Pages: [1]

Author Topic: The X+1 Nations of North America  (Read 154 times)

Offline catfishncod

  • Rhymesmith
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,099
  • Renown: +3/-0
  • Impatiens mediocritas
    • View Profile
The X+1 Nations of North America
« on: February 18, 2012, 11:19:47 PM »
So I am reading websites trying to explain the Republican primary, and I come across this article. It is also an ad for the author's new book on "{T}he Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America". Here is his map:



This is interesting to me, a self-confessed map geek, because it's not the first attempt. This is from the 1981 book The Nine Nations of North America:



And here is a map derived from 2004 voting powers made by the Boston Globe:



All of these are much more subtle than the typical hackneyed map based around our two-party system:



And it's terribly interesting what the differences are. Is the Upper Midwest part of Yankeedom, or does it have more in common with the rest of the Breadbasket? How much different is the Tidewater from the rest of Dixie? Why do some maps take into account South Florida's connection to the Caribbean, and others not? Do East Texas and East Oklahoma really have more in common with the Gulf Coast than with parts of Georgia and South Carolina?

What nations would you draw, and where would you put the lines?
Logged
--Catfish 'n Cod
A proto-pair-o-docs: "I'm not normal -- I'm a medical studentalmost-resident!"
It's the (lack of) thought that counts. --K

Offline etphonehome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 959
  • Renown: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The X+1 Nations of North America
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2012, 11:56:42 PM »
I love maps too, but that top one is just weird. The "Yankeedom" and "Midlands" areas seem overly gerrymandered for no obvious purpose - Minnesota and Iowa are in different regions despite being more similar to each other in my experience than either state is to Massachusetts (in Yankeedom) or Pennsylvania (in Midlands).

The next two maps seem to be more in tune with my conception of regional differences. They have regions that are mostly compact and make some sense. If you're going to make crazy shapes or non-contiguous regions, you'd better have a reason for it. I don't really agree with some of the decisions made in the Boston Globe map (such as I know parts of Maine and New Hampshire are rural but that doesn't make them the same as Montana), but even there it makes more sense than the weird "Yankeedom" thing from the top map.

The "El Norte"/"Mexamerica" concept seems to be a common theme across the maps. The Boston Globe map puts southern Florida in with the Mexican group, which is interesting.
Logged
My 2ยข.
Pages: [1]