The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJayMan Archive
Flags of the American Nations
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

My previous two posts featured some of the flags – assigned by me – of the various “nations” of North America, as described by Colin Woodard, and as derived from David Hackett Fischer.

Inspired by the Bloomberg map of the American nations, where Woodard assigned a flag to each nation, I thought I’d make my own set of flags for each of Woodard’s Nations – based on revisions to Woodard’s Bloomberg version – including a little discussion of each of the nations. Residents from these regions, please feel free to voice your thoughts on my choices. :)

US Flag Blue SkyCanada Flag

ColinWoodard_AmericanNations_map

Yankeedom, a.k.a., Greater New England:

Yankeedom3b This flag is composed of iconic symbols of Yankee culture: the New England sports teams, with the logo of the tellingly named Patriots – a proud Yankee – in the center. Surrounding this are the emblems of certain New England Ivy League schools, symbolizing that decidedly Puritan tradition of education. Long viewing themselves as enlightened people (indeed, the Puritans thought that were God’s chosen people), the Yankees see themselves as stewards of the nation (and indeed today, the world, in many respects). They gave us many of our traditions, such as laying the foundations for democracy and equality. They also established many of the customs we now know (particularly universal education) as well as much of the mythos of American history. They weren’t enthused about outsiders, and only accepted immigrants into their midst once they embarked on an overt policy of assimilation (including a real ceremonial melting pot). Today, their “SWPL” descendants remain indifferent to outsiders, being de facto unwelcoming to people unlike themselves (the “people from away“, or PFAs, as their known here in northern New England) even if they outwardly speak of ideals of diversity. Crusaders for social justice to a fault, the Yankees seek to spread their enlightenment to others, often whether they like it or not.

New Netherland:

Albany, NY I’ve used the flag of the city of Albany, NY, which much more closely resembles the flag of the New Netherland colony than does the flag of New York City, despite the latter city being much more clearly the epicenter of the cultural region. “New Netherland” is of course the nation most removed, ethnically, from its founding composition (see “Being the Dutch” at West Hunter), but still quite similar in its character (in being cosmopolitan and capitalistic). New Amsterdam was established as a trading center (and indeed, was the business capital for the Deep South), a role which New York City and its heavily ethnically mixed metro area continues to play today.

New France:

Flag of New France-A This is simply a combination of the flag of Quebec, the flag of the colony of New France, and the flag of Acadia, EDIT, 9/17/13: and the flag of Acadiana in Louisiana. The French colonists took a decidedly different route than did the British settlers, insisting on good relations with the Native populations from the beginning (something the Brits copied in their own Canadian settlements). The French colonists early on cast off notions of aristocracy and social hierarchy. The initial population was small and isolated (being only about 2,600 in Quebec), but soon exploded in size. Today, their descendants seem to have reversed in many of the traits, having evolved towards clannishness and corruption since being in the New World, perhaps due to inevitable inbreeding given their tiny initial population.

The Midlands:

US_flag_13_stars_–_Betsy_Ross.svg I’ve kept the Betsy Ross flag assigned by Woodard. The Midlands and their way of life is commonly regarded as the quintessential American. It is “the most prototypically American of the nations … It is Middle America, the most mainstream of the continent’s national cultures and, for much of our history, the kingmaker in national political contests,” as Woodard put it (p. 104). The little experiment in tolerance and diversity the Quakers established along with their German followers ended up becoming one of the most pervasive of all cultures, if for no other reason that they became the default. Paradoxically, as much as it is Americans, the Midlands is also the quintessential Canadian as well. The Canadian ideals of civility and societal openness is a Midland trait (settlers to Ontario were transplants from the Delaware valley). The perfect society they set out to create, symbolized by the original American Union, applies equally to our Canadian friends. Though the Yankees get the credit (or the blame, depending on how you look at it) for imposing their ideals of equality and diversity on the other nations, these ideals were wholly Midlander values (the Midlanders were vehemently opposed the the slavery of the Tidewater and the Deep South, for example).

The Tidewater:

Tidewater Flag I’ve kept the cavalry swords used by Woodard. This suits the Cavaliers’ aggressive, militaristic history, but honors the organized and structured nature of the land of the fine Southern gentlemen.

The Cavaliers were apparently intermediate between clannish and non-clannish people (see earlier post), retaining traces of a kin-based societal organization, a strong sense of pride (which their northern neighbors are lacking in comparison), and the culture of honor of clannish frontiersmen (a role the Cavaliers may have played in Britain):

While the Yankee elite generally settled their disputes through the instrument of written laws, Tidewater gentry were more likely to resort to a duel. Commoners were equally prideful: arguments in the tavern commonly led to nasty fights in which it was acceptable to kick, bite, strangle, gouge out eyes, and dismember genitals of one’s opponent. (Woodard, p. 62)

Tidewater society was hierarchical, with everyone’s role in society clearly established by birthright, sex, and race – in the spirit of medieval feudalism (on which their society was consciously based). The top men were refined gentlemen (having originated as Royalist losers in the English Civil War or as younger sons of English nobles) as, and the masters of their domain, had near complete rule over the lives of all the men, women, and children on their estates. As well, exploitation was the rule in their society; the plantation lords saw themselves as occupying their rightful place as lords over their Darwinian inferiors. Rules did not apply to them. Exploitation was a fate that befell their women (the “breeders”), the White servants who paid for their passage with servitude, the Native Americans (with whom the Cavaliers were hostile towards from the start), and eventually, African slaves. Tidewater society – in conjunction with their cousins in the Deep South and the Scotch-Irish of Appalachia – gave America much of its fighting spirit and many of its martial customs. Its unique flavor remains alive and well today on the Virginia shores.

The Deep South:

15430_flags_confederate_flag The Rebel Flag. There’s no two ways around it, this flag is the preferred symbol of Deep Southern culture, and is proudly flown there. Woodard was quite correct in choosing this flag for that nation. Another product of Cavalier extraction, the Deep South was founded even more explicitly on exploitation, initially by English plantation lords from Barbados who sought to replicate their plantation system here. Voracious for slaves (slaves were often worked to death, as it was frequently profitable to do so) and expansion, they carved a path across the Southern reaches of the country and played an instrumental role in the expansionist endeavors of the early United States. With their Tidewater allies they attempted to break away from the other nations by force, but were overcome by the Northern coalition’s (of Yankeedom and the Midlands) superiority in nearly every area. Even after the Civil War, they retained their racial caste system, until that too was broken by Northern intrusion. The Deep Southern and the Tidewater’s culture of exploitation lives on in the American corporate and political class, with Deep Southern fat cats now playing a strong role in American politics. Today, (as those in the HBD-sphere are all too aware), Deep Southerners remain proud of their culture and heritage, and don’t necessarily conform to the Yankee and Midland naive conception of proper right-thinking people. Like the Tidewater, they begrudgingly accept their part in the Union with the other nations, but it remains to be seen how long that will last.

Greater Appalachia:

Greater Appalachia Flag Nascar This is a slight variation of the checkered flag featured on Bloomberg. I went with the more explicit route. Today, a good symbol of Scotch-Irish identity is NASCAR, something that is quite popular across Greater Appalachia. Clan-based warriors from the beginning, Appalachians retain their unbeatable pride, even though they remain the poorest all of the nations. Greater Appalachia also remains the most doggedly independent of the American nations, being the most opposed to federation at the beginning. As DHF put it:

During the first years of George Washington’s administration (1789-93), regional elites in New England, the Delaware Valley and the coastal south strongly supported the new federal government … The fourth region, however, remained stubbornly opposed to this coalition. The backcountry did not support the federal government. Throughout the interior parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas, hostility to the new regime grew stronger as it began to function. In 1794, after a federal excise tax was enacted, the backcountry rose in an armed insurrection which has been miscalled the Whiskey Rebellion—a label which has trivialized a regional movement of high seriousness and danger to the republic. (p. 636).

Sound familiar to any of you?

The Far (Interior) West:

Far west flag1 Based on a vectorization of the Wyoming license plate. The interior West was actually one of the last areas of the country to be settled, even after the West Coast. It took aggressive pioneers to do so, especially since the area needed to be cleared of much of its Native population (who, having the longest time to adapt to Europeans, were best able to resist the invaders). The Wild West was born of these people, where only the toughest survived. The traits of these early colonists are quite visible in the present population. The area is heavily Scotch-Irish in population, who established their ranching culture there. However it also received pioneers from all regions. As well, it contains that western splinter branch of the Puritans, the Mormons, who remain one of the dominant groups there. Settlers to the Interior West were essentially completely dependent on the federal government for survival and largely remain so today, leading to an ongoing uneasy relationship between the two. Far Westerners often found themselves the victim of corporate exploitation, fueling the early populist movements there. The Far West spans both the U.S. (including Alaska) and Canada , being most evident in the latter country with infamously conservative Alberta.

The Left Coast, i.e., Yankeedom West:

Left Coast2 Why this flag? Come on man, whom are we kidding? This Puritan exclave was founded as yet another Yankee attempt to form a perfect society (indeed, many of the settlers to the Pacific Northwest came from Maine, as the city of Portland – named for its eastern counterpart – attests). But it also managed to attract people from all walks who came to seek fame and fortune, a tradition that continues to this day. Its Yankee elite set the dominant tone, but they only partially contained the diverse flavor of its residents. Today the Left Coast exists with a special brand of Puritan liberal ethos, but in a decidedly cosmopolitan way. Settlers willing to go far and wide to seek fortune and fame established a unique society, one even more atomized than those of the east. “Loners” are common here. This flag undoubtedly symbolizes the people there and their culture. One didn’t need to over-think a symbol for them. :)

On that note, I’ll close with this song:

(Republished from JayMan's Blog by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Tomás says:

    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…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Even if 6% of the population owned slaves:

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

    • That's still a lot of slaves, which often outnumbered Whites

    • I didn't deny that initially, the de facto slave population of the Tidewater was White

    • 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

    • 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.

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

    , @Tomás
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jman/flags-of-the-american-nations/#comment-1061903
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. panjoomby says:

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. 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!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Interesting.
    , @Tomás
    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?

    , @Hindu Observer
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. JayMan says: • Website
    @Hindu Observer
    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!

    Interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. JayMan says: • Website
    @Tomás
    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...

    Even if 6% of the population owned slaves:

    • It doesn’t change the fact that these societies were set up on the basis of servitude, especially the Deep South
    • That’s still a lot of slaves, which often outnumbered Whites
    • I didn’t deny that initially, the de facto slave population of the Tidewater was White
    • 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
    • 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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. JayMan says: • Website
    @Tomás
    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...

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Whiskey says: • Website

    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!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hindu Observer
    "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!

    , @Hindu Observer
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Via Korea says: • Website

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Not quite as ridiculous as you might think.

    But indeed, the western reaches of Yankeedom received a higher fraction of German, Scandinavian, and other immigrants. So they would indeed had a different flavor than the eastern parts of New England, in the direction of the Midlands. But these immigrants exists on top of a Puritan base.

    , @Bitter Clinger
    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.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. jmro98 says: • Website

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. JayMan says: • Website
    @Bitter Clinger
    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.

    Not quite as ridiculous as you might think.

    But indeed, the western reaches of Yankeedom received a higher fraction of German, Scandinavian, and other immigrants. So they would indeed had a different flavor than the eastern parts of New England, in the direction of the Midlands. But these immigrants exists on top of a Puritan base.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Tomás
    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...

    ‘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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. JayMan says: • Website
    @MoscowEast
    '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.

    Indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thanks! You certainly have a point about Canada continuing to be under Britain's sway after the Revolution, but this is what Colin Woodard had to say about the "Loyalists":

    From the time of Canada’s creation and right up into the 1970s, generations of Canadians were brought up on the “Loyalist Myth,” the assertion that their country’s identity sprang from the politics, attitudes, and values of the 28,000 refugees who fled there at the end of the American Revolution. The loyalists were cast as heroic and honorable British subjects who’d been driven from their homes by violent, uncouth American mobs simply because they’d refused to commit treason against king and country. Arriving after much suffering, they founded a more civilized society on the firm foundations of hierarchy, order, and deference to authority. Proud of their Britishness and their place in the empire, the loyalists built the North America that should have been, a pleasant and law-abiding land, whose people were committed to a higher communal purpose than simply letting the most rugged individual take all. The Loyalist Myth defined Canada and Canadians as fundamentally British and proudly un-American. The first assertion was almost entirely false and the second not entirely true.
    The truth is that the loyalist refugees did not succeed in laying down the cultural DNA of English-speaking Canada and completely failed to displace that of New France. Their efforts to create a British imperial utopia in the Canadian Maritimes failed to supplant the Yankee and New French precedents in the region, particularly as the area continued to be profoundly influenced by neighboring New England and Québec. Their project in Ontario faltered on account of the fact that the vast majority of “loyalists” who migrated there weren’t British at all but rather Germans, Quakers, and Dutch from the Midlands, and New Netherland. While imperial officials kept a firm hand on Anglo-Canada’s political development, its dominant cultural inheritance was Yankee to the east of Québec, and Midlander to the west.
    ...
    The loyalist project had better initial prospects in the Great Lakes region, where a new colony was created for their benefit. Upper Canada was hacked off from British-controlled Québec to give loyalist refugees exactly what they lacked in the Maritimes: a clean slate on which to create a new society, free from Euro-American competitors. The colony would later be known by a different name, Ontario, and host the seat of the government of the Canadian federation, with its Westminster-style Parliament and the British crown emblazoned on its automobile license plates. Its landscape would become dotted with place-names worthy of the British Empire: Kingston, London, Windsor, and York. But loyalist it was not. For despite getting there ahead of their North American rivals, these “loyalists” also discovered they had little in common, not even politics.
    Ontario’s initial wave of “true” loyalists in 1783–1784 was small: about 6,000 Yankee farmers from upstate New York, along with British and Hessian soldiers whose units had been disbanded. But they were soon joined by 10,000 “late loyalists” who arrived in a steady stream between 1792 and 1812. British authorities and latter-day mythmakers liked to imagine that these latecomers were also good, monarchy-loving British subjects who’d happened to take an extra decade or two to flee the abhorrent American republic. In reality they were poor, opportunity-seeking immigrants attracted by British offers of dirt-cheap land and extremely low taxes. Traveling overland from their old homes in the middle states, three-quarters of the “late loyalists” were farmers, less than a fifth were craftsmen, and almost all the rest were impoverished laborers or sailors; only 1 in 250 was a gentleman. “In Canada, the settlers are more humble in their views,” a visitor to upstate New York and Ontario reported in 1798. “They are mostly poor people, who are chiefly concerned to manage, in the best manner, the farms which have been given them by the government.” But unlike the real loyalists, these settlers actually did have a shared culture. They were Midlanders, and their tolerant, pluralistic cultural heritage would take hold on the northern shores of the Great Lakes.
    British records from the period indicate that nearly 90 percent of these immigrants came from the “middle states” of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and contemporary accounts indicate that vast numbers were from the pacifist sects of the Delaware Valley. Persecuted for their refusal to choose sides or take up arms in the wars of liberation, thousands of English-speaking Quakers and German-speaking Mennonites and Dunkers (Church of the Brethren) decided to find a place where they would be left alone and in peace. Many of their countrymen would later move westward into the Ohio Valley, exporting Midlands society across the American Heartland ... Early Midland emigrants wrote their friends at home that in Ontario “they will find a second edition of Pennsylvania, as it was before the American War.” Tolerant, diverse, and apathetic about the wider world, Ontario’s founding settlers were happy to let imperial officials bother with the politics and messy affairs of state. By the 1820s, when large numbers of Irish, English, and Ulster Scots began moving to the province from the British Isles, Ontario’s cultural norms were already in place. The densely populated southern tier of this vast province remains essentially Midlander to this day.
     
    (ebook pp. 165-166)

    I do like the flag though, for the reasons you state, and I'm considering changing things. Feel free to offer more info if you have any. :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. JayMan says: • Website
    @Celtthedog
    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.

    Thanks! You certainly have a point about Canada continuing to be under Britain’s sway after the Revolution, but this is what Colin Woodard had to say about the “Loyalists”:

    From the time of Canada’s creation and right up into the 1970s, generations of Canadians were brought up on the “Loyalist Myth,” the assertion that their country’s identity sprang from the politics, attitudes, and values of the 28,000 refugees who fled there at the end of the American Revolution. The loyalists were cast as heroic and honorable British subjects who’d been driven from their homes by violent, uncouth American mobs simply because they’d refused to commit treason against king and country. Arriving after much suffering, they founded a more civilized society on the firm foundations of hierarchy, order, and deference to authority. Proud of their Britishness and their place in the empire, the loyalists built the North America that should have been, a pleasant and law-abiding land, whose people were committed to a higher communal purpose than simply letting the most rugged individual take all. The Loyalist Myth defined Canada and Canadians as fundamentally British and proudly un-American. The first assertion was almost entirely false and the second not entirely true.
    The truth is that the loyalist refugees did not succeed in laying down the cultural DNA of English-speaking Canada and completely failed to displace that of New France. Their efforts to create a British imperial utopia in the Canadian Maritimes failed to supplant the Yankee and New French precedents in the region, particularly as the area continued to be profoundly influenced by neighboring New England and Québec. Their project in Ontario faltered on account of the fact that the vast majority of “loyalists” who migrated there weren’t British at all but rather Germans, Quakers, and Dutch from the Midlands, and New Netherland. While imperial officials kept a firm hand on Anglo-Canada’s political development, its dominant cultural inheritance was Yankee to the east of Québec, and Midlander to the west.

    The loyalist project had better initial prospects in the Great Lakes region, where a new colony was created for their benefit. Upper Canada was hacked off from British-controlled Québec to give loyalist refugees exactly what they lacked in the Maritimes: a clean slate on which to create a new society, free from Euro-American competitors. The colony would later be known by a different name, Ontario, and host the seat of the government of the Canadian federation, with its Westminster-style Parliament and the British crown emblazoned on its automobile license plates. Its landscape would become dotted with place-names worthy of the British Empire: Kingston, London, Windsor, and York. But loyalist it was not. For despite getting there ahead of their North American rivals, these “loyalists” also discovered they had little in common, not even politics.
    Ontario’s initial wave of “true” loyalists in 1783–1784 was small: about 6,000 Yankee farmers from upstate New York, along with British and Hessian soldiers whose units had been disbanded. But they were soon joined by 10,000 “late loyalists” who arrived in a steady stream between 1792 and 1812. British authorities and latter-day mythmakers liked to imagine that these latecomers were also good, monarchy-loving British subjects who’d happened to take an extra decade or two to flee the abhorrent American republic. In reality they were poor, opportunity-seeking immigrants attracted by British offers of dirt-cheap land and extremely low taxes. Traveling overland from their old homes in the middle states, three-quarters of the “late loyalists” were farmers, less than a fifth were craftsmen, and almost all the rest were impoverished laborers or sailors; only 1 in 250 was a gentleman. “In Canada, the settlers are more humble in their views,” a visitor to upstate New York and Ontario reported in 1798. “They are mostly poor people, who are chiefly concerned to manage, in the best manner, the farms which have been given them by the government.” But unlike the real loyalists, these settlers actually did have a shared culture. They were Midlanders, and their tolerant, pluralistic cultural heritage would take hold on the northern shores of the Great Lakes.
    British records from the period indicate that nearly 90 percent of these immigrants came from the “middle states” of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and contemporary accounts indicate that vast numbers were from the pacifist sects of the Delaware Valley. Persecuted for their refusal to choose sides or take up arms in the wars of liberation, thousands of English-speaking Quakers and German-speaking Mennonites and Dunkers (Church of the Brethren) decided to find a place where they would be left alone and in peace. Many of their countrymen would later move westward into the Ohio Valley, exporting Midlands society across the American Heartland … Early Midland emigrants wrote their friends at home that in Ontario “they will find a second edition of Pennsylvania, as it was before the American War.” Tolerant, diverse, and apathetic about the wider world, Ontario’s founding settlers were happy to let imperial officials bother with the politics and messy affairs of state. By the 1820s, when large numbers of Irish, English, and Ulster Scots began moving to the province from the British Isles, Ontario’s cultural norms were already in place. The densely populated southern tier of this vast province remains essentially Midlander to this day.

    (ebook pp. 165-166)

    I do like the flag though, for the reasons you state, and I’m considering changing things. Feel free to offer more info if you have any. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Whiskey
    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!

    “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!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. helvena says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hindu Observer
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Whiskey
    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!

    “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. […] – JayMan on American nations. […]

    Read More
  20. […] 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. […]

    Read More
  21. Tomás says:
    @Hindu Observer
    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!

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Tomás says:
    @Tomás
    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...

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Tomás:

    Yes, of course it changes it dramatically. If only 6% owned slaves the 94% of the population didn’t have slaves.
     
    That 6% of the total population owned slaves doesn't mean that only 6% of the White population were directly involved in supporting/maintaining slavery.

    To say that the society was “set up on servitude” is wishful thinking at its best.
     
    The entire economic system of the Deep South was based on slavery and plantation farming as its cornerstone. This is just a fact.

    Even exaggerating the economic weight of the slavery-related economy there’s no serious way to exaggerate in such a way.
     
    The "economic weight" of slavery was HUGE: America's slave wealth.

    It’s simply that exaggerations to fit a useful and simplifying narrative, one that comforts and makes things easier. are crap. Period.

     

    Of course, I agree. But that's not the case with this post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. […] This painting is available for sale at my Etsy shop here.  […]

    Read More
  24. JayMan says: • Website
    @Tomás
    "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.

    Yes, of course it changes it dramatically. If only 6% owned slaves the 94% of the population didn’t have slaves.

    That 6% of the total population owned slaves doesn’t mean that only 6% of the White population were directly involved in supporting/maintaining slavery.

    To say that the society was “set up on servitude” is wishful thinking at its best.

    The entire economic system of the Deep South was based on slavery and plantation farming as its cornerstone. This is just a fact.

    Even exaggerating the economic weight of the slavery-related economy there’s no serious way to exaggerate in such a way.

    The “economic weight” of slavery was HUGE: America’s slave wealth.

    It’s simply that exaggerations to fit a useful and simplifying narrative, one that comforts and makes things easier. are crap. Period.

    Of course, I agree. But that’s not the case with this post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @helvena
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. helvena says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hindu Observer
    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.

    , @Hindu Observer
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @helvena
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @helvena
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. helvena says:

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hindu Observer
    "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.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @helvena
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. helvena says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Hindu Observer
    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.

    , @Hindu Observer
    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?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. I don’t need help. I read Sanskrit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @helvena
    Perhaps Avijit Roy can help you:
    http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/avijit/slavery_hinduism.htm

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @helvena
    Perhaps Avijit Roy can help you:
    http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/avijit/slavery_hinduism.htm

    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?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. […] 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 […]

    Read More
  36. @Hindu Observer
    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!

    “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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Bitter Clinger
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Not quite. I've made a post that addresses this. See Maps of the American Nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. […] A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”, Sound Familiar?, Flags of the American Nations, […]

    Read More
  39. JayMan says: • Website
    @Bitter Clinger
    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.

    Not quite. I’ve made a post that addresses this. See Maps of the American Nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. […] 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 […]

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

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

    Read More
  43. […] 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, […]

    Read More
  44. […] 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 […]

    Read More
  45. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. […] Flags of the American Nations – Describes the American nations as they exist today and their respective histories […]

    Read More
  47. […] 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 […]

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

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

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

    Read More
  51. […] 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 […]

    Read More
  52. […] 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 […]

    Read More
  53. […] 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. […]

    Read More
  54. […] 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 […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by JayMan


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS