Reviews
American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard
rick2's review against another edition
4.0
It’s good, very thought-provoking as an alternative way to categorize different sections of America.
I think it’s clear there are deep-seated regional differences from the different areas and I think the map is probably one of the best ways to describe them.
I do think this is a book that you sit with for a while. I’m interested to see how it holds up over the next year or so as I try to use it to understand this information in the wild during, say, the elections this fall. Where I have a bit of an issue with the book is that I think this very neatly and succinctly describes the past history of America, i’m not sure how well it works in our current hyper connected present and future.
Quite frankly this is such a novel categorization for me that I’m bit slow to just accept it at face value. It does seem to have a lot more utility than calling things the “north and south” in living basically at the intersection of three of these different cultures as it’s drawn up today. I’m curious to try to explore and test this idea against kind of a real world series of experiences. My gut is telling me that this breaks down at some point across the 1960s and the advent of national television, currently I think there’s a bigger rift between rural and urban then there are in these pseudo regional descriptors, but I do think there are some very clear differences in regional mindsets.
It’s a lot to think on and I’m overall fairly impressed with the quality of the book.
I think it’s clear there are deep-seated regional differences from the different areas and I think the map is probably one of the best ways to describe them.
I do think this is a book that you sit with for a while. I’m interested to see how it holds up over the next year or so as I try to use it to understand this information in the wild during, say, the elections this fall. Where I have a bit of an issue with the book is that I think this very neatly and succinctly describes the past history of America, i’m not sure how well it works in our current hyper connected present and future.
Quite frankly this is such a novel categorization for me that I’m bit slow to just accept it at face value. It does seem to have a lot more utility than calling things the “north and south” in living basically at the intersection of three of these different cultures as it’s drawn up today. I’m curious to try to explore and test this idea against kind of a real world series of experiences. My gut is telling me that this breaks down at some point across the 1960s and the advent of national television, currently I think there’s a bigger rift between rural and urban then there are in these pseudo regional descriptors, but I do think there are some very clear differences in regional mindsets.
It’s a lot to think on and I’m overall fairly impressed with the quality of the book.
dixiet's review against another edition
5.0
This book should be read by every American, especially now. It tells the true story - not the simplified and fudged version we heard in school - of how America was founded, not by the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock but first from the south, and then in many waves from Europe. Each group had its own reasons for coming to America and its own agenda. After the union was formed and immigrants from other countries arrived, like gravitated to like and in the end the regional differences - the "nations" - become stronger, not diluted. We are seeing the impact of the different "nations" in politics to this day. The reader learns where settlement started and how it progressed, and why there are so many strong divisions and differences of opinions about how our country should be run. For example, yes, everyone came to America to be "free", but for some that meant freedom to have strong communities with everyone working together; for some it meant individual freedom FROM such communities; for some it meant freedom from overlords; for some it meant freedom to BE overlords. It's very illuminating to realize that even the issues on which it appears all Americans agree, such as the wish for "freedom," are themselves sources of dispute and dissent.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone who wants to better understand America.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone who wants to better understand America.
moody_gobling's review against another edition
3.0
I am genuinely confused as to why this book has not been listed among the required OR the recommended reading in any educational setting I have been in so far.
The book is very informative and insightful, and can *sometimes* draw you in with its narrative. For the most part, I am not an avid nonfiction reader, and I would never have picked up this book out of my own volition. As evidenced by how long it took me to finish.
That being said, I appreciate having read as much of it as I did. I wholeheartedly agree with the proposal that the United States is nothing more than a few different nations under one giant trench coat, attempting to buy an adult ticket to the world stage.
The book is very informative and insightful, and can *sometimes* draw you in with its narrative. For the most part, I am not an avid nonfiction reader, and I would never have picked up this book out of my own volition. As evidenced by how long it took me to finish.
That being said, I appreciate having read as much of it as I did. I wholeheartedly agree with the proposal that the United States is nothing more than a few different nations under one giant trench coat, attempting to buy an adult ticket to the world stage.
emdowd's review against another edition
3.0
Very interesting take on North American history from European settlement to (mostly) present day. The author has a hugely obvious anti-South bias (which was distasteful even to this Left Coast hippie socialist). All histories have some imprint of their authors but this was almost distracting, and the reason I can't rate it higher. At least try to contain your bias!
chadstep's review against another edition
5.0
So helpful in opening my eyes to seeing an alternate version of voting blocs and patterns among Americans. Woodard is not only an exceptional writer at engaging a non-historian in his views and study of history, he also brings depth and breadth to a complex system of patterns which developed from the roots of history.
eldiente's review against another edition
4.0
I appreciate the perspective this book gave to my understanding of American history. I had a sense of some of the regional differences associated with the founding of the United States and the resulting cultural and political landscape today, but this book was very helpful in clarifying that sense for me. I also appreciate the manner in which this points forward to how that landscape might look in 50 years. As a resident of El Norte, I might consider learning Spanish.
sde's review against another edition
5.0
Well, this book explains a lot. I have lived in Greater Boston and southern Wisconsin and loved them both, even though (I thought) they are very different. Turns out they are from the same "nation" of Yankeedom, so have more in common with each other than other parts of the country. And my husband comes from the border of Tidewater and Greater Appalachia, which explains his region's mix of propriety and religiosity, along with some libertarianism. And I currently live in a part of Upstate New York that is sort of Yankeedom, but also the one remaining outpost of New Netherlands. We have an on again/off again basketball team here called the Patroons. I vaguely understood what a Patroon was, but this book is the first to fully explain it to me. Also, we were really hoodwinked in our K12 social studies education in Greater Boston about the early days of European settlement and the Revolution in our region. The recountings in this book are a lot more interesting and probably would get students to pay better attention if taught this way.
I have a few quibbles with the book, and some of his generalizations of the various regions can seem a bit of a stretch, but he introduces a new way of thinking about our country that explains a lot about politics today. If everyone read this book, we might have a better chance at talking TO each other rather than talking PAST each other. The various regions/nations of the country have very different histories and cultures that still inform them today, and we may be better able to come to political compromise that serves the citizens if we understand that better.
I read this in the Spring of 2022, in the waning(??? - maybe??) days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This passage in the Epilogue certainly caught my attention: "In the midst of, say, a deadly pandemic outbreak or the destruction of several cities by terrorists, a fearful public might condone the suspension of civil rights, the dissolution of Congress, or the incarceration of Supremem Court Justices. One can easily imagine circumstances in which some nations are happy wiht the new order and others deeply opposed to it. With the Constitution abandoned, the federation could well disintegrate, forming one or more confederations of like-minded regions."
This book was written over 10 years ago, and some of the things the author speculates about in the Epilogue have become more true in the intervening years. His note that the Soviet Union probably also thought the idea of their federation breaking up was far-fetched definitely gave me pause!
I have a few quibbles with the book, and some of his generalizations of the various regions can seem a bit of a stretch, but he introduces a new way of thinking about our country that explains a lot about politics today. If everyone read this book, we might have a better chance at talking TO each other rather than talking PAST each other. The various regions/nations of the country have very different histories and cultures that still inform them today, and we may be better able to come to political compromise that serves the citizens if we understand that better.
I read this in the Spring of 2022, in the waning(??? - maybe??) days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This passage in the Epilogue certainly caught my attention: "In the midst of, say, a deadly pandemic outbreak or the destruction of several cities by terrorists, a fearful public might condone the suspension of civil rights, the dissolution of Congress, or the incarceration of Supremem Court Justices. One can easily imagine circumstances in which some nations are happy wiht the new order and others deeply opposed to it. With the Constitution abandoned, the federation could well disintegrate, forming one or more confederations of like-minded regions."
This book was written over 10 years ago, and some of the things the author speculates about in the Epilogue have become more true in the intervening years. His note that the Soviet Union probably also thought the idea of their federation breaking up was far-fetched definitely gave me pause!