i'd always kind of wondered how it was New York and California were similarly liberal. I was shocked when PA went for Trump. Had I read this book first, it would have come as no surprise. Interesting and well argued premise ( )

This non-fiction suggestion of eleven ethno-cultural "nations" that comprise most of North America, whose migrations have long affected the politics, government & cultural life of those area, explains why the US and northern Mexico have such distressed relations among the various sections of the continent (and why Canada formerly had equally contentious relations among its various areas). Woodard's historical statements have lots of basis and support (in quotations of contemporary figures, as well as statements of historians), although there are some clear errors of fact. His thesis fits the facts he details, and is a useful perspective from which to grasp a greater understanding of political, cultural and governmental events since Europeans arrived. The large amount of historical data he presents is useful and will likely be worthwhile enrichments for readers who are not historians of North America. ( )

This was super interesting, and for the first 2/3rds I was thinking this would be a 4 or 5 star. Woodard takes an interesting, and from what I saw a thoroughly supportable approach to identifying the "nations" within the US and how immigration patterns and other things from the moment Europeans arrived here to the early 20th century created the blue red and purple country in which we live.

The closer we got to modern times (and that happened kind of early because Woodard goes from possibly overly granular time frames for analysis to covering 1878-2010 in a single section) the more editorial everything becomes. It was somewhat editorial before that, but pretty much from WWI on we get the MSNBC anthropological history of America broken down by region. I was probably still at a 4-star until I got to the epilogue which almost pushed this to a 2-star. To say Woodard tortures reason and logic to find that we should be a matriarchal Socialist society profoundly understates the case. Here is the analysis, That is how it is in Iceland. Women lead and no one owns land because Iceland threw off Norse colonizers after about 50 years (I think mostly because the Norse colonizers realized there was nothing there they wanted.) Because the colonizers were there only briefly (I think in the 10th century, but don't quote me) Iceland went back to the mores and practices of the indigenous culture and those mores and practices remained the dominant force even as some Europeans started moving there. I am not a Socialist (except in the eyes of the Proud Boys and their ilk.) I am not anti-matriarchal, but my goal is to eliminate gender based oppression and to be equal, not to turn the oppressors into the oppressed. Accordingly, Iceland is not my personal Shangri-La, but sure Colin, let it be yours. The promlem is that Colin presents the matriarchal socialist state as an objective Shangri-La, and to insinuate that the cultural maturation of a country with about 40,000 square miles and (currently) about 375,000 inhabitants that was not colonized would look at all the same as the maturation of a country with about 400,000,000 square miles and (currently) about 332,000,000 inhabitants had it not been colonized is, well, ridiculous. I settled on a 3 star review because there was a lot of challenging and fascinating information here,l and a lot of it really enlightening and important, I better understand now why Indiana is essentially Mississippi with snow and why Utah is filled with true believers who walk in lockstep and don't question the rules made by those above them and yet it is surrounded by states filled with rugged individualists who generally don't give a damn about rules set down by anyone who lives more than 40 miles from them.

Overall, flawed, but still worth the read. (You may want to skip the epilogue.) ( )

The premise is interesting and it is written in a way that lends for quick reading, but I felt that the author could have used a co-author to smooth out some of the chapters on the "culture wars". ( )

Interesting concept, but overlong and plodding in reality. ( )