Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[jæd]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

North America has been inhabited for thousands of years. What's your point?

That large continental areas like Europe (and the US) can't be thought of homogeneous based on their history.

[zerospinboson]

What I'm curious about is whether it would be conceivable to create a US analog to "Shameless", or if the fact that you'd be watching at a subculture "at life" that lives by an entirely different rule set (living from day to day, scrounging together what entertainment you can) would be so antithetical the ruling notion that "TV has to be about affluent people" that nobody would watch it. I mean, the US version of Coupling is horrible, because they took out all the jokes, but I wonder if, if that show was 'true to life' (ie accurate without being overdone), the show would get any ratings at all. (I realize that everything related to the casual approach to sex and theft would be controversial, but Rome was a joint project by HBO and the BBC as well, so..) It might be interesting to see what the public response would be to such a worked out example of "life on the bottom," where on one level life truly does suck, but at the same time it would hardly need to show people that were constantly unhappy with their lot in life (that is, the people in Shameless as it is portrayed are quite content living the way they do, they don't know any better).

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by jæd

That large continental areas like Europe (and the US) can't be thought of homogeneous based on their history.

Very true. For those interested in regional and cultural differences in the US, I highly recommend The Nine Nations of North America, by Joel Garreau.



Summary:

In his first book, The Nine Nations of North America (1981) Garreau argued that the existing political boundaries of North America are becoming increasingly irrelevant as regions begin to coalesce into smaller "nations," each with its own economic, political, and cultural characteristics. Garreau identifies nine new North American nations:

1. The Breadbasket: Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma and northern Texas as well as southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada
2. Dixie: southern and southeastern U.S. states, including most of eastern Texas and Florida to the city of Fort Meyers
3. Ecotopia: the Pacific Northwest coast stretching from Alaska in the north to just south of San Francisco.
4. The Empty Quarter: most of Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Denver, Colorado as well as the eastern portions of Oregon, California, Washington, and all of Alberta, British Columbia and Northern Canada.
5. The Foundry: the declining industrial areas of the northeastern United States stretching from New York City to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and including Chicago as well as southern Ontario
6. The Islands: the Caribbean islands, parts of Venezuela and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale portion of southern Florida
7. MexAmerica: the southern and central valley portions of California as well as Arizona, New Mexico and Mexico
8. New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut and the Canadian Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland
9. Quebec: the Canadian province of Quebec

The implication of these developments, Garreau argues, is that everything from politics to urban planning needs to be redesigned to match the evolving regional sensibilities that now matter more to people than national and international borders. In the Ecotopia, for instance, residents prize the natural environment and specialize in environmentally friendly high-technology industries like software. Meanwhile, communities in the Empty Quarter are organized around extraction of natural resources such as the oil and timber that are their economic mainstay. Such regional differences, Garreau suggests, result in fundamental differences in worldviews that are pulling each of the nine nations apart. This evocative thesis has been controversial since the book was first published, but even critics concede that in the ensuing years developments in national and international politics, including the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement, have made Garreau's views seem especially prescient.

Reading this book (years ago) helped me understand why my views, as a New England citizen, differ so much from those of someone like Ralph, from a completely different part of the country with its own values. Both of us are surrounded by people with similar backgrounds to our own, and it is easy to fall into the assumption that the rest of the country is the same, but this is an illusion, I believe. When Ralph speaks of what "Americans" believe or "American culture," he does not and cannot speak for all of the US. Different parts of the US were settled by different groups with different reasons for being here, and our culture is no more homogeneous than that of the EU.

Edit: Another interesting reference is The 10 Regions of US Politics.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Very true. For those interested in regional and cultural differences in the US, I highly recommend The Nine Nations of North America, by Joel Garreau.

That's very interesting - thanks for posting the info. I might even read it I think the idea makes sense, Noth America is too big an area for reional differences not to develop. It's just easier to 'remember' differences with regards to Europe since it consists of nation states each with certain cultural characteristics and differences.

BTW, is it just me who've noticed that some people in this discussion seem to use 'Europe' and 'EU' interchangeably? (and no, I can't remember who). EU and Europe are not same - at least not as far as I know.

[Greg Anos]

I would quibble on the details of the map, as the borders are not hard but soft overlaps. For example, New York City does not reall fit the foundry concept, unless you consider the stock market a foundry, and all of Texas is one big overlap of 1, 2, 4, and 7....

And it doesn't cover the urban/rural dichomy. Los Angeles and New York City and Boston have more in common, than Dallas and San Angelo, 400 KMs away. Look at the 2004 county by county map of the presidential campaign to see what I mean....

[wodin]

Originally Posted by jæd

Why would you want one of those...? It would be out of date in no-time and you'd have spend your time amending it.

Oh No! Not out of date! Just do it like we (in the US) do it. Have a Supreme Court who just interprets it into whatever is convenient this week.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

European culture is more cynical.

Europeans don’t have any lock on cynicism!

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I would quibble on the details of the map, as the borders are not hard but soft overlaps. For example, New York City does not reall fit the foundry concept, unless you consider the stock market a foundry, and all of Texas is one big overlap of 1, 2, 4, and 7....

And it doesn't cover the urban/rural dichomy. Los Angeles and New York City and Boston have more in common, than Dallas and San Angelo, 400 KMs away. Look at the 2004 county by county map of the presidential campaign to see what I mean....

One of the things I like about this map (which did come out in 1981, and is somewhat dated by now) is that it doesn't attempt to divide regions by only two large, but themselves not homogeneous, political parties, or by any other bipolar category such as urban vs. rural regions. One can certainly quibble about details of the map, but I think the concept is sound. (And having been in both LA and Boston, I don't see much resemblance between them.)

[HarryT]

I was surprised, when I first visited New York City, to find how very "European" it "felt". I can't quantify why it felt like that - it just did; ignoring the skyscrapers, I could have been in any large European city. Other US cities, such as Miami, on the other held, felt completely "alien". Again, I really could not quantify why that was.

[wodin]

I have lived for extended periods (more than one year)in six of these “nine new North American nations”. I can attest to the differences.

[Greg Anos]

Nekokami,

Are we talking about the same New England that pitched the tea in the Boston harbor in 1773 and took part in the first shooting of the Revolutionary War?

* * * *
A brief precis on early American history. Active rebellion (shooting at British soldiers) start in 1775 in New England. It quickly spread to all the other colonies. The purpose was to get rid of the British Government from their backs (and wallets). The British first tried to reclaim New England, gave it up as a bad job, and then took New York City as a base of operations for the rest of the war (hi Harry!), They had indifferent success retaking the "foundry" section, even with the help of a high placed traitor and a back door attack from Canada. Then they tried to take the "Dixie" area for two years, and ending up bottled up by the French fleet and surrendering...

The regions were different culturally even then. But they banded together, as Ben Franklin put it - "We must all hang together, for assuredly we will all hang separately."

The victors tried to put together a combined government, that would be a small starved thing, just big enough to do minimal functions. When that proved too weak to function, they make a new one somewhat stronger but still limited, because they feared an all-controlling government, no matter who controlled it. (Sort of "an accident that can't happen, won't happen.")
* * *

This ethos, along with "Manifest Destiny" drove the US until the American Civil War, which totally changed the dynamic. Now the US government was dominant , and the seeds of modern power politics were sown (but it took until FDR to become actualized).

To me, to deny this history and it's formativeness on the American culture, is the same as saying the French Revolution and Napolean, had no effect on French culture or the Magna Carta and the beheading of Charles I had no effect on forming British culture, no matter how far American culture has drifted from it's formative state.

It's just not politically correct to say so nowadays...

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Nekokami,

Are we talking about the same New England that pitched the tea in the Boston harbor in 1773 and took part in the first shooting of the Revolutionary War?
....
This ethos, along with "Manifest Destiny" drove the US until the American Civil War, which totally changed the dynamic. Now the US government was dominant , and the seeds of modern power politics were sown (but it took until FDR to become actualized).

To me, to deny this history and it's formativeness on the American culture, is the same as saying the French Revolution and Napolean, had no effect on French culture or the Magna Carta and the beheading of Charles I had no effect on forming British culture, no matter how far Amreican cultrue has drifted from it's formative state.

It's just not politically correct to say so nowadays...

Yes, same New England... today, not 200 years ago. Have you ever lived here? I'm not saying the past didn't happen or didn't affect the present, I'm saying that regardless of the past, people who live in this corner of the country today are generally more comfortable with the idea of government than what you are portraying as a particularly "American" attitude.

I am not offering any particular theories as to why, nor am I saying this is better or worse than the mindset you have been describing. I am simply observing that there is considerable cultural diversity in the US, noted not just by me, but by many other observers as well.

I'm beginning to feel that you have a particular axe to grind with this theory, and that this is getting in the way of any real conversation on this topic between the two of us, at least. I'm very well aware that you, personally, don't like or trust the idea of government (or perhaps any other form of group decision making), and that apparently a great many people you know feel similarly. Fine so far. I'm not doubting your observations in the slightest. It's just when it seems that you want to generalize your opinion to a whole group that includes me and the community I live in that I feel I must object, because I don't think that's accurate.

Am I mistaken? Is this generalization not your intent?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was surprised, when I first visited New York City, to find how very "European" it "felt". I can't quantify why it felt like that - it just did; ignoring the skyscrapers, I could have been in any large European city. Other US cities, such as Miami, on the other held, felt completely "alien". Again, I really could not quantify why that was.

Seattle and San Francisco is like a European cities to. I am convinced that it is because the cities are walkable or have public transport (you do not need a car) and that the size is similar to European cities with respect to width of pavement and so on.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by tompe

Seattle and San Francisco is like a European cities to. I am convinced that it is because the cities are walkable or have public transport (you do not need a car) and that the size is similar to European cities with respect to width of pavement and so on.

I think that is a good point. I have only (yet) been to New England, but what struck me as most foreign was the relative lack of pavements and the amount and size of roads, and the distances of course.

[slayda]

Neko, I've lived in 7 of the 8 areas (not New England). I can see your point about the differences but also agree with Sir Edward that the boundries are soft (in fact they merge & overlap). In addition I have to say that the rural vs. urban (while it does take on the area culture) has a large cultural difference in most of those 7 areas, Ecotopia and The Islands possibly being the least difference but only because they have very little rural area.

One of the major differences, IMO, is the attitude toward gun control and gun ownership. Having guns for hunting just seems logical in rural areas but definitely does not in urban areas. I know that some hunters who live in urban areas will possibly disagree but I think even they would admit guns are not logical in urban areas.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Yes, same New England... today, not 200 years ago. Have you ever lived here? I'm not saying the past didn't happen or didn't affect the present, I'm saying that regardless of the past, people who live in this corner of the country today are generally more comfortable with the idea of government than what you are portraying as a particularly "American" attitude.

I am not offering any particular theories as to why, nor am I saying this is better or worse than the mindset you have been describing. I am simply observing that there is considerable cultural diversity in the US, noted not just by me, but by many other observers as well.

I'm beginning to feel that you have a particular axe to grind with this theory, and that this is getting in the way of any real conversation on this topic between the two of us, at least. I'm very well aware that you, personally, don't like or trust the idea of government (or perhaps any other form of group decision making), and that apparently a great many people you know feel similarly. Fine so far. I'm not doubting your observations in the slightest. It's just when it seems that you want to generalize your opinion to a whole group that includes me and the community I live in that I feel I must object, because I don't think that's accurate.

Am I mistaken? Is this generalization not your intent?

Let me phrase this very carefully.

To the extent that people in the area you describe (and other areas that you don't describe that are similar in world view), there is no cultural difference in the political sense between those regions and the general view (as much as can be generalized) of most of Europe areas. Arguments can be made that Europe cannot be generalzed. I can acccept those arguments, however the thread topic didn't define that level of detail on either side. If there was to be a distinction between the perceived differences between two generalizations, I have used the "caricatures" of both regions to work with. What is the American caricature? The classic small-government rugged individualist, who fears government running their lives. Does this include everyone in America? No. Are there similar small-government rugged individualists in Europe? Yes, although I suspect they are much fewer that in America.

As far as my quoting the past, America was a political experiment in limited government and liberty. To the extend that areas in it no longer believe in those concepts, the experiment has failed. Not totally, not everywhere, but the trend is clear. The experiment is slowly corroding away. And I mourn it.

Should I limit my discussion to wine and music and fashion. Perhaps. I would have limited the controversy. But I always believed in going past the details to a more coherent overview. And that was what I thought the thread was labeled about as well.

As far as having an ax to grind, I do. I will explicitly describe it, for the benefit of the readers. I have no problem with other people organizing themselves as they see fit. I get tired to death of other people determining they are going to organize me to their whims. So when someone explains how good it would be if everybody does X for reason Y, I get annoyed. I have no use for urbanites, who I suspect have no real grasp of the resource chain, trying in insist upon law changes that make sense for their limited environs, but that will be an utter disaster for large groups of other peoples, I get aggrevated. And when said people tell me to shut up (not you, NekoChan) because I (obviously) don't understand modern realities, I get incensed. Finally, when I see the same politicans who caused major economic disasters still in power and fawned upon, I get disgusted.

Virtually all my life, I have been the the receiving end of the "unintended consequenses" of politicans "solving" other people's problems. I no longer say "Thank You".