is going on the local world today.

In putting forth his case for 11 nations, Woodard explains some of the aspects of history that were glossed over or simply omitted from traditional school studies, such as New York City's lack of support for...more

like · see review

Jan 30, 2012 Mike Ratner rated it 4 of 5 stars

Recommended with reservations; the first half of the book, covering the historical origins of the 11 diverse "nations" that comprise modern United States, is brilliant. For instance, most people don't realize that the vibrant multicultural entity that is New York was just like that continuously all the way back to its founding as New Amsterdam, which was the most diverse and "progressive" city of its time. Or that Deep South was founded by Barbados plantators, unlike the "Tidewater" area of Virg...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 28, 2012 Jessica rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book did more to change my way of thinking about the US than any book I can remember reading. Woodard describes eleven cultures of North America in the order of their founding (starting with El Norte, the culture of northern Mexico and the southwestern US, in 1590) and then follows their histories to the present. So it's a bit of a whirlwind, as he covers a lot of territory, in terms of both time and space. But it is fascinating to see how these competing world views bounce off each other,...more

1 like · like · see review

title link	preview: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America
avg rating	preview: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America Goodreads rating: 4.05 (536 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11140803-american-nations?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347812803l/11140803.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11140803-american-nations?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard[/url]

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (6)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Colin Woodard

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About American Nations:...

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (6)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Colin Woodard

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About American Nations:...

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (6)