StephT -
Thanks for more insight into your perspective, including your politics
and demographic embedding. I appreciate your thoughts about models in
this context.
What I think I appreciated most about Woodard's model was it's richness
as you call it, but that it seemed to have *little* if any embellishment
or gratuitous richness. My own myopia had me thinking that his
distinction of El Norte from Far West was gratuitous, but the more I
thought about it, the more it made sense to me.
I also think it is natural that each person making a set of abstractions
or model will generate one that reflect their perspective. One person's
perspective is another persons bias, if you will.
While I think the model Woodard presents is relatively accurate and
useful for many purposes, I can see how his biases stated in his
narratives against the Conservatives (especially the ultra/teabunch)
would put off those sympathetic to them. But he is not alone, not in
the least. As I think I have stated before, the basic message of the
Tea Party or even Conservatives in general is not the source of my
challenge to them, it is their methods (as you speak of "soiling the
manger") that puts me at odds with them. Mean spirited, ruthless, selfish.
<political rant based on personal anecdotes>
I may have a foot halfway down the Autism spectrum because I often take
things very literally, in this case, the stated ideals of political
parties or platforms. This allows me to (try to?) take such things at
pure face value... accept the story and ignore the messenger and in fact
the behaviour of the messenger... at least for a while. But eventually
my intuitive side screams at me to "notice the behaviour" and I have to
give up on them. I helped usher in the Reagan/Bush 80's with my single
little vote based on the ideals of the Conservatives, but it wasn't long
into that period that I realized they didn't really mean what I heard
them say. "Trickle Down Economics" was probably the most blatant of
it... "give to the rich and they will take care of the poor".
While I worked at the gem of the military-industrial complex, and
believed in the principle of "someone has to have the big stick, it
might as well be us", I was still too young and naive to realize that
the problem with being the one holding the big stick is "who you become"
when you have power. Power *is* corruption... and we've been building
our relative power in the world for at least 100 years, and for the most
part what it has bought us is the (deserved) mistrust of the world.
Despite our inneffectuality in places like Vietnam and now
Afghanistan/Pakistan, we do have a very big stick and we seem to like to
use it, and if it isn't effective enough, that is good enough reason to
go shopping for a bigger stick.
Once the gild was off the Conservative Idealism, I found the Liberal
Idealism a refreshing embrace... I was naturally empathetic and even
with Conservative Ideals, wanted everyone to "be happy", so it was easy
for me to accept the social progressiveness of the Liberals even though
I had some doubts about *their* methods (especially fiscal policy). At
least it didn't seem mean-spirited. Then the Political Correct movement
caught hold, and I saw *that* side of the mean spirit... a fairly strict
code with specific prescribed terms, activities and postures, and fairly
significant penalty (strong censure and even excommunication from the
group) for small deviations from the code, I was sickened. This left
me happily, "a man without a Party", but wiser for having taken the two
dominant ones seriously for a bit.
My personal experience, coming from Greater Appalachia rootstock but
raised in the Far West and El Norte made it easy for me to appreciate
the Libertarian's self-reliance model (but not THEIR mean-spirited style
either). I became (yet more) cynical about the political process and
the political milieu itself and subsequently sat out nearly 2 decades of
elections, sniping from the sidelines, ignoring the trite "if you don't
vote, you can't have an opinion" retorts. My sympathies have always
been socially progressive but my intellect clung to more conservative
fiscal models...
I now feel very heretical in my opinion that we are an incredibly
wealthy nation of spoiled brats, conservative and liberal alike, rich
and poor (to some extent) alike. Against the liberal position, our
biggest concern seems to be that our poor can't eat healthily because
all they can afford is McDonalds, or that we need to spend more money on
education because clearly too many children learn little or nothing
after 12 years in the system, or that everyone should have equal access
to a broken medical system? On the conservative side, it seems to
oscillate between the belligerence of "the Second Amendment guarantees
me the right to build, maintain and flaunt in public a large arsenal of
high tech weapons backed by an arbitrary large store of ammunition" and
"Sanctity of Marriage" and "Anti-Choice" rhetoric and "if we test kids
hard enough they will be forced to have learned something". While I
appreciate the Guy Fawkes style sentiments of Occupy and the 99%
rhetoric, I think we should examine that *we* are the 1% in the world
(well, maybe 10 or 20%) but nevertheless, while we want to blame *our*
elites for our troubles (and with good cause) we seem to miss the fact
that all but the most destitute among us *are the elites* to the third
world and are causing *them* the same troubles, extracting their labor
and their resources for our comfort and convenience.
We have lost many of the self- reliant skills and make-do perspectives
that defined us during our expansionist/pioneer period and we have
distorted others (e.g. contemporary gun/vigilante culture). We are not
who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. Each
of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about what
makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look to
those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but things
to aspire to. I don't have enough direct experience with Tidewater and
Deep South to know exactly WHAT makes them proud of themselves, but I'm
sure there is some honest, deep goodness at the roots of their story.
The rest of it may only see them through a caricature of slaveholding,
mysogeny and racial violence, but I suspect there is something less
negative to work with there... and the rest of our caricature of them
doesn't help them aspire to it.
I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles
is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and focus
on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby and kept
the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. We are now
much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" than what
"right we should be doing". We are more worried about how ObamaCare is
going to improve or hurt our personal lot than how it might shape the
country and the relations between the haves and have nots, how it might
reshape our entire medical system (for better or worse).
I think the Tea Party has "shat the nest", I think they will never be
taken seriously again except by themselves, and the Republicans in
general will be tainted by them forever as well. I think that a
pluralistic voice of mature, thoughtful citizens can reshape our
political landscape, but I'm not sure we have many of those voices in
Politics or in the Media. We have a few, and they tend to be on the
Left side of the Aisle. It is their style of maturity and
thoughtfulness that I want to see spread, the right message (Left/Right,
Liberal/Conservative, etc.) that will spring from a larger thoughtful
debate on all topics. I believe that the times may be right for a
return to responsible populism, but it does require putting down our
entitled perspective and many of our divisive assumptions.
Woodard, by explaining more of what *actually* divides us in more detail
may have set the stage for that larger conversation. I won't hold my
breath for it, but I am seeking to open that conversation with others
where I can... to try to break the stalemate that has gripped us for
decades. The silver lining of the TeaParty's "brinksmanship" may be
that it is helping to force us to this position. I think also that
Obama's failures on so many fronts also helps force and inform a better
discussion. I think Obama's intentions were sincere, and I believe that
much of his failures reflect more on his opponents than on his allies,
but more than anything, it should show us how deadlocked we are. Our
next two elections need to make significant qualitative changes, not
just more of the same, each leaning further and further out of the canoe
trying to tip it their way.
</political rant>
- Steve
Also more insights, thanks. I consider the 11 Nations as a model.
With all models there
are abstractions in order to make it manageable to gain insights of
the domain. Mr. Woodard's
model is very rich as models go - certainly more so than the binary
scales you point out have
become trite.
My personal 'model" for models is a rough diamond in the process of
being polished. Each model
is a facet - rough or partially polished - of the diamond and provides
a point-of-view/insight into
the knowledge domain represented by the diamond. Multiple models are
appropriate with each
providing a set of abstractions.
I agree there are multiple ways to abstract a domain into a model. We
each have personal experiences
with portion(s) of the model and thus have opinions on how that
portion should be restructured.
But we also have to consider our perspective is limited to our
personal experiences. If the author applied
an "abstracting process" consistently and as objectively as possible,
then we should consider the
efficacy of the model as a whole.
I also did not expect the upper Midwest to be Yankeedom. I would have
thought it was thoroughly
Midlands. In Minnesota our cultural history is predominantly either
Scandinavian or German. We
are very community oriented - with a local public school in the midst
of and surrounded by
residential homes. Which I understand is a Yankeedom characteristic
of my Puritan ancestors.
(I do not condone the Puritan "violence" they committed against other
non-Puritan faiths) So I
look at Mr. Woodard's argument to assess why he considers my region
Yankeedom-based and not
an entirely separate "nation" of Scandinavians.
MSP - airport designation of Minneapolis-St Paul.
My attraction to the model is for its historical, layered,
montage-like perspective. Multiple layers
of tissue-paper provide a perceived color or shape that was not
anticipated or designed by any of the
underlying layers. My paternal line came from New England via Erie PA
and Chicago IL. My maternal
line is mostly German and Welsh (with a rumored Loyalist fighting for
the Brits). They came through
Kentucky, Indiana, and finally to Chicago. I like the 11 Nations
model for its historical perspective
on how our country came to be in its current form.
My part of this discussion is based on the book/model as a whole. I
have not focused much on
the specific articles using the model to critique the Tea Party and
gun-violence.
Thanks,
StephT
On 11/9/2013 10:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
StephenT -
I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I
recently read the book
and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and
documented - though the reading
style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an
academic textbook-style.
Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book.
No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, north/south,
urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited use in
understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off the
high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time.
As for my quibbles:
I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) and
give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone and the
Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose enough to
demand their own identity and sadly, that alone might be enough to
grant it to them. I believe their affinities to the West and the
South are different than the rest of Appalachia.
I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part of
Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my opinions
here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt Nation"
running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI industrial
centers.
I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are
overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life
in those regions.
More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's "dependence
on the Federal Government". The railroad and the post-civil war
strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead the bulk of the
resources/land in the west to be owned by the US government and made
available to big industry at a discount to exploit.
The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small
scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers,
farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry co-opted
not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some extent. It
was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and beyond) with big
money/industry offering good/quick money in return for support by the
locals to do more and more invasive things in their homelands. They
pitted the locals against "the Feds", all the while surely buying
"the Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in the west derives from a
very real recent (1-2 generations) utility to most of it.
I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered invasions
of the British Isles over
the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of
Angles, Saxons, Vikings,
Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say
modern-day as the
11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the
British Isles invasions.
I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example when
you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how the
various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe and
even Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the
Indian Subcontinent, it is staggering.
I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas.
In MSP, we have neighborhoods
that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of
Scandinavians in this region.
In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures
settling in.
MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK?
The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I
link it here. It takes the basic
11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America.
Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the texture
and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is paralleled
(and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves and
eachother through addiction and economic warfare (home and
abroad). I think much of our gun violence has roots in deeper
places (poverty, addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns
don't kill people" "people do" or "bullets do" but our socioeconomic
conditions are what set the stage for it in many ways.
I have seen other articles
by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early
October Gov't shut-down.
See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover.
If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is
because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying
to get this out in case I lose it again.
- Steve
At Tuffs on Gun Violence:
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown:
Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php
Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all
Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029
I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's
theory. However, the book
has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I
hope to hear more from you
for an additional point-of-view.
Thanks,
StephT
On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess'
cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree
with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less
general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural
"melting pot" to be crufted into:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
