[…] modern civilized (Northwestern European) people by getting them to give up Islam. You can’t turn the U.S. Deep South and Greater Appalachia into Yankeedom or the Midlandsby getting the former two to give up fundamentalist […]

[…] Flags of the American Nations – Here I discuss each of Colin Woodard’s American Nations, talking about the characteristics of each as well as a bit about each nation’s origins. The enduring features that make up Greater Appalachia, The Left Coast, the Deep South, etc. that live on in today’s America (and Canada and Mexico) can be traced to these ethnic differences in each region’s settling and subsequent immigration. […]

[…] previously (see my posts A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” and Flags of the American Nations), the ancestors of the people that live in these areas came from certain, more aggressive […]

[…] seen in my previous post, Healthcare and the American Nations, the various nations have responded to aspects of the law depending on their clannish […]

[…] more on the nature of each “nation”, see my previous post Flags of the American Nations and/or this piece by Woodard on his book with respect to the Tea Party. This political split is not […]

[…] Flags of the American Nations – Here I discuss each of Colin Woodard’s American Nations, talking about the […]

[…] populations are interchangeable, not all Europeans are interchangeable. Nor, for that, matter, are all White Americans […]

[…] Flags of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political Divide […]

[…] Big Data is kinda like their new younger brother, and is well-described by Salt Lake City. New Puritania (Ctrl-F for “Mormon” in the […]

[…] Flags of the American Nations – Describes the American nations as they exist today and their respective histories […]

[…] course, that may take a long time to happen – if it happens at all. As we saw in my previous post on the matter, the ethnonational divisions that exist in the U.S. complicate such an expansion of healthcare […]

I must say that I have some ideas of my own for the nations’ flags.

I find your Yankeedom flag rather cluttered, and I’ve thought of a simpler sort of graphic: a stylized lighthouse. Both in the literal sense of the numerous lighthouses of the New England coast, and also in the metaphorical sense of bringing learning and social justice. Lighthouses are for helping others find their way in darkness, so they don’t get hurt by hidden hazards.

I’d thought of putting Lux et Veritas / Light & Truth on it, but I was worried about cluttering.

I like your Left Coast flag, but I’ve thought of an alternative to that hippie theme. A version of the Cascadia “Doug” flag, with the tree in the middle a stylized Christmas tree, to represent the tall conifers of the West Coast, both Douglas firs and redwoods.

I’ve also thought of an idea for a Northern Alliance flag: a Left Coast conifer and a Yankeedom lighthouse, or other Left Coast and Yankeedom symbols, on a New Netherland flag. I couldn’t think of a good Dixie Bloc one, so I put Deep South, Tidewater, Appalachia, and Far West on each quadrant.

The word racism has very little meaning these days.

Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

Many are against Obamacare because they believe it provides worse outcomes for the poor and middle class.

Rising prices and premiums. Lower quality care. Less innovation.

It is not such a simple a matter that if you don’t support healthcare, you don’t care about the poor. In fact, it may be the opposite.

This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they’re right as well. Hailing from Yankee-dom, I never saw anything wrong with government welfare programs, but as the nation becomes increasingly diverse, I don’t why I should pay an ever rising share of taxes to people who do not share my culture, my ethics, my religion, or in some cases, even my language. It’s one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a “community” that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

[…] political disarray speaks to the increased conflict between the distinct American Nations, as discussed by David Hackett Fischer and Colin Woodard. Both Turchin and Woodard noted […]

[…] nations were, the Cavaliers and the denizens of the English-Scottish border areas (also see Flags of the American Nations). Indeed, while the “home” states of those two groups, Virginia and West Virginia, […]

[…] conflict between the various “nations” that make up the United States (and Canada). See Flags of the American Nations and Maps of the […]

[…] Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Sound Familiar? Flags of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the […]

[…] of failure for which selection has only been weakly able to act against. But the Puritan will to perfect man and society causes us to fight against this – even blaming ourselves for not living “well” enough […]

[…] A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”, Sound Familiar?, Flags of the American Nations, […]

Even that map in your link backs up the point I made. It shows New York west of the Hudson valley as part of the North region and part of the Inland North sub-dialect which includes most of the territory on the Great Lakes including eastern Wisconsin. New England is an entirely separate dialect according to that map.

“There’s a liberal elite narrative that hurts ethnocentric whites and blacks at the same time.”

If they are so “hurt” they can vote with their dollars and STOP plugging into the American “liberal elite narrative”.

Nobody’s forcing them to buy tv’s, go to movies or surf the web.

[…] American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the […]

But what is *really* interesting about your comments is not the fact that you are linguistically and literally incorrect about slavery being written about in the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. No. What *is* interesting is that you suppose that whatever you *think* it is that is written in MYTHOLOGICAL and symbolic texts is not just myth, but rather historical fact.

Let’s see. If the slave trade existed in ancient South Asia because (you erroneously think) it is written about in those books, does that mean that puspa-vimans (airplanes made of flowers) and brahmastra (nuclear weapons) existed also?

I don’t need help. I read Sanskrit. There is no mention in Rg Veda, Ramayan or Mahabharat of buying and selling humans. Nor is there any mention of “untouchability”.

Try again.

I don’t need help. I read Sanskrit.

Perhaps Avijit Roy can help you:
http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/avijit/slavery_hinduism.htm

“India didn’t need to be united to have Hinduism practice”

Agreed. And Hinduism has nothing at all to do with the buying and selling of human beings. Nowhere is this described in any shruti or smrti.

I challange you to provide me with any AUTHENTIC Sankrit text, correctly translated by a factual know of both vedic and classical Sanskrit, that describes this.

You can do your own research about British Imperialism in India, their fabrication of a “book” called Manusmrti, as well as Max Mueller and the AIT.

Sati is the name of Goddess Parvati, consort of Shiva. The folklore has it that she went into mystic trance and her body burned in what we Hindus call “tej-agni” or the effulgent flame of mystic austerity.

Again, NOWHERE in any shruti or smriti is it described that family members throw women onto a fire when their husbands die.

Jauhar is not sati.

Nor is murdering a daughter-in-law or sister-in-law so her inheritance can be secured by the killers.

India didn’t need to be united to have Hinduism practice: Manusmṛti (written also as Manusmriti or Manusmruti) (Sanskrit: मनुस्मृति), also known as Mānava-Dharmaśāstra (Sanskrit: मानवधर्मशास्त्र), is one metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of ancient Vedic Sanatana Dharma, presently called Hinduism.[1] Generally known in English as the Laws of Manu, or Dharmic discourse to vedic Rishis, on ‘how to lead the life’ or ‘way of living’ by various classes of society.

The point was that slavery did indeed exist in pre-Islam India as did sati.

“Slavery existed in ancient India, where it is recorded in the Sanskrit Laws of Manu of the 1st century BCE. The institution was little documented until the British colonials in the 19th century made it an object of study because of their desire to abolish it.”

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gotta love the British. Of course they went to India to “abolish the ancient and age old Hindu slavery system”.

Classic.

Slavery existed in ancient India, where it is recorded in the Sanskrit Laws of Manu of the 1st century BCE.
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156

That’s completely bogus British Imperialist divide and conquer propaganda.

(Plus they got the Sanskirt WRONG.

The British written and interpreted “Laws of Manu” never existed in India. India never had one government. The entire South Asia was a network of sefl-sustaining villages.

Slavery existed in ancient India, where it is recorded in the Sanskrit Laws of Manu of the 1st century BCE.
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156

What you will not find is any recorded history of slavery in Western Europe (Germanic tribes) before the Roman invasion. You will find White slavery among the Greeks. On the coat tails of the Roman legions came the Phoenician/Jewish slave traders and the Jewish cult of Christianity (first 300 years of Christianity was practiced in the synagogues). With the Romans came the slave trade into Western Europe.

“During the 17th, 18th, & 19th centuries slavery was common throughout the world.”

The buying and selling of human beings was unheard of and inconceivable to South Asian Hindus. Only when the Muslims came into that area of the world were they exposed to it and it was viewed as completely immoral and ……. bizarre.

[…] This painting is available for sale at my Etsy shop here.  […]

“Even if 6% of the population owned slaves:

1) It doesn’t change the fact that these societies were set up on the basis of servitude, especially the Deep South

2) That’s still a lot of slaves, which often outnumbered Whites

3) I didn’t deny that initially, the de facto slave population of the Tidewater was White

4) Many non-slave owning Whites were the underlings and henchmen of the plantation bosses, and worked hard to maintain slavery and suppress any potential slave uprising

5) The entire economic system of the South was based on slavery

Everything I’ve said here is accurate. History is often nasty, but the nasty facts are still facts nonetheless.”

Yes, of course it changes it dramatically. If only 6% owned slaves the 94% of the population didn’t have slaves. To say that the society was “set up on servitude” is wishful thinking at its best. Even exaggerating the economic weight of the slavery-related economy there’s no serious way to exaggerate in such a way. It’s, in fact, ridiculous.

And just for the record, it is not “nasty”, as if I were somehow hurt in my precious little feelings about it. The Confederacy was just another society with slaves in human history. Just like Rome, or Western Africa, or the whole Arabia (but far less harsh). Like Russia, or Brazil, or China, or classical Greece.

I’m not american, in the first place, no southron either, obviously, and I feel no guilt or shame for slavery, or servitude, or Americas’ colonization, or the cultural communist narrative of exceptional white evilness, or anything like that. It’s simply that exaggerations to fit a useful and simplifying narrative, one that comforts and makes things easier. are crap. Period. Sorry. It’s nasty but you know, it’s the way it is… and stuff.

No, it’s not “hilarious”. It’s true.

There’s a liberal elite narrative that hurts ethnocentric whites and blacks at the same time.

Where’s the problem with that, you proud hindu?

[…] civilized (Northwestern European) people by getting them to give up Islam. You can’t turn the U.S. Deep South and Greater Appalachia into Yankeedom or the Midlands by getting the former two to give up fundamentalist Christianity. […]

[…] – JayMan on American nations. […]

“All I can say is thank goodness that White people are, according to John Derbyshire, pussies. And totally incapable when deeply pressed of figuring out imaginative and ultra deadly ways of killing masses of their enemies. ”

That’s new age, ahistorical, hogwash, feel-good fantasy.

Read some world history.

You can start with the First Nations right here in North America.

Jayman, I’d like to shine a bit more light on your post at 12:48.
The first man to own a slave in the U.S. was named Anthony Johnson. We was a free indentured servant that did very well through hard work and a sharp mind. He acquired indentured servants but when it came time to free them, he sued the colony of Virgina to keep John Casor for life/slave and won. Anthony Johnson was Black.

During the 17th, 18th, & 19th centuries slavery was common throughout the world. The American Indians had slave and war based economies. Both the white slavery of Europe and the North American slave trade was a near monopoly of the Jews. 40% of all Jewish families in the U.S. owned slaves.

One out of every seven slaves was owned by a Black (most were woman slave owners). An American Black today has more of a chance of having a slave owner (Black) as an ancestor than an American White does having a White slave owner ancestor.

All indices (health, disease, education, family stability, etc.) for life and well being went way down for Blacks after emancipation. I refer you to Senator Tom Watson “Socialist and Socialism” chapter one.

The industrial workers in the North lived in far worse conditions in the South both before and after emancipation. i.e. wage slavery was much harder on people then formal slavery.

“This is entirely different from the historic El Norte presence in New Mexico which was as much Indian and native Indian at that as Spanish. Rather, the new immigrants are from Morelia, Michoacan, and the Yucatan. Central and Southern Mexico, with the attitudes described by B. Traven, including deep superstition, lack of literacy, Catholic Paganism (Catholicism is basically a thin veneer on native pagan attitudes and gods),”

– Well that’s a good development at least. A major global problem is Christian “universalism” which has always sought to destroy native cultures, traditions, metaphysical systems, etc. Glad to know that some folks hang on to their core native traditions in the process of Christian One World Order-ism.

“and a very different attitude than the old aristocratic Californios.”

I’m a California resident. Not quite sure what that attitude is or was. Fill me in?

” Very Indian peasant in attitude. Nice if you want authentic cuisine (of dubious cleanliness) in restaurants, not good if you want books, music, and food of the Anglo persuasion.”

I’m anglo myself with no interest in Anglo books or food (too bland) and certainly not Anglo music. I’m more inclined to South Asian cultural stuff which California also has a lot of thanks to all the Indians (from India) here and the yoga scene.
I do however like vegetarian Mexican cuisine but I make it myself.

“Kanazawa did that study, shouted down as a Gallilean hate-fact, but never disproven. Black women were the least attractive on average to men of all races, and … Black men were the MOST attractive on average to women of all races.”

– “All races”? How many countries was this tested in? What’s the sample size? Most of these so called “studies” I’ve seen relegate themselves to US, Canada, the UK and sometimes Australia. Hardly diverse.

” No one has disproved Kanazawa’s study”

Again, sample size? Number of countries? Which sub-cultures within those countries? Who the heck is participating?

“and the relative attractiveness of Black guys relative to White ones, in terms of dominance, testosterone, aggressiveness (the key components on average of male attractiveness) is well documented.”

I find black men on average more attractive than white guys but it has nothing to do with “dominance”. Wrinkles are ugly. Black don’t crack. White people look 40 at 30 and 50 at 40. Its because of our skin, its lack of melanin and rapid collegen loss.

A well kept black man will look 25 at 37 and 37 at 52. That’s hot.

“As is lower average intelligence and male IQ is highly correlated with lower testosterone and dominance, and thus a deselector of male attractiveness.”

Intelligent black men tend to take better care of their health and bodies than less intelligent black men. Hence they will be more attractive and look younger – longer. See above.

” As female intelligence is highly correlated with faithfulness so thus highly attractive to men looking for wives and mothers of their (not some other guy’s) kids.”

Right. Smart, young looking black men are the perfect combination and perfect match for smart, family oriented women.

Another great match is South Asian men, because they tend to be smart, come from awesome cultural backgrounds, and are very romantic (their culture has not jaded them about love yet), and are extremely family oriented.

The only hurdle their is the South Asian mother. You have to break her to get to her son (LOL!)

However, it does take more effort for them to look young and handsome for as long as black men. A woman might have to keep her Indian man on his toes regarding health and fitness, but its worth it. Those guys are really sweet and the yearly trips to India are exciting. And of course the kids will grow up smart, tri-lingual, cultured and respectful of elders.

I love California and all diverse choice of men we have out here!

An interesting article, but with respect to the Canadian part of the midlands, like too many Americans you overlook the fact that Canada’s national identity was based in as explicit a rejection of the United States as the United States’ was of Britain. Thus, the “Betsy Ross” flag for what is really Loyalist Ontario is absurd. That culture’s fundamentals still owes far more to the UK than to the US. Try the Grand Union flag here, instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Union_Flag

Otherwise, a good read.

‘I will add that since the plantation bosses undoubtably had a reproductive advantage, many modern day Southerners are disproportionately descended from them.’

By Southerners I presume you mean both Blacks and Whites.

As a Montrealer and Quebecer, I do agree that in Montreal corruption is or was, we hope, widespread, but I doubt that inbreeding has anything to do with it, for some remote regions in Quebec, inbreeding is probably a fact, not for corruption but some illness transmited down the line due to living in a small isolated population. To me corruption is centered mainly in the construction area, which to stay polite is not an exclusive french canadian business, and in Montreal and is due to a profond laxism of government at the municipal level, and contrary to a few english canadians cities I do know, citizens involvment in the municipal affairs in Quebec is much lower than in the average canadian cities, so it did help developping a mentality we can do whatever we like and those peoples, ‘entrepreneurs’, developpers, counsulting engineers, municipal managers, politicians, not all of them of course, do like money…and nobody was paying attention to them, here in Quebec most people are still arguing if we should become independant or stay in Canada, and they gave, until very recently no or almost no attention to what was going on in their own backyard, municipal politics is not ‘fashionnable’ here. There is probably much more to this, but to me that is if not the main reason, at least an important one.

This map appears to have been created by someone who never set foot outside the Boston-NYC-DC corridor. The idea that the people of Wisconsin or even western NY (Buffalo, Rochester) are the same as Boston is ridiculous. Yankeedom extends as far west as the Hudson river valley or perhaps to the eastern edge of the Finger Lakes (around Syracuse), but no farther. The rest of what is shown as Yankeedom is much more similar to the Midlands than Yankeedom.

As for left coasters being socially-awkward peripatetics, I stand guilty as charged. California’s milieu was not good for someone as prone to turn into a hermit as me; the crater of social capital there only amplified my social awkwardness. I’m the product of two far westerners: one who moved to Cali at the age of 18 to escape the dysfunctions of her childhood home and another who’s father (my grandpappy) swore on his way out through Southern California to fight the Japanese that if he made it back alive, he’d move to L.A. (an observation recently made by Mr. Sailer that was spot-on for my family).

Fast forward to today, and I and all of my siblings are absolute loners. We can’t make or keep new friends and have little interest in it. Socializing is seen as a burden. Familism is extremely low. The plus side is that most of us are between one and two standard deviations above the average white IQ, which isn’t all that bad. Also, I’ve got an inherent case of extreme wanderlust that probably helped bring my ancestors all the way from n/w Europe to California. I live in South Korea now.

Jayman — What about Blacks? Black people have their own “country” which would include New Orleans, the birthplace of Black Culture (but a violent place most Blacks of the middle class only visit for Jazzfest), Atlanta (the Tyler Perry center of the Affirmative Action based Black middle class — Metro Atlanta is 43% White, but Atlanta’s total government employee population, city, county, state and federal is 98% Black), and of course Detroit — the toxic epicenter of Black control, political, cultural, and physical.

The important thing to note about Black people is that they are entirely urban save the Deep South, and even back to the South migration has Black people from say, Detroit moving to urban centers not the rural or suburban centers. This is very interesting, suggesting for one thing a dependency on political control still persists among Blacks that has not been true for the Irish for generations (since at least WWII and arguably before).

You have to have a Black Country and Flag.

Also, a Mexican one. In SoCal, I can tell you the demographics have radically changed. Southern California went from Whitopia in the 1980’s to basically Northern Mexico, with all that implies (a food and book desert, depressing gang ridden territories, constant trash everywhere on the side of the road, and so on). This is entirely different from the historic El Norte presence in New Mexico which was as much Indian and native Indian at that as Spanish. Rather, the new immigrants are from Morelia, Michoacan, and the Yucatan. Central and Southern Mexico, with the attitudes described by B. Traven, including deep superstition, lack of literacy, Catholic Paganism (Catholicism is basically a thin veneer on native pagan attitudes and gods), and a very different attitude than the old aristocratic Californios. Very Indian peasant in attitude. Nice if you want authentic cuisine (of dubious cleanliness) in restaurants, not good if you want books, music, and food of the Anglo persuasion.

As for the Cheetos commericial, it is aimed at the demographic responsible for 85% of consumer purchases — White women. Kanazawa did that study, shouted down as a Gallilean hate-fact, but never disproven. Black women were the least attractive on average to men of all races, and … Black men were the MOST attractive on average to women of all races. Yes Sanaa Lathan is more attractive than Roseanne Barr, but we are talking on average, not cherry picked exceptions. No one has disproved Kanazawa’s study, and the relative attractiveness of Black guys relative to White ones, in terms of dominance, testosterone, aggressiveness (the key components on average of male attractiveness) is well documented. As is lower average intelligence and male IQ is highly correlated with lower testosterone and dominance, and thus a deselector of male attractiveness. As female intelligence is highly correlated with faithfulness so thus highly attractive to men looking for wives and mothers of their (not some other guy’s) kids.

The Pew Hispanic Trust had median (yes I know) household net asset values in 2010 of Whites/Blacks/Hispanics at 113K, 5K, and 6K respectively. Thus the most bang for the buck is appealing to White women that basically, you too can be a Kardashian or “Kendra” and nab a dominant Black guy and have a multiracial family.

Anything more than very rare out-marriage between races is problematic because the supply of marriagable men and women is not limitless. Particularly as Whites become minorities, expect attitudes somewhere between Jews in the Kaiser’s Germany to say the Irish under English rule on questions of religion, out-marriage to other races, and the like. Tolerance is far greater when the majority’s position in society is not challenged. Make Whites (and really Whites are already defacto minorities, half of all kids born last year were non-White) minorities and the ability to accept losses in population and particularly, child bearing women, approaches but does not reach zero. As Whites become fewer and fewer, expect attitudes to be enforced for White identity fairly rigorously, because that’s human nature and how Whites have behaved in the past when ruled by Non-Whites (Arabs and Turks, respectively).

Black women of course have their own axe to grind. The supply of marriagable Black men is few, with a reversion to Matriarchy and all that implies for men (they turn into basically John Wesley Hardin — you can read his fascinating autobiography which is self-serving but telling, for free from Google Books). Basically men in Matriarchies turn into the best fighters/killers/dancers/singers sexy-men. Ready like Hardin to kill at any slight to make others fear them and thus be sexy. The supply of stable men among Blacks is few, something Tyler Perry touches on frequently. In addition, Black women are viewed (fairly accurately) as more obese, less intelligent, and more aggressive and masculine than women of other races, another frequent Perry theme. Given that most Black men who can, marry non-Black women, this is a sore point and one Obama has touched on. Obama probably would not have won his State Senate seat being married to a White woman, as it was Bobby Rush painted him as an Oreo in the only election Obama lost.

Arthur Conan Doyle could write in overwhelmingly (99.9999999999%) White Victorian Britain “the Adventure of the Yellow Face” treating inter-racial marriage and child bearing sympathetically. That’s different from today, and will be even more different twenty years from now when more than half of people 20 and under will be non-White, and apt to treat Whites somewhere between a Jew in Germany before WWI, and a Black man in Toledo Ohio in 1920.

All I can say is thank goodness that White people are, according to John Derbyshire, pussies. And totally incapable when deeply pressed of figuring out imaginative and ultra deadly ways of killing masses of their enemies. Just thank Gaia for that! I can already taste rainbows and unicorns!

Jayman, have you noticed that race-obsessed whites and race-obsessed blacks in the US both use the EXACT SAME examples of media as “evidence” that the “elite” is against them and for the other?

The latest example is the Cheerios commercial.

White racists are claiming its part of a “media conspiracy” to “brainwash” white women into perceivin black men as worthy partners over “their own” men, while Black racists are saying its a “media conspiracy” to “brainwash” black men into perceiving white women as partners over “their own” women.

Blacks are claiming the “media” hates blacks and loves whites while Whites are claiming the very same media hates whites and loves blacks.

Its hilarious!

right on with the far interior west (the great plains), SC Gwynne’s book “Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker & the Rise & Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History ” is a fantastic read on the last portion of our country to be conquered & why it took it a while.

The “exploitation” societies of the “Tidewater” and “Deep South”, based on slavery, had exactly a 6% of slaveholders in 1862.

When History and Anthropology become cartoonish clichés…