Such a fun two-sided lens for thinking about CFB <> America. Here are some disjointed thoughts:
1. One of the very best books I've ever read is AMERICAN ODYSSEY by Robert Conot. Putatitively, it's a narrative history of Detroit from 1820 - 1970 but as one might imagine it's hard to tell that story without also telling the story of America over the same period.
One of the most formative elements in Yankeedom's spread from the Northeast to the Rust Belt was the influx of what Conot calls "The Bostonians" into the corridors of power around Detoit as the geo-strategic importance of the City's location became clear. At a collegiate/cultural level, so much of this legacy has lived (still lives) on through the institutional identity and power of the University of Michigan. U of M has forever represented and been both aspirationally and substantively of the East Coast in a way that has animated so much of the rest of the region.
U of M aligned with the historical WASP-yness of the East Coast to such an extent that Notre Dame (ethnic Catholics), MSU (agricultural homesteaders) and Ohio State (Scots-Irish Appalachians and Midlanders) all could be argued to have grown up through the necessity of those groups having institutional beacons in oppositional counterweight to Michigan. To varying degrees of success, Notre Dame tried to out-faith and out-fame Michigan, Michigan State tried to out-grit them, and Ohio State has tried to outwill them. If you drill really far down into the urban politics of Yankeedom's Rust Belt cities over the years, you can still see all these dynamics at play.
Ohio State probably wears the tension best to this day, I think in part because it embraces the multiplicity of a Yankeedom/Midlands/Appalachian identity in a way that Notre Dame (which is really not sure of what exactly it is at this point and cannot figure out its relationship to Michigan) and, to a lesser extent, Michigan State have not.
2. I don't know enough about The South and the history of the region or institutions thereof to comment at the same length but I do think it's interesting how much of a "follow the leader" dynamic has obtained there. Historically, that has meant trying to mimic whatever Alabama has proven to be optimal under Bryant and Saban, but I do think it also belies more of a "Might Makes Right" ethos than what you see in Yankeedom, which features more stubborn insistence on sub-group philosophical identity and superiority.
This book manages to be both very interesting and provides a useful framework to think about American culture while also veering into pop pseudo-history, which is fine imo since tenured historians have a habit of calling anything that’s interesting and digestible to common people pop history.
I’ve lived in greater Appalachia all of my life with a stint in the Deep South and I think the 11 nations are directionally correct. The biggest issue is that it kind of feels like he ran out of steam once he got to the plains because there should probably be at least 3 “nations” in California, 2 in Utah, and Phoenix should probably be in the same “nation” as parts of Southern California at this point.
I’ve always found the human geography material interesting. Being from Western MD and going to Maryland, I’ve felt like it’s really a cultural estuary. College Park, Baltimore, and DC are extremely different from NoVA, Frederick, and Montgomery. Since the Mid Atlantic is my domain, i did always like the saying about Pennsylvania “it’s Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between”
Long Island is absolutely a part of New Netherlands and not Yankdom. Its dominant culture now was created by ethnic white children of immigrants leaving NYC for the suburbs in the 50s and 60s. To include northern NJ but not LI makes zero sense. That oversight makes me question the whole geographic accuracy of the book.
One of his central points is a particularly theory of human adaptation which I can't recall the name of unfortunately.
The gist of it is this, whatever culture is developed by the initial successful settlement of an area will tend to assimilate newcomers, particularly in whichever regard the initial culture was successfully adaptive. Consequently, even after heavy immigration, a "nation's" core tenets are likely to remain intact.
There can be exceptions of course if the invading culture is a neighboring one which can also thrive in the same area as an attachment to a connected area. I don't know if he includes many notes on modern Long Island but it's possible he'd say the "Everybody loves Raymond" sorts of families you're describing were actually successfully assimilated into Yankeedom and this was the reason for their departure.
That’s a nice story but it’s not true. LI was heavily agrarian before suburbanization with some fishing settlements along the southern shore and eastern end and that’s not even factoring in that the majority of Nassau county was under Dutch control originally. What I’m getting at is there was no culture dominated by Puritan values before suburbanization. My mom and dad’s families didn’t assimilate some weird farmer culture, they imported their’s (case in point my mom’s foster dad drove a yellow cab in the city after moving out and my dad’s father continued working nights as a maintenance man in Manhattan). Nassau county and much of Western Suffolk is distinctly a part of the NYC culture.
Maybe you could make an argument that the North Fork (where my parents retired to and I spent my summers growing up) is a part of Yankeedom as it was settled by colonists from the New Haven colony (fun fact Southold is the old English speaking town in NY) and it’s a bit more of maritime New England feel to it but that’s about it and it’s a very remote and forgotten part of the island.
You’d have to read it, I don’t remember the specifics.
I do recall that Long Island’s Yankees had a major part to play in the city’s early history as essentially outside agitators. From there? I don’t recall if it comes up or not.
Well it’s like how John Oliver can seem really smart about a subject until they start talking about something you know a lot about and then you realize that they have no idea what they’re talking and it calls into question whether what they said about subjects you didn’t know is actually true.
In this case I agree with the overall premise but this makes me question how accurate the borders on that map are.
He messed up what I know, how can I trust him on the rest of the country?
The fact that you have read Albion's Seed added 100 points to my respect level for you. Just to be clear, i thought highly of you already.
Matching the Nations with the football programs first occurred to me when Alabama hired Saban. People started naming their kids after him before he'd even coached a game. They just knew he was the guy. They recognised one of their own. Similarly, Pete Carroll was perfect for Southern California, as was Mack Brown for Texas.
Harbaugh is an interesting counterpoint. Badically all of his success has come in Yankeedom even though that's not who he is at all.
Such a fun two-sided lens for thinking about CFB <> America. Here are some disjointed thoughts:
1. One of the very best books I've ever read is AMERICAN ODYSSEY by Robert Conot. Putatitively, it's a narrative history of Detroit from 1820 - 1970 but as one might imagine it's hard to tell that story without also telling the story of America over the same period.
One of the most formative elements in Yankeedom's spread from the Northeast to the Rust Belt was the influx of what Conot calls "The Bostonians" into the corridors of power around Detoit as the geo-strategic importance of the City's location became clear. At a collegiate/cultural level, so much of this legacy has lived (still lives) on through the institutional identity and power of the University of Michigan. U of M has forever represented and been both aspirationally and substantively of the East Coast in a way that has animated so much of the rest of the region.
U of M aligned with the historical WASP-yness of the East Coast to such an extent that Notre Dame (ethnic Catholics), MSU (agricultural homesteaders) and Ohio State (Scots-Irish Appalachians and Midlanders) all could be argued to have grown up through the necessity of those groups having institutional beacons in oppositional counterweight to Michigan. To varying degrees of success, Notre Dame tried to out-faith and out-fame Michigan, Michigan State tried to out-grit them, and Ohio State has tried to outwill them. If you drill really far down into the urban politics of Yankeedom's Rust Belt cities over the years, you can still see all these dynamics at play.
Ohio State probably wears the tension best to this day, I think in part because it embraces the multiplicity of a Yankeedom/Midlands/Appalachian identity in a way that Notre Dame (which is really not sure of what exactly it is at this point and cannot figure out its relationship to Michigan) and, to a lesser extent, Michigan State have not.
2. I don't know enough about The South and the history of the region or institutions thereof to comment at the same length but I do think it's interesting how much of a "follow the leader" dynamic has obtained there. Historically, that has meant trying to mimic whatever Alabama has proven to be optimal under Bryant and Saban, but I do think it also belies more of a "Might Makes Right" ethos than what you see in Yankeedom, which features more stubborn insistence on sub-group philosophical identity and superiority.
This book manages to be both very interesting and provides a useful framework to think about American culture while also veering into pop pseudo-history, which is fine imo since tenured historians have a habit of calling anything that’s interesting and digestible to common people pop history.
I’ve lived in greater Appalachia all of my life with a stint in the Deep South and I think the 11 nations are directionally correct. The biggest issue is that it kind of feels like he ran out of steam once he got to the plains because there should probably be at least 3 “nations” in California, 2 in Utah, and Phoenix should probably be in the same “nation” as parts of Southern California at this point.
Also as long as I’m nitpicking, Birmingham/Jefferson County should probably be in greater Appalachia as well, although it fits either way.
Here’s Woodard in his own words:
https://youtu.be/N9XMTdRwWVg
He mentions the inevitable "but immigration has changed things" counter argument at the end of his presentation here.
I’ve always found the human geography material interesting. Being from Western MD and going to Maryland, I’ve felt like it’s really a cultural estuary. College Park, Baltimore, and DC are extremely different from NoVA, Frederick, and Montgomery. Since the Mid Atlantic is my domain, i did always like the saying about Pennsylvania “it’s Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between”
Finally got to read your article! Fascinating stuff! I can see where this is going! SEC vs Big 10!!
Long Island is absolutely a part of New Netherlands and not Yankdom. Its dominant culture now was created by ethnic white children of immigrants leaving NYC for the suburbs in the 50s and 60s. To include northern NJ but not LI makes zero sense. That oversight makes me question the whole geographic accuracy of the book.
One of his central points is a particularly theory of human adaptation which I can't recall the name of unfortunately.
The gist of it is this, whatever culture is developed by the initial successful settlement of an area will tend to assimilate newcomers, particularly in whichever regard the initial culture was successfully adaptive. Consequently, even after heavy immigration, a "nation's" core tenets are likely to remain intact.
There can be exceptions of course if the invading culture is a neighboring one which can also thrive in the same area as an attachment to a connected area. I don't know if he includes many notes on modern Long Island but it's possible he'd say the "Everybody loves Raymond" sorts of families you're describing were actually successfully assimilated into Yankeedom and this was the reason for their departure.
That’s a nice story but it’s not true. LI was heavily agrarian before suburbanization with some fishing settlements along the southern shore and eastern end and that’s not even factoring in that the majority of Nassau county was under Dutch control originally. What I’m getting at is there was no culture dominated by Puritan values before suburbanization. My mom and dad’s families didn’t assimilate some weird farmer culture, they imported their’s (case in point my mom’s foster dad drove a yellow cab in the city after moving out and my dad’s father continued working nights as a maintenance man in Manhattan). Nassau county and much of Western Suffolk is distinctly a part of the NYC culture.
Maybe you could make an argument that the North Fork (where my parents retired to and I spent my summers growing up) is a part of Yankeedom as it was settled by colonists from the New Haven colony (fun fact Southold is the old English speaking town in NY) and it’s a bit more of maritime New England feel to it but that’s about it and it’s a very remote and forgotten part of the island.
You’d have to read it, I don’t remember the specifics.
I do recall that Long Island’s Yankees had a major part to play in the city’s early history as essentially outside agitators. From there? I don’t recall if it comes up or not.
Man, the first time anyone has ever cared this deeply about Long Island.
Anything based in a giant generalizations of a continent sized country over hundreds of years is going to have some blurred lines.
Well it’s like how John Oliver can seem really smart about a subject until they start talking about something you know a lot about and then you realize that they have no idea what they’re talking and it calls into question whether what they said about subjects you didn’t know is actually true.
In this case I agree with the overall premise but this makes me question how accurate the borders on that map are.
He messed up what I know, how can I trust him on the rest of the country?
Does it help that he apparently includes western Long Island in New Netherlands as they are just suburbs of the city now or nah?
Lol yes it does.
If the Dutch history of NY interests you I’d suggest reading Island At The Center of The World.
Oh yeah potentially, NYC has quite a history.
The fact that you have read Albion's Seed added 100 points to my respect level for you. Just to be clear, i thought highly of you already.
Matching the Nations with the football programs first occurred to me when Alabama hired Saban. People started naming their kids after him before he'd even coached a game. They just knew he was the guy. They recognised one of their own. Similarly, Pete Carroll was perfect for Southern California, as was Mack Brown for Texas.
Harbaugh is an interesting counterpoint. Badically all of his success has come in Yankeedom even though that's not who he is at all.