> Ouch. Its uncomfortable when you hold up a description of
> 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
pursuits. Whether any one of us might align with his biases (I think
the model to support when he said biases). I *hope* some (Ray, ???)
offers. I think it is a good model and that it reflects much of what is
> I also contributed with a vote for Reagan. Tho in my young case, he
situation. Both had enormous machines (with some of the same parts...
e.g. Wolfie and Rummy) behind them to make the sense that their
"center" is exactly what I seek. I think on some topics/axes, a
different may be called for. The 11 nation model of our nature, origins
> speak out because of Duke Norquist. He will pile on obscene amounts
> bended knee. Notice how newly
Money in electoral politics is clearly a problem. I was not originally
support an "issue" (not explicitly a candidate) is very questionable.
well. I agree that compromise is often required (thus the place of
> political models you use. I would
geopolitical demographics... I offered my "adjustments" or "nuances" to
it already... I think that given such an understanding of people's
My fundamental alternative political model denies the two-party system.
two-party system yields untenable circumstances and deadlocks. I know
could escape it... it might be a easy as deciding to do it and doing it,
that could be stomached by all. I think more progress on the natural
tension between energy/environment could be had. I think more progress
on limiting the extreme aspects of our gun culture could be achieved.
an inch" we don't have a chance at progress. I agree that the
gaining populist ground naturally... I think that slow steady progress
sportsmanship while that trend is in play. I think the same could
But I could be very wrong... I'm often a Pollyanna abut many issues. I
Conservatives, so I don't know "the opposition"... but I do have plenty
ideas, etc. It seems as if we have a new "Silent Majority" that aligns
I'm also a big proponent of personal change... I think Kennedy's famous
country" is due for a serious revisit. How can *WE* help solve our
lock more people up?). How can *WE* help feed the hungry? Can
cynically disappointed when it doesn't happen. I'm not playing Small
>
>
>
> On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> 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>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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