Ouch. Its uncomfortable when you hold up a description of America....by
Ol' Pogo was right. (We have met the enemy and he is ...). Rant away,
You have thought deeper on this than I have. My attraction to the 11
I also contributed with a vote for Reagan. Tho in my young case, he
his opponent. Except for Mondale - natch in that election I voted for
I also hope for a balanced give-n-take at the center. There are
speak out because of Duke Norquist. He will pile on obscene amounts of
knee. Notice how newly
models you use. I would
> 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>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College