|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 6:12:31 GMT
I thought that this article about the regional philosophical and political differences in the United States was fascinating. I was rather surprised to see the southern tip of Florida booted out of the country, though.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 18, 2013 9:50:03 GMT
I would prefer it if these kinds of articles specified "United States" rather than "America". Even if they lump in part of Ontario, it doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 11:07:37 GMT
Well, the map itself also covers Canada but since the article was centered on the United States...
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 18, 2013 12:05:28 GMT
Of course, that's why they should say the United States and not America.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 12:25:10 GMT
You'll never change them, though.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 18, 2013 16:30:22 GMT
I saw that piece the other day. It's indicative of how much people are trying to make sense of the stupid chaos foisted on the United States (of America) by their conservative representatives. The map & text are pretty interesting, but also promote the stereotypes of good and bad parts of the US. Also, I question the statement, “Our continent’s famed mobility has been reinforcing, not dissolving, regional differences, as people increasingly sort themselves into like-minded communities.” An interesting idea, but is it true? However, I imagine there's enough validity in the breakdown that political strategists use similar maps to plot their spins. Here's another article positing that there are "two Americas" (pace, Bjd). It's also interesting, but I'm not sure that the writers' conclusions are truly accurate. For one thing, in most cases the statistics don't differ that radically. For another, talking about how many people use public transportation needs to include how much and how good/bad that transportation is in a given area, how urban or rural, etc. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/there-really-are-two-americas-republistan-and-democravia/281412/
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 17:32:54 GMT
Most countries are now quite mixed with mobility having become so much easier, but I think that regional differences are stronger than the dilution created by newcomers. In fact, it has been my experience to see people who settle in a new region taking on the regional characteristics and preferences rather than the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 18, 2013 18:36:13 GMT
I've heard a theory that people are unconsciously drawn to places that reflect their basic characters. Well, there are also the obvious examples of people purposefully moving places welcoming to their personalities & beliefs, the survivalists who joined their like-minded fellows in the NW, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 23:33:38 GMT
That is obviously quite logical and probably completely true for people moving around the same country. But I have noticed that immigrants from the other side of the planet seem to absorb most of the characteristics of their new region if they are not cut off from local influence by living in a hermetic ethnic neighbourhood.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 19, 2013 0:32:39 GMT
I didn't understand why this was in "US", when there is a widespread theory about "nations" in North America that don't correspond to political borders. This has some of that, but it is odd to only focus on the very north of Mexico. Moreover, there are many areas where First Nations cultures retain their importance, south of the Far North. (and north of where Bixa lives).
The map wasn't very detailed, but part of New Brunswick (where Acadians and MicMacs predominate) is very much a part of New France, though it was always distinct from Québec.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 0:48:10 GMT
I put it in "US" because the article was a lot more natio-ethnocentric than the actual map, which of course is also open to debate. (I actually almost put it directly into "Port and Starboard."
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 19, 2013 4:56:56 GMT
I have noticed that immigrants from the other side of the planet seem to absorb most of the characteristics of their new region if they are not cut off from local influence by living in a hermetic ethnic neighbourhood. Good point. I have often thought that some people are essentially immigrants from the time they make the decision to strike out for the new country. Those would be the ones who've tried to learn something about their new home, who like the idea of it, & who are determined to be a part of it.
|
|