# How united are the United States?



## xarruc

I was watching a film set at the beginning of the American civil war and was struck by how much allegiance the characters in the film had for their state, over their country.

Although this was fiction I assume that that was an acurate portrayl of how it was then.

How much allegiance do Americans today feel towards their state with respect to that which they feel for their country? How proud of their state are Americans? Is there a lot of interstate rivalry, jealousy or biterness as is seen between many European countries and provinces?

Could sedition secession from the Union occur legally? And if the US was to face some crisis or conflict that led to its break up, would it split down historic borders?


----------



## Lombard Beige

xarruc said:


> ... Could sedition from the Union occur legally? ...



Very interesting question, Xarruc

*Sedition *(_... words or actions ...intended to encourage people to oppose a government_) or *secession *(_the fact of an area ... becoming independent from the country ... that it belongs to_)?

regards


----------



## Riccardino

The Civil War was quite some time ago, in the 1860's, and yes, back then it was very fragmented, because the US was not very centralized - that didn't occur until the early 1900's, arguably as late as the 1930's.

In 1776, that was a problem. The founding Fathers didn't see themselves as Americans; rather, they saw themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, etc.

Being a Pennsylvania resident, I am proud of Pennsylvania's history of toleration, and as the keystone of the American colonies, but at the same time, I don't associate myself with Pittsburgh and Central Pennsylvania at all - I see Southeastern Pennsylvania as a seperate entity that has to deal with the rest of the state in state legislature only.

To that end, as a Philadelphian, I associate myself with the other Megalopolis cities (Boston, NYC, Baltimore and D.C.) as a greater unit than associate myself with a state.

On a more general level, I'd say that each state has its own pride and stereotypes that outsiders have of it. I'd say that the much older East Coast states seem more cemented in their pride, while states like California bifurcate themselves and have an intra-state rivalry more.


----------



## liulia

Well, there is the Second Vermont Republic:

"The Second Vermont Republic is a peaceful, democratic, grassroots voluntary association committed to the return of Vermont to its rightful status as an independent republic as was the case from 1777 to 1791, and to support Vermont's future development as a separate, sustainable...."

This is a quote from their website.


----------



## JamesM

We are a much more mobile people now than we were in the past. As a result, traditions, language differences, ties to particular locations are a lot weaker now, I think, than they were in the past. 

Take my family, for example. I was born in California, as was my father, but I have lived in Idaho and Oregon as well as California. My mother was born in West Virginia, but spent a lot of her childhood and early adult years in Arizona, where my half-brothers were born. I'm now back in California, as is my sister and two of my half-brothers, but one half-brother lives in Hawaii, and another died after moving to Ohio. None of us live in the town where we were born.  There is no "family home" or "family farm/ranch" for any of us to return to. No one has lived in any one place more than a generation. Let me amend it; no one in my family has lived in any one place for even a single generation.

So, the trick about dividing up the states would be to have enough people identifying particularly with that state. With all the migration that goes on between states in the U.S., I can't see that kind of separatist mentality taking hold and gaining enough grass-roots support to actually successfully secede. We are too interlinked. The only exception might be Texas, where you will still hear people say,"I'm a Texan first, and an American second." 

As for historical lines, I think the coastal states on both coasts are more similar to each other and the Midwest and South Central states, but that's more a "big city/small town" kind of difference than a regional difference. Atlanta, for example, is extremely cosmopolitan and not necessarily a "Southern" town. The inward migration from so many other states has caused it to be more of a melting pot than it once was.

As for states that "seem" like they're another country, I'd have to say Florida gets my vote. The laws there are lax compared to many other states. There is a looseness about the way business and politics are handled there that is not like other states, in my opinion, and there is a very strong Cuban influence both on the culture and on the attitude of Floridians. They are an unusual state: lots of retirees and immigrants mixed together with "native" Floridians. I've read a few articles where they point to Florida as a bellwether for the rest of the U.S., since they are dealing with issues now that will become the common issues of states in the next 20 to 30 years. Of course, I know many Americans who think California acts like a different country, and I have to say they're probably right. 

Splitting up, though, seems unimaginable to me. I can say a state splitting in two (such as Northern California and Southern California) long before I can see a split-up of the union.


----------



## sideburns

I am proud to be an American and think it is a great country (even with some very obvious flaws). My state is Nebraska and I am not so proud of this. Of course, we make jokes about Colorado or Iowa, but nothing serious. Only the stupid hicks in this state actually care where you're from.


----------



## Dawei

sideburns said:


> Only the stupid hicks in this state actually care where you're from.



Same with Florida, for the most part. Although a large part (maybe even the majority) of the people here are not native, having moved here later in life for retirement or other reasons. 

I myself am a Florida native, as was my dad. Neither of us care too much, and I think the only effect it would have on us if we were to move to another state would be that we would continue rooting for our Florida teams. For most Americans, sports is the only indicator of local allegiance IMO.


----------



## panjabigator

I have no affinity for Florida at all.  It is not an active thought at all....unless of course I am in North Florida, a region I do not like at all.  Then I identify much more with Central Florida.

When I lived in New York, I had immense pride.  Now I identify with New Yorkers culturally and I continue to support them even though I now technically a Floridian.


----------



## Lombard Beige

A comparison to make things clearer for your readers in continental Europe:

Switzerland, which is the closest thing in Europe to the United States (because the European Union is a community of sovereign states), has a system of double citizenship. 

I'll try to explain this in US terms. To become a US citizen, I must first be accepted as a citizen of say Buffalo and therefore of NY. If I am, then I also acquire US citizenship. And if I move from Buffalo to say Miami, I remain a citizen of NY, until I acquire the citizenship of Miami and therefore of Florida. Also, as in Switzerland, I could continue to remain a citizen of NY, while being resident in Florida, which means that I could continue to vote in NY, etc. 

As I say, that is how it would be with the system of the Swiss Confederation, which I believe is not vastly different from the system that the Confederate States of America hoped to achieve/maintain (depending on one's point of view) in the USA. And another similarity: if the USA had the Swiss system, the bulk of the Army would consist of the state national guards, with only the technical branches, the Air Force, etc., being federal. Again a similar set up to the CSA.

regards


----------



## djchak

To answer the original question:

The united states are fairly united. There are things like sports teams, local traditions,other minor cultural differences..... BUT>

The populations of the US is VERY mobile. They move around a LOT, compared to most other countries with multiple states. Way more than most Europeans and Asians do. I'm not talking about travel, I'm talking about MOVING.

As for where I live...I usually identify with being Chicagoan, and American. Never Illinoisian, even though I am proud of the actions of Abraham Lincoln.

But mostly, I see myself as American...the other terms seem silly when I actually have to put them in a context.

The only thing that really keeps me here is friends and family. Even then, I could move to Oregon or Colorado and be a short plane ride away. Air transport has changed/accelerated the moving industry a lot.


----------



## gotitadeleche

> So, the trick about dividing up the states would be to have enough people identifying particularly with that state. With all the migration that goes on between states in the U.S., I can't see that kind of separatist mentality taking hold and gaining enough grass-roots support to actually successfully secede. We are too interlinked. The only exception might be Texas, where you will still hear people say,"I'm a Texan first, and an American second."



As I understand it, Texas is the only state that retained its right to legally separate from the union if it should so desire. And there is an association of Texans who do want to separate and make Texas an independent country. But I have a feeling that, despite the agreement, if Texas tried to separate, there would be a big fight. 

The original states that formed the US were very suspicious of uniting. It took some time to convince all 13 to give it a try. At that time the country was more a collection of states with with a central federal government, but strong states rights. With time  the federal government has taken on more and more powers and today we are more united as a country.

I would say there is not much interstate rivalry, jealousy or biterness. However, there does remain some slight resentment between the North and the South, but that is fading too.


----------



## EmilyD

I am from New York and have been expatriated[] for about 25 years, living mostly in Rhode Island, and have recently begun to accept myself as a RhodeIslander...People here still tell me they can tell I wasn't born here.

My belief is that there are *regional* identities; there are definitely regional accents.  It took me a full month to understand a co-worker with a strong southern accent several years ago.

Rhode Island is the smallest state in size.   We are often the focus of jokes and humorous comparisons ( an iceberg the size of Rhode Island, etc).

More broadly:  state vs. federal rights/responsibilities is an ongoing U.S. debate ...

Nomi


----------



## Dawei

gotitadeleche said:


> As I understand it, Texas is the only state that retained its right to legally separate from the union if it should so desire. And there is an association of Texans who do want to separate and make Texas an independent country.



Texas is indeed a special case, I'd be interested to see someone from there comment on their loyalty. From what I've seen in the media, many Texans are very proud of their culture and heritage, perhaps more so than any other state. 

Separation seems as though it would be lose-lose. They would lose federal funding, military protection, national aid, etc. etc. and America would lose all of Texas's resources.


----------



## Athaulf

gotitadeleche said:


> As I understand it, Texas is the only state that retained its right to legally separate from the union if it should so desire.



That's a myth.


----------



## Lombard Beige

What about "internal secession", e.g. Northern California becoming an independent state (which was mentioned by JamesM), just as the Swiss Canton of Jura became independent from Bern. I think West Virginia separated from Virginia at the time of the Civil War. Is that still possible?

regards


----------



## Athaulf

Lombard Beige said:


> What about "internal secession", e.g. Northern California becoming an independent state (which was mentioned by JamesM), just as the Swiss Canton of Jura became independent from Bern. I think West Virginia separated from Virginia at the time of the Civil War. Is that still possible?



I think it would require that the Congress pass an Enabling Act authorizing the separatist territory to form a separate state and be admitted to the Union. I'm not sure what would happen if the state government actively resisted such an attempt -- probably a constitutional crisis that would have to be resolved by the federal Supreme Court. (Note however that I have no expertise on the U.S. constitutional law, so someone more knowledgeable about the topic might need to correct me.)

This is however an issue where Texas is something of an exception. The Texas annexation agreement stipulates that Texas may divide itself into five separate states. However, I'm not sure that it would be possible without an explicit consent of the Congress even in this case.


----------



## JamesM

Athaulf said:


> I think it would require that the Congress pass an Enabling Act authorizing the separatist territory to form a separate state and be admitted to the Union. I'm not sure what would happen if the state government actively resisted such an attempt -- probably a constitutional crisis that would have to be resolved by the federal Supreme Court.


 
I'm not an expert either, but it seems like it would take extraordinary events that I can't even imagine to cause such a split to go through.  I think it would have to be proved that the union would be damaged by having the state stay in one piece and would benefit from the state splitting.  I can't imagine what would cause such a situation.


----------



## Lombard Beige

JamesM said:


> ... it seems like it would take extraordinary events that I can't even imagine to cause such a split to go through.  I think it would have to be proved that the union would be damaged by having the state stay in one piece and would benefit from the state splitting.  ...



As I mentioned before, the comparison with Switzerland is interesting, as they do have a process for this. It's long and complicated, but it works, and a new Canton can be created, cf. Jura. 

I think that we are beginning to understand from the thread, the difference between the European idea of regions, cantons, etc., and the *present-day* US idea of states. For many Europeans, Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders, etc. are really countries with their own people, but without the attributes of sovereignty, because they have lost it, or because they never had it. 

In the US, instead, the states are administrative units and also units of the national political system, i.e. so many senators and congressmen from each state, so adding new states would also interfere with the national constitutional mechanism. From your (plural) answers it would appear that very few "US persons", as the IRS would put it, consider themselves members of the Californian, Pennsylvanian, and Vermont peoples, whereas many people in Europe would consider themselves to be members of the Catalonian, Scottish or Flemish peoples. 

A really curious thing for Europeans is that although the US states don't consider themselves "countries without sovereignty", they do have, for example, the power of life and death (the death penalty) which in Europe I think all sovereign states have relinquished, and a system of different laws exists for the various states, not reflecting differences between, for example, the Californian people and the Vermont people, but mainly a matter of local convenience and politics. 

regards


----------



## dtcarney

From my experiences I have found that people on the East Coast are very proud of their region and can relate more to people on the west coast than the interior of the country, even amounting to negative attitude towards the interior.  My roomate who is from Boston and I (from Wisconsin) were talking about things in our respective states and I was very surprised to hear from him that apparently my state, and middle america in general, has nothing to offer!  That was especially special considering he hasn't visited the Midwest or other regions.  I have an uncle from New England who has a similar attitude as well.  I would say that there is some regional and interstate rivarly, but it's mostly north/south and even that is fading away.


----------



## tvdxer

xarruc said:


> I was watching a film set at the beginning of the American civil war and was struck by how much allegiance the characters in the film had for their state, over their country.
> 
> Although this was fiction I assume that that was an acurate portrayl of how it was then.
> 
> How much allegiance do Americans today feel towards their state with respect to that which they feel for their country? How proud of their state are Americans? Is there a lot of interstate rivalry, jealousy or biterness as is seen between many European countries and provinces?
> 
> Could sedition secession from the Union occur legally? And if the US was to face some crisis or conflict that led to its break up, would it split down historic borders?



I don't think many today (as opposed to in the past) have more allegiance for their state than country.  Many Minnesotans are proud to be Minnesotans, but almost all would definitely identify as Americans first.  

Perhaps this is because of greater mobility.  It is not uncommon for an American to, say, be born in Minnesota, attend school in North Dakota, spend their early career years in California, be transferred to Pennyslvania, be transferred again to Texas, move back to Minnesota in middle age (feeling a longing for their "home"), retire, and decide to spend summers in mild Minnesota and winters in mild Florida.  This wasn't as common during the Civil War era.


----------



## djchak

dtcarney said:


> My roomate who is from Boston and I (from Wisconsin) were talking about things in our respective states and I was very surprised to hear from him that apparently my state, and middle america in general, has nothing to offer!  That was especially special considering he hasn't visited the Midwest or other regions.



This person has clearly never even heard of Madison, and the House of Cheese!


Much less Chicago. Must be a hick town with a big airport.


----------



## JGreco

> I have no affinity for Florida at all. It is not an active thought at all....unless of course I am in North Florida, a region I do not like at all. Then I identify much more with Central Florida.


Many people in South Florida seem to believe this about us in Northern Florida. I think Florida is the only state that has any possibility of separating into two. I am from Destin, Florida and to me everything below Lake City is culturally different than the North especially for us in the Panhandle. I feel more Southern while people south of Lake City don't really consider themselves southern and do not have southern accents. We do not have any Cubans in this area of Florida and a very small population of Hispanics (I'm Latin myself). Are climate is different we actually have cold weather up here in winter. Practically everything is different.There is no connection or state affiliation especially North to South.  I can really see Florida  splitting into two separate states.


----------



## maxiogee

xarruc said:


> I was watching a film set at the beginning of the American civil war and was struck by how much allegiance the characters in the film had for their state, over their country.
> 
> Although this was fiction I assume that that was an acurate portrayl of how it was then.
> 
> How much allegiance do Americans today feel towards their state with respect to that which they feel for their country? How proud of their state are Americans? Is there a lot of interstate rivalry, jealousy or biterness as is seen between many European countries and provinces?
> 
> Could sedition secession from the Union occur legally? And if the US was to face some crisis or conflict that led to its break up, would it split down historic borders?



Let's not talk about vague 'crisis' or 'conflict' - let's talk about real instances which might then give us some 'meaty' points to chew over.
It is generally recognised that much of California is in dire trouble and may not be habitable for much longer. Between earthquakes, brush-fires, mudslides and the building of homes in places so utterly unsuited to them at huge 'cost' to water resources, removal of brush and undergrowth and other acts which will only facilitate the final impact of whatever 'biggie' happens first.

Where are all these people going to go? Which state or states will want to take in 33 odd million people (or should that be 33 million odd people?) who will have next to nothing to call their own? The exodus from New Orleans will be made to look like the Evacuation from Dunkirk in comparison.

As for secession, I could well expect to hear voices raised in dissent about taxing the rest of the population so that the displaced Californians might be rehoused. Voices which might well say - "They knew the danger was coming and yet they stayed there. Stayed and threw good money after bad in trying to make the place conform to their will. Stayed when they could have afforded - on their own resources - to have moved away. Why should I pay for their inaction?"


----------



## cuchuflete

Maxiogee said:
			
		

> It is generally recognised that much of...


the speculation about the geological future of California is speculative.  

As a former Californian roommate used to remind me, often and with great emotional energy, "One of these days the San Andreas Fault is going to open up...and the entire decrepit old eastern part of this country is going to fall right into the Atlantic Ocean!"


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> the speculation about the geological future of California is speculative.


You make it sound like I should either apologize for it or go and wash my hands immediately - or both. I didn't know speculation was either frowned upon or derisible.

Speculation is the only tool I know of for speaking about a possible future.
I was not speaking purely geologically, I was bringing aspects of meteorology and hydrology into a consideration of the demographology of the region.


----------



## Bonjules

maxiogee said:


> Maxi, your comment surely proves that you have never
> laid out on Malibu Beach! How dare you! Gross me out and gag me with a spoon.
> As an Honorary Californian, let me tell you this. We don't need to secede from anybody. If the rest of the U.S. or the world wants to secede from us, that's their loss. They might as well, what do we care. We have glorious beaches, snow-capped mountains, the biggest (and also the oldest) trees in the world, the best Mexican restaurants ANYWHERE and soon we'll have the Beckhams. So there.
> True spirituality? Nobody who hasn't been cruising the Freeways shouldn't even bring it up.
> saludos


----------



## rsweet

> It is generally recognised that much of California is in dire trouble and may not be habitable for much longer. Between earthquakes, brush-fires, mudslides and the building of homes in places so utterly unsuited to them at huge 'cost' to water resources, removal of brush and undergrowth and other acts which will only facilitate the final impact of whatever 'biggie' happens first.



I can only assume that you're up to your usual poke-a-stick-in-the-ant-hill tactics just to get a rise out of people. If not, you really need to get out more! 

California has its share of problems, but it's a very big place. Tales of apocalyptic earthquakes, fires, and mudslides are exaggerated or very localized. I hear the next Ice Age is just around the corner in Ireland--maybe in the next couple of weeks. I think you need to talk to a qualified geologist about the chances of California turning into a bona fide wasteland in the near future. 

On the subject of state splitting, one of my favorite novels is _The Fifth Sacred Thing_ by Starhawk. It's a futuristic look at what could happen if the trends of an overpopulated, water-guzzling (or thieving) Southern California were taken to an absolute polar extreme.


----------



## Lombard Beige

rsweet said:


> ... On the subject of state splitting, ...



Following up this thread, I've found all sorts of secessionist movements on the Internet. Apparently, there was or is a movement to create a *State of Jefferson* in Northern California. There is also a more radical proposal to create an independent sovereign state of *Cascadia*, which would include British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and their river basins in other US states. The inspirer of this project was, if I remember rightly, none other than Thomas Jefferson, and it goes back to his idea at the time of the Lewis and Clarke expedition to encourage the formation of an independent state that would be an ALLY of the USA on the West Coast.

Talking about Canada, I read that the opposite movement ("*Integrationism*" in the USA) is today practically non existent, even in Western Canada, and has never been encouraged by the USA. (So, occasionally the USA does do something right in foreign policy. ) 

The last substantial political movement to suggest annexation was, surprisingly, a French-speaking Québec movement !!!, which suggested that local interests could be better protected under a special status agreement, cf. Puerto Rico, with the United States. This seems a bit far fetched don't you think?

regards


----------



## mirx

All the american responses so far differ much from what I've lived myself (not that I am american). Every american I know has alwasy said that:

"The United Sates are so big that we don't really have much in common from state to state, each state its like a country with its own culture, consitution, gastronomy and government."

In fact many of them (if not most) when introducing themselves with foreigners they always refer to their state and not their country.

I noticed a special pride of being "Minessotan" in a guy from Mineapolis.


----------



## panjabigator

mirx said:


> All the american responses so far differ much from what I've lived myself (not that I am american). Every american I know has alwasy said that:
> 
> "The United Sates are so big that we don't really have much in common from state to state, each state its like a country with its own culture, consitution, gastronomy and government."
> 
> In fact many of them (if not most) when introducing themselves with foreigners they always refer to their state and not their country.
> 
> I noticed a special pride of being "Minnesotan" in a guy from Minneapolis.



I really never felt that way.  If I were outside of the US, I would introduce myself as an American.


----------



## mirx

panjabigator said:


> I really never felt that way. If I were outside of the US, I would introduce myself as an American.


 
He always did it at the biginning, like I suppose we all do with our respective countries, but then he said he noticed some kind of reactions to that, not very positive ones and so he started introducing himself differently. 

And then his story of why he felt more a Minnesotan than an american. Maybe that's just him, still what he said (and others afterwards) makes sense to me.

Cheers, did I get Minnesotan right?


----------



## JamesM

mirx said:


> All the american responses so far differ much from what I've lived myself (not that I am american). Every american I know has alwasy said that:
> 
> "The United Sates are so big that we don't really have much in common from state to state, each state its like a country with its own culture, consitution, gastronomy and government."


 
I would completely agree with two out of these four - "culture" and "gastronomy" - but we all operate under the same constitution and very similar state governments, for the most part. Also, our gastronomical differences are not as marked, in my opinion, as those of France's regional specialties. Most supermarket foods are available nationwide, and local specialties are "home cooking" kinds of thing. There are some differences, but not radically different.

Still, a Californian would probably not assume that he lived in the same culture as, say, a Montanan or a Texan, and there would be regional dishes in one area not easily found in another. There are differences, to be sure, but they are not radical governmental differences (Louisiana excluded.) 

Federal law (national law) supercedes state law in almost everything, so even if there is a difference it can't be so different that it would go in opposition to our common Federal laws. (Now there are exceptions - California's attempt at legalizing marijuana for medical reasons springs to mind - but the vast majority of the laws are similar.) 

The original question was about secession, which is very much a governmental and constitutional issue, and in that area we are much more similar than we are different, in my opinion.

In other words, the question was not "how different are the states of the United States", but "how _united_ are the United States".


----------



## barkley04

Well, I have been in the United States and I noticed that nobody is really American but America is everybody. In the USA, they live as racial and ethnic communities and they are only united by law and constitution.

MODERATOR EDIT:

Please take care to use capital letters. Thank you.


----------



## Truth

How united are the United States? Not very much at all, to be completely honest with you.

There are many things that divide this country, with politics and race being at the forefront. Location also plays a significant factor, I think. As a New Yorker, I don't feel any sense of unity with someone from the South or the Midwest. Completely different culture, attitudes, and demographics. Although it's true that migration within the country has lessened these differences somewhat, we're still very far from a homogenous country. I mean just look at the popular attitude that New Yorker have on the South - they're generally considered to be backwards, racist, hicks that watch Nascar. And I'm well aware that most of the country generally considers New Yorkers to be rude, arrogant, and loud. 

It's not that Americans generally identify with their state. A more accurate answer would be to say that Americans identify themselves according to their *region*. For example, the New York City metropolitan area is vastly different from the upstate region of New York, which is more like the Midwest in my personal opinion. The two are alike in name only. Further, Americans like to identify themselves with the major city they live in/around. A person from Chicago isn't gonna tell me he's from Illinois when he introduces himself, he's gonna say he's from Chicago. 

All of this only results in a friendly rivalry more than anything else, though. No one really bears any hard feelings toward any other region of the country. Well, maybe the South towards the North, but being that I don't live there, I can't verify that. As I said before though, it's politics and race that truly segregate this nation, but that's a story for another day..


----------



## TRG

I would echo the previous post on the idea that the part of the U.S. that has had the greatest regional identity is the South. However, that was much more pronounced 30 years ago than it is today. Ironically, the civil rights movement in this country probably did as much to integrate the South into the greater U.S. as it did to integrate African Americans into the broader culture. 

So far, no one has mentioned, or I missed it, the red-state/blue-state phenomenon which divides the country politically. It doesn't amount to much really, but some will turn the proverbial molehill into a mountain. In general I think the country is very united in more or less every way. It would take some calamitous even to break off even a little part of it.


----------



## lizzeymac

I also agree with Truth that regionalism is an important concept in understanding Americans:  North, South, Southwest,  Midwest, West Coast, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Mountain States, Bible Belt, Sunshine States, urban, suburban, and rural cultural differences.  I think if more American Forerr@s   were specific in the "Native of:" section of their profiles other Forrer@s would begin to "hear" some of the regional differences.  Just a thought.


----------



## Lombard Beige

lizzeymac said:


> I also agree with Truth that regionalism is an important concept in understanding Americans:  North, South, Southwest,  Midwest, West Coast, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Mountain States, Bible Belt, Sunshine States, urban, suburban, and rural cultural differences.  I think if more American Forerr@s   were specific in the "Native of:" section of their profiles other Forrer@s would begin to "hear" some of the regional differences.  Just a thought.



Some questions to make things clearer for us Europeans: 

By "Southwest", you mean New Mexico and Arizona, that is to say ex-Mexican territories with a substantial Native American population (Navajos, Pueblos, etc.) + an increasing number of asocial retirees, right?

But, am I also right in thinking that the other ex-Mexican territories, California, because of its population, and Texas, because of its size, are considered more like separate regions in their own right rather than as parts of the "Southwest"?

Also, re Florida, the North-South difference was mentioned, but am I right in saying that although this state was Spanish until a very late date (1819?), the original Spanish influence practically disappeared, as in the Philippines, leaving, again as in the Philippines, a number of historical monuments, like Saint Augustine (the oldest continuously inhabited city of the US, pre Pocahontas, right?), but little else, and that the present Hispanic population of South Florida is an immigrant population, just as the Anglos, black and white, are an immigrant population, because the only real Floridans are the Seminoles et al., and the aligators, of course, correct?

regards


----------



## lizzeymac

Lombard Beige said:


> Some questions to make things clearer for us Europeans:
> 
> By "Southwest", you mean New Mexico and Arizona, that is to say ex-Mexican territories with a substantial Native American population (Navajos, Pueblos, etc.) + an increasing number of asocial retirees, right?
> Yes, those are a portion of the Southwestern states. I myself wouldn't characterize retirees as asocial. Perhaps you have met a few cranky ones?  Or do you refer to the separate retirement communities?   While a significant portion of Native American live in the Southwest there many other tribes living in other parts of the US.
> 
> 
> But, am I also right in thinking that the other ex-Mexican territories, California, because of its population, and Texas, because of its size, are considered more like separate regions in their own right rather than as parts of the "Southwest"?
> Well, California is not "southern" & it isn't (as far as I know) considered a Southwestern state.  California is, as you say, very large, both geographically & economically.  I think most people mean California when they say "The West Coast", the states to the north of California are called the Pacific Northwest.  Texas is geographically in the Southwest - I would ask a Texan if they do or do not consider themselves as part of the Southwest.  I do.  Again, Texas is larger than a few countries, as are a few other states in the US.
> 
> 
> Also, re Florida, the North-South difference was mentioned, but am I right in saying that although this state was Spanish until a very late date (1819?), the original Spanish influence practically disappeared, as in the Philippines, leaving, again as in the Philippines, a number of historical monuments, like Saint Augustine (the oldest continuously inhabited city of the US, pre Pocahontas, right?), but little else, and that the present Hispanic population of South Florida is an immigrant population, just as the Anglos, black and white, are an immigrant population, because the only real Floridans are the Seminoles et al., and the aligators, of course, correct?
> 
> Just a reminder - *All* European people in The New World are immigrants.  Only the First Nations (Native Americans, Aboriginal, Maya, Aztec, Hawaiians, Inuit, etc.) are truly "locals."
> 
> 
> I would love to have a few Floridians chime in on this but I have been to many parts of Fla. several times, so here goes.  While the Spanish influence is mainly seen in place names & architecture, I have to believe there are still many families in Florida that could trace their roots back to 1819 and even earlier.  It is not surprising that Spanish colonial culture is no longer present -  it has been almost 190 years since Spain ruled in Florida, and in America that is a long time. There is a large Cuban community in the Miami area, but also people from many other Caribbean countries, Central & South America.
> 
> I am having a hard time thinking of what I should explain as it is  "normal" (& wonderful) for me to live in a multi-cultural society with intense differences in culture from region to region. I guess I would also remind you how geographically large America is & what a huge variety of topography & climate we have - this affects our culture too.
> 
> I am from NY City - to me South Florida feels pretty familiar - except the weather is much better.  I understand more than enough Spanish to get around in any neighborhood & I can mangle a bit of Caribbean French.  An American from the Upper Midwest - settled mostly by Scandanavians,  Germans & the French might find Miami more exotic.  There's a strong Polish community in Texas - you can get the same bakery goods in some towns in Texas as I can in the very Polish neighborhood in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. I think they are called kolaches- sorry if that is terrible, remember it is Polish with a Texas accent.
> 
> I know I have only given a few answers but maybe you begin to see why I, & maybe a few other American forrer@s, might get a little frustrated by inquiries or statements about what is or isn't "American", or what "Americans" do.  It also explains why you will read such a wide variety of opinions from us "Americans."  It is even more difficult to answer questions about "Americans" than to answer the question "What do Europeans think?" as we also have cultures from Asia, Africa, Australia, The Pacific Islands, etc.  Granted, there is a predominant "American" culture but it is not homogeneous & it is not universal.
> 
> Lordy, how I do go on....
> 
> Thanks for asking!
> 
> 
> regards


----------



## Lombard Beige

Thank you lizzeymac (Irish?) for your very nice and informative answer.

[My sarcastic remark on the "asocial retirees" was a reference to a discussion in another thread precisely on "separate retirement communities". Please don't take me seriously.]

Re Native Americans in the Southwest compared to the rest of the US. If I am not mistaken, their number is equal to that of the rest of the USA as whole, or not? That's why I mentioned them in particular. 

Re immigrants, I agree, but Afro-Americans are also immigrants like the Europeans, the difference being that most Europeans were voluntary immigrants and most Africans not. However, I see that the people who died in the NY fire were African immigrants from Malawi. In any case, if the US were to reintroduce a quota system for immigration based on race, the African continent would be entitled to a huge quota (30%?).

Personally, I have lived and worked, but always on a temporary basis ("on mission"), in the US and Canada, so I have some idea, but always viewed from the outside. 

The nearest thing to your reality I think is France. 

In France, you have the general European pattern of old native minorities, from the Bretons to the Basques, all with their own “regional languages”. However, Modern France ("La République") is politically opposed to any form of "ethnicity", or at best/worst, depending on the point of view, not enthusiastic. La République is strictly opposed to "ethnicity": everyone is French, with the same rights and duties. For example, religious symbols are prohibited for everyone: Christians, Jews and Muslims, but perhaps this is a problem (veils, etc.) only for the latter. 

Post-Franco Spain, instead, is the exact opposite of France.  All of the "historical nationalities" have one or more Autonomous Communities of their own: the Basques have two: Euzkadi/Pais Vasco and Nafarroa/Navarra.  

 Similar situations can be found in most European countries. The Québecois in North America are rather similar to a European “ethno-linguistic minority”.

On top of this, in France, Germany, England, Ireland, etc., there are now US-style immigrant minorities, like the Islamic community, which now totals in France, I believe, 5%. This trend began earlier in France than elsewhere, with the Italo-French (now 7% of the present French population), Hispano-French, Polish-French, Armenian-French, etc., but most of these groups have now become 100% French, like my cousins Pérani, or like Ives Montand (Ivo Livi), or Sarkozy (Franco-Hungarian?), etc. 

A situation similar to your's, whereas the "ethnic group" situation is limited. I think some so-called Hispanics, e.g. those of Northern New Mexico, are like a European ethnic group, in the sense that they were there before the Anglos, but of course after the Pueblos, while NY Hispanics are clearly an immigrant group, like the Dutch, British (including Irish, because they were British at the time), German, Italian, Jewish, Poles, as you mentioned, and others before them. 

I don't whether other Europeans and/or Americans agree with me?

 regards


----------



## gotitadeleche

> Well, California is not "southern" & it isn't (as far as I know) considered a Southwestern state. California is, as you say, very large, both geographically & economically. I think most people mean California when they say "The West Coast", the states to the north of California are called the Pacific Northwest. Texas is geographically in the Southwest - I would ask a Texan if they do or do not consider themselves as part of the Southwest. I do. Again, Texas is larger than a few countries, as are a few other states in the US.



Fort Worth, where I live, is considered to be "where the West begins." We have a history of cattle drives, cowboys and Indians. From Dallas eastward, Texas is a bit more like the Old South, but from Fort Worth westward, we are part of the Southwest. For those who saw the movie _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_, when they were holed up in Hell's Half Acre, that was here in Fort Worth. I would consider the state as a whole to be part of the Southwest.

I have lived in Maine, Washington D.C., Alabama, Arkansas, Texas (where I was born and where I live now), New Mexico, and Arizona. I have visited several other states. Although there definitely are cultural differences, not so much as to cause culture shock. I see the United States as more united than divided.


----------



## lizzeymac

Thank you lizzeymac (Irish?) for your very nice and informative answer.

You're welcome, again, thank you for your interest.
My ethnic background is Irish, French, Scottish & a pinch of First Nation/Native American.
 
[My sarcastic remark on the "asocial retirees" was a reference to a discussion in another thread precisely on "separate retirement communities". Please don't take me seriously.]

I understand perfectly, no offense taken - I find the idea of separate communities a bit like permanent summer camps for retirees, but I guess they have earned the right to choose.

Re Native Americans in the Southwest: Compared to the rest of the US, If I am not mistaken, their number is equal to that of the rest of the USA as whole, or not? That's why I mentioned them in particular. 
I believe you may be correct, in sheer numbers it is likely that  the majority of Native American live in the Southwest. However, only a few of the many different tribes live in the Southwest, & there is a huge cultural diversity among the tribes of North America. We need to remember that the Canadian/US/Mexican borders are modern impositions when discussing First Nations/Native Americans/aboriginal peoples.

Re immigrants, I agree, but Afro-Americans are also immigrants like the Europeans, the difference being that most Europeans were voluntary immigrants and most Africans not. However, I see that the people who died in the NY fire were African immigrants from Malawi. In any case, if the US were to reintroduce a quota system for immigration based on race, the African continent would be entitled to a huge quota (30%?).

Just a note: we in America have changed terms again - "African" American is the more common term.  
Yes, they were immigrants too, though slavery is a major consideration & some African Americans are sensitive about being called immigrants, perhaps because many of them arrived before the bulk of European Americans did. There are also some prejudices between African Americans descended from slaves & African Caribbean immigrants whose ancestors were never enslaved. Go figure.  
In New York we have a relatively large modern era African immigrant population compared to the rest of America.
I am not sure of the exact percentage for the nation though 30% sounds a little high. The reasoning used by the government in determining quotas is twisty, to say the least. 

Personally, I have lived and worked, but always on a temporary basis ("on mission"), in the US and Canada, so I have some idea, but always viewed from the outside. 

I hope you had some fun while you were here.

The nearest thing to your reality I think is France. 

In France, you have the general European pattern of old native minorities, from the Bretons to the Basques, all with their own “regional languages”. However, Modern France ("La République") is politically opposed to any form of "ethnicity", or at best/worst, depending on the point of view, not enthusiastic. La République is strictly opposed to "ethnicity": everyone is French, with the same rights and duties. For example, religious symbols are prohibited for everyone: Christians, Jews and Muslims, but perhaps this is a problem (veils, etc.) only for the latter. 

I hope this makes sense.  
Americans are not opposed to ethnicity. One can be ethnic & "American" at the same time - that is the whole point.  To a certain extent, what "American" means is determined by what Americans are.  We are not all the same but all of us combined are what "American" is - conflicts, contradictions, bad manners, stupid prejudices & all.

I don't want to be uncivil or disrespectful to France, but the issues of head scarves in French schools appears (to me) to be discriminatory.  If pupil are allowed to wear crosses - they are, I have relatives in Paris -  or yarmulkes or other discreet religious symbols then a headscarf should be allowed as well.  The government spokesman said something that I just can't wrap my head around - he said of head scarves: "They are not French."  He lost my respect with that sentence.
Thinking like an American, I would think that if a French citizen does a thing, that thing would be considered acceptably "French." So it seem that the minister feels that being muslim is inherently "not French."
I don't see how a scarf intrudes on another person, except to intrude on their prejudices.

Personally, I feel more culturally "sympatico" with my friends from England,  Scotland, Ireland & Australia than my acquaintances from Paris. It isn't the language thing, it is that the sense of humor is more similar - they have one. (Just kidding.)

Post-Franco Spain, instead, is the exact opposite of France.  All of the "historical nationalities" have one or more Autonomous Communities of their own: the Basques have two: Euzkadi/Pais Vasco and Nafarroa/Navarra.  

Yes - I was just reading a thread about racism in Spain.  I had no idea of the level of tension & hostility between Catalunya (sp? sorry), Valencia, Vasco, etc. I  can't believe they call each other "immigrants" within the same country! Apparently it is not "the same country."

 Similar situations can be found in most European countries. The Québecois in North America are rather similar to a European “ethno-linguistic minority”.

On top of this, in France, Germany, England, Ireland, etc., there are now US-style immigrant minorities, like the Islamic community, which now totals, I believe, 5%. This began earlier in France than elsewhere, with the Italo-French (7% of the present French population), Hispano-French, Polish-French, Armenian-French, etc., but most of these groups have now become French, like my cousins Pérani, or like Ives Montand (Ivo Livi), or Sarkozy (Franco-Hungarian?), etc. A situation similar to your's.


I don't think I could make an informed & objective comment on the relationship to & responsibilities of Europe to its former colonies. (as I live in one of them) 

It is probably easier to live in a society that has "always" been mixed (if not happily or equitably shared) than to live through a sharp shift in culture. 

Thank you again for the great questions.


----------



## Bonjules

lizzeymac said:


> There are also some prejudices between African Americans descended from slaves & African Caribbean immigrants whose ancestors were never enslaved. G


 
Which ones would these be, Lizzeymac? Are you talking about the 'ladinos'? There were a few Blacks who had cooperated with the Whites in the slave trade. They were 'christianized' and/or bought their freedom from the whites and a few subsequently accompanied some of the expeditions to/settlement of the Caribbean.
Their numbers are negligible compared to the Blacks who were brought as slaves. I am not aware of other significant numbers of free Africans arriving here.
saludos


----------



## fenixpollo

Lombard Beige said:


> Re Native Americans in the Southwest compared to the rest of the US. If I am not mistaken, their number is equal to that of the rest of the USA as whole, or not?


 Are you saying that there are more Native Americans in the Southwest than non-Indians in the rest of the country? I'm flabbergasted! 


			
				U.S. Census data said:
			
		

> As of 2005 Census estimates, 1.0 percent of the US population is of American Indian and Alaska Native descent. This population is unevenly distributed across the country, with Alaska and New Mexico boasting double digit native populations while in five states these people constitute only 0.2% of the population.





			
				Lombard Beige said:
			
		

> By "Southwest", you mean New Mexico and Arizona, that is to say ex-Mexican territories with a substantial Native American population (Navajos, Pueblos, etc.)?


 The Southwest is generally considered to include Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada.  California is there, too, but it's identified more as a coastal state; and Texans identify themselves more with the South than with the Southwest.  Other ex-Mexican territories, such as Idaho and Montana, are not part of the Southwest but the Northwest or Mountain West.





> Also, re Florida, the North-South difference was mentioned, but am I right in saying that although this state was Spanish until a very late date (1819?),the original Spanish influence practically disappeared, as in the Philippines, leaving, again as in the Philippines, a number of historical monuments, like Saint Augustine (the oldest continuously inhabited city of the US, pre Pocahontas, right?), but little else, and that the present Hispanic population of South Florida is an immigrant population, just as the Anglos, black and white, are an immigrant population, because the only real Floridans are the Seminoles et al., and the aligators, of course, correct?


 As far as I understand you, you are essentially correct... although I don't know what you mean by "pre-Pocahontas".


----------



## Lombard Beige

fenixpollo said:


> Are you saying that there are more Native Americans in the Southwest than non-Indians in the rest of the country? I'm flabbergasted!



What I meant was that I believe the number of Native Americans in the Southwest is equal to the number of Native Americans in the rest of the USA.

On the basis of the Census data you provide (thank you!), I should have said the "Continental USA", I think that's the term excluding Alaska, right?

But am I right or wrong in my estimate?



fenixpollo said:


> ... although I don't know what you mean by "pre-Pocahontas".



I meant that I think the foundation of Saint Augustine by the Spaniards predates the earliest English settlements at Jamestown in Virginia, where Pocahontas played an important role. So yes I meant before Pocahontas.

If I remember rightly, when the Spaniards founded St. Augustine, their European rivals were French (Huguenot = Protestant) corsairs ("piratas" in the Spanish terminology) based in the Carolinas, rather  than the later English colonists of Virginia, correct?

regards


----------



## lizzeymac

Bonjules said:


> Which ones would these be, Lizzeymac? Are you talking about the 'ladinos'? There were a few Blacks who had cooperated with the Whites in the slave trade. They were 'christianized' and/or bought their freedom from the whites and a few subsequently accompanied some of the expeditions to/settlement of the Caribbean.
> Their numbers are negligible compared to the Blacks who were brought as slaves. I am not aware of other significant numbers of free Africans arriving here.
> saludos



Hi Bonjules:
Sorry it took so long to respond, work is demanding.
My friend's family is from Haiti & Jamaica & she was telling me about another free African population in the New World.  This is her family oral history rather than an encyclopedia citation, but I have heard similar histories from other Caribbean friends & there are mentions of this in reference books.

Evidently, over the first few decades of slaves being brought to Haiti, Jamaica & some other Caribbean islands, some of the slaves escaped from the plantations almost as soon as they arrived & retreated up into the highlands (mountainous interiors).  It is said that those who escaped were the most strong & rebellious & the natural leaders - this comment is from her grandmother.  They created small communities in the most remote areas.  They were called "Maroons." The European slave owners almost never ventured up into the hills to recapture them as the highlands were thick jungles, unfamiliar & frightening to Europeans but familiar to the African.  The Maroons were renowned for the ability to disappear into the jungle & had a reputation for fearlessness if cornered.  Supposedly, from time to time the Maroons would also come down from the hill to help other slaves escape, to get wives, to steal tools.  When the slave trade was abolished & Universal Suffrage became the law, gradually the Maroons began to participate in society & many moved down to the settled areas, though some continued to live up in the highlands. According to Soraya, the culture of the Maroons is still a bit different from the lowland culture, & her grandmother & both grandfathers (Maroons) are very proud of not being descended from slaves. It is not the same as the Ladinos, but this is the way her family ancestors made themselves free.

Thank you for telling me about the Ladinos, I had not heard that word in that context - only as the language.


----------



## Bonjules

lizzeymac said:


> Hi Bonjules:
> Sorry it took so long to respond, work is demanding.
> My friend's family is from Haiti & Jamaica & she was telling me about another free African population in the New World. This is her family oral history rather than an encyclopedia citation, but I have heard similar histories from other Caribbean friends & there are mentions of this in reference books.
> 
> Evidently, over the first few decades of slaves being brought to Haiti, Jamaica & some other Caribbean islands, some of the slaves escaped from the plantations almost as soon as they arrived


Thanks for clarifying this, Lizzey. I guess I got confused because you said 'never were enslaved' which I interpreted as arriving here free.
Yes, there were always strong personalities who escaped, 'los cimarrones'. They were a proud sub-culture; even in a small island like Puerto Rico there suppodedly were communities not that far from San Juan that the Spanish never could/bothered to sugjugate.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Back to the main topic, please, folks.


----------



## Lombard Beige

As a further contribution, the following are two lists used in a EUROPEAN market research study on the USA:

Regions

New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific

Racial and ethnic self-identification  

White (non Hispanic)
White (Hispanic)
Black or African American
Asian
American Indian and Alaska native
Others
Mixed origins

regards


----------



## mplsray

xarruc said:


> I was watching a film set at the beginning of the American civil war and was struck by how much allegiance the characters in the film had for their state, over their country.
> 
> Although this was fiction I assume that that was an acurate portrayl of how it was then.
> 
> How much allegiance do Americans today feel towards their state with respect to that which they feel for their country? How proud of their state are Americans? Is there a lot of interstate rivalry, jealousy or biterness as is seen between many European countries and provinces?
> 
> Could sedition secession from the Union occur legally? And if the US was to face some crisis or conflict that led to its break up, would it split down historic borders?


 
It's my impression that Southerners had much more a sense of duty to their own state than did Northerners during the Civil War. The Confederacy had a considerably weaker central government than did the Union, and Northerners considered Southerners who fought against the Union to be traitors.

Some Americans today are prouder of their state than are others. I'd count Minnesotans among those having a great deal of pride in our state (I'm not from around here originally, but I share the feeling). I think the states are in economic competition, but that's about it: There's no bitterness between citizens of one state and those of another (in the same way that there still is some bitterness between the rural areas of some states and their urban areas), and, in general, Americans feel pride in their country. I think the last time that there was any great resentment in the US by citizens of a state against the federal government was during the Civil Rights era, when the federal government ended Jim Crow laws in the South, which were defended by racists (and even some non-racists) as a matter of states' rights.

The following is not much more than opinion: I don't believe any state can legally secede from the Union, and I would expect that it would take an amendment to the Constitution to do so. The only basis I have for this idea is that a war was fought against those who seceded and the Supreme Court did not rule against that war (and may never have even been called upon to do so).

I have no opinion on your last question.


----------



## Lombard Beige

mplsray said:


> ... the federal government ended Jim Crow laws in the South, which were defended by racists (and even some non-racists) as a matter of states' rights. ...



As an admirer of the Swiss system, I too would be for more state's rights, but not with precedence over civil rights, which pertain to the individual citizen. So in this respect, I can't understand those particular "non-racists".

It's a bit like the US states having competence to decide on the death penalty. This is really strange for a European, i.e. the fact that a US citizen can risk the death penalty in one state and not in another.

regards


----------



## lizzeymac

Lombard Beige said:


> As an admirer of the Swiss system, I too would be for more state's rights, but not with precedence over civil rights, which pertain to the individual citizen. So in this respect, I can't understand those particular "non-racists".
> 
> It's a bit like the US states having competence to decide on the death penalty. This is really strange for a European, i.e. the fact that a US citizen can risk the death penalty in one state and not in another.
> 
> regards



Yes, some of us think that is "strange" too. There are also federal criminal statutes that may be harsher or more lenient than the state statutes on the same crimes.  Take it as another example of the wide range of "cultures" from state to state, region to region, state vs. federal, and  rural vs. suburban vs. city.
-


----------



## gotitadeleche

Fenix, I disagree with your comment:



> The Southwest is generally considered to include Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. California is there, too, but it's identified more as a coastal state; and *Texans identify themselves more with the South *than with the Southwest. Other ex-Mexican territories, such as Idaho and Montana, are not part of the Southwest but the Northwest or Mountain West.



We identify more with the Southwest than the West. See my post #10 in this thread.


----------



## JamesM

gotitadeleche said:


> Fenix, I disagree with your comment:
> 
> 
> 
> We identify more with the Southwest than the West. See my post #10 in this thread.


 
I re-read your post, gotitadeleche, but I don't see a reference "West vs. Southwest" in it.  Can you explain?


----------



## fenixpollo

gotitadeleche said:


> Fenix, I disagree with your comment:
> We identify more with the Southwest than the West. See my post #10 in this thread.


 Well, shut my mouth!   That's what I get for making generalizations about what people in other states believe... even having lived among them and even having met one or two! 

Maybe I should rephrase it and say that many Texas identify themselves more with the values and culture of Dixie than with the Yankified values of California and the coastal West.  But perhaps many Texans also see themselves as more Westerners than Southerners.... maybe it depends on the person, their upbringing, whether they come from the Panhandle or the Hill Country....

Thanks, goti, for calling me out on my specious overgeneralization.


----------



## Lombard Beige

fenixpollo said:


> ... But perhaps many Texans also see themselves as more Westerners than Southerners.... maybe it depends on the person, their upbringing, whether they come from the Panhandle or the Hill Country....



So perhaps the treaty drafters who included the provision for the division of Texas into no less than 5 states (which someone mentioned earlier) were not so far off track? 

Perhaps other states, not only California, which could be divided into say "Alta California" and "Jefferson", but also New York, which could be divided into at least two "semi-cantons", as the Swiss would say, NYC and "Iriquois" (on the model of "Dakota"), for example, could also be usefully divided, as they have few interests in common, or not? 

As for your (US) constitutional mechanism, perhaps a greater number of smaller states would be preferable to a combination of huge states and minuscule ones.

Also I think the Puerto Rican anomaly has been left deliberatly unsolved, because it's convenient for most people that things should remain as they are, i.e. an intermediate position between independence and statehood and the principle of "no taxation without representation). (Assuming that PR is still exempt from Federal Income Tax). A Québec like situation, with a predominantly non-English language state, with Spanish in the place of French, would probably lead to  constitutional problems in the border states and perhaps also Florida (also divisible as a North Floridan has pointed out), just as in Canada the reaffirmation of Québec identity has entailed consequences at the Federal level, as well as in New Brunswick, Acadia, etc. 

regards


----------



## lizzeymac

LombardBeige - 
I am curious - what inspired your interest in the idea of secession in the US?    I have to say that I have not heard anyone discussing the notion, except for what might politely be called "niche" political groups,  less politely  called "fringe elements."   Of course, where I live, we are a multi-ethnic community, and have been for a very long time, and it has been quite a long time since NY belonged to anyone else. 
I know many regions are experiencing rapid changes in population & it is not always a smooth transition - it has put enormous strains on social services & housing stock.  These troubles contribute to the intense debate over illegal immigration.  
I have heard the partitioning of California discussed on National Public Radio in a very speculative way, based on the size of the economy, but that is all. I do not listen to right-wing (or left-wing) talk radio, so I may have missed a lot.
Puerto Rico is very difficult topic where I live.  Next to Puerto Rico, NYC supposedly has the most Puerto Rican residents in the US. I have always thought that Puerto Ricans should decide what is best for them - my opinion is not really relevant except to support whatever democratic decision they make.  I do think the US Navy really could find another place to practice dropping their bombs.

I may indeed be totally out of touch with the rest of America, but my gut response is that the likelihood (anytime in the near future) of a popular revolt leading to secession, division, or a Quebec-style non-English speaking state are roughly 10 in one million.  As I said earlier, you might want to ask a Texan for his (her/their) opinion.
I wonder what other forer@s' (American & other) opinions are about the secession/partition/non-English-speaking State -  I suppose that is straying off the topic.
-


----------



## fenixpollo

Lombard Beige said:


> Perhaps other states, not only California, which could be divided into say "Alta California" and "Jefferson", but also New York, which could be divided into at least two "semi-cantons", as the Swiss would say, NYC and "Iriquois" (on the model of "Dakota"), for example, could also be usefully divided, as they have few interests in common, or not?


 The states that exist were not formed because everyone who lives in that state has things in common; they are simply a line in the sand to delineate one geographic region from another, and many state lines are arbitrarily placed. These lines are not dividing lines which separate different cultures or peoples. State lines are practically invisible to cross -- i.e. there are slight political differences or legal differences between states, but it is easy to travel between states or to move to another state.





> As for your (US) constitutional mechanism, perhaps a greater number of smaller states would be preferable to a combination of huge states and minuscule ones.


 Our constitutional mechanism was designed to be a solution to the problem presented by a mix of small and large states. Carving up the larger states into smaller ones would not make governing the country easier... in fact, the opposite is likely true. 





> A Québec like situation, with a predominantly non-English language state, with Spanish in the place of French, would probably lead to  constitutional problems in the border states and perhaps also Florida (also divisible as a North Floridan has pointed out), just as in Canada the reaffirmation of Québec identity has entailed consequences at the Federal level, as well as in New Brunswick, Acadia, etc.


 You say that there is a "Quebec identity", but you're missing the fact that there is no such identity among Spanish-speakers in the border states with high Spanish-speaking populations. Most Spanish-speakers in the US are trying to assimilate with American culture, not break with it.  There will be no "constitutional crisis" in the border states in this century, my friend.


----------



## Lombard Beige

fenixpollo said:


> ... You say that there is a "Quebec identity", but you're missing the fact that there is no such identity among Spanish-speakers in the border states with high Spanish-speaking populations. Most Spanish-speakers in the US are trying to assimilate with American culture, not break with it.  There will be no "constitutional crisis" in the border states in this century, my friend.



What I meant was that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, I assume it would maintain Spanish and English as official languages, and if it did so I assume that in other states, such as New Mexico, there would be increased pressure for official bilingualism, etc., as in Canada. I wasn't thinking beyond that.

regards


----------



## Lombard Beige

lizzeymac said:


> LombardBeige -
> I am curious - what inspired your interest in the idea of secession in the US?    ...



Well, actually it was our thread-starter Xarruc, who lives in Catalunya (Spain, for now...), who raised the matter, which in Spain, is a very current issue, mostly but not exclusively in relation to the Basque country, but I prefer to leave the detailed answer to Xarruc. 

I am interested in your comparative situation because it is also a current issue in Europe in general, cf. England vs Scotland (one of our co-forer@s posted some interesting links on the respective "antipatia"), not to mention Eastern Europe, e.g. the Czech/Slovak separation, ex Yugoslavia, ex USSR, etc.

 [/quote]  ... I suppose that is straying off the topic. ... -[/quote]

Don't remind me. If the list had a points system like they have for driving licences in several European countries. I would have to bring out my bike. 

regards


----------



## fenixpollo

Lombard Beige said:


> What I meant was that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, I assume it would maintain Spanish and English as official languages, and if it did so I assume that in other states, such as New Mexico, there would be increased pressure for official bilingualism, etc., as in Canada. I wasn't thinking beyond that.


 Even if PR were admitted as a state, and even if PR's bilingualism encouraged activists in other states to seek the same (and those are two gigantic "ifs"), I don't see how pressure for "official bilingualism" could be considered a constitutional crisis. The US Constitution does not provide for an official language. Some states have publicly debated laws that would set English as the official language, but those cases have been political crises (or battles), not constitutional ones.  Most of those proposals have been seen for the xenophobic twaddle that they are, and have been rejected by the voters.


----------



## Lombard Beige

fenixpollo said:


> Even if PR were admitted as a state, and even if PR's bilingualism encouraged activists in other states to seek the same (and those are two gigantic "ifs"), I don't see how pressure for "official bilingualism" could be considered a *constitutional crisis*. The US Constitution does not provide for an official language. Some states have publicly debated laws that would set English as the official language, but those cases have been political crises (or battles), not constitutional ones.  Most of those proposals have been seen for the xenophobic twaddle that they are, and have been rejected by the voters.



I think the misunderstanding is the word "crisis". I said "*constitutional problems*", thinking more of administrative complications, etc., perhaps I should have said "*constitutional complications*"?

Also perhaps I am thinking in terms of what would happen in Europe in similar circumstances.

regards


----------



## lizzeymac

Lombard Beige said:


> What I meant was that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, I assume it would maintain Spanish and English as official languages, and if it did so I assume that in other states, such as New Mexico, there would be increased pressure for official bilingualism, etc., as in Canada. I wasn't thinking beyond that.
> 
> regards




_If_ Puerto Rico became a state I suppose it is _possible_ that official bilingualism would be retained. It's unlikely that Puerto Rico will vote in favor of statehood in the near future. The political structure that governs Puerto Rico constrains them & perhaps disadvantages them but it also protects their culture & that it extremely important to the residents of Puerto Rico.

The likelihood of official bilingualism in any state in America in the near future  is virtually nil, for many reasons.



Lombard Beige said:


> I am interested in your comparative situation because it is also a current issue in Europe in general, cf. England vs Scotland (one of our co-forer@s posted some interesting links on the respective "antipatia"), not to mention Eastern Europe, e.g. the Czech/Slovak separation, ex Yugoslavia, ex USSR, etc.




I think perhaps you are assuming that our intra-state & intra-regional differences are inherently a problem, that we yearn to have our state borders re-organized to create more homogeneous population groupings. This is really not the case.  fenixpollo explains it damn near perfectly:



> The states that exist were not formed because everyone who lives in that state has things in common; they are simply a line in the sand to delineate one geographic region from another, and many state lines are arbitrarily placed. These lines are not dividing lines which separate different cultures or peoples. State lines are practically invisible to cross -- i.e. there are slight political differences or legal differences between states, but it is easy to travel between states or to move to another state.


Cultural regions ignore state lines happily & peacefully. Clusters of certain ethnic/cultural groups have been formed by waves of immigration.  Geography & land use has a great deal to do with the culture/ethnic makeup of a region: ranching, farming, heavy industry, trade along major rivers, mining, forestry, coastal trading & fishing ports. Many ethnic groups have emigrated to areas with climates/industries that are similar to their homeland - Scandanavian farmers to the northern Midwest, Basques to sheep ranching in Montana, Welsh to the mines in Pennsylvania & Arizona, Highland Scots to the Smoky Mountains, Portuguese fisherman to the New England coast, Asian fisherman to the Gulf of Mexico, etc.  We Americans have a lot to argue over - state borders are not even on the list.

Other than the  original 13 colonies, most the states were formed one or two at a time over many years, as each of the settled territories  organized themselves; or as territories were gained from other nations. There were only a few major arguments over state borders & they were political & economic arguments.

I understand your reference to the situation facing Europe but the comparison does not hold.  Americans do not have a thousand-year history of bloody religious & ethnic & clan wars against each other on this soil. We certainly have remnants of "Old Country" frictions (try being an Englishman in certain parts of Boston) but they are light-years from the situation in the former Yugoslavia, or even England/Wales/Scotland. As has been mentioned, there are still class issues, a huge poverty & homelessness problem, some North/South feelings, illegal immigration, & racial prejudice, but nothing to compare to what you are talking about in Europe.

-


----------



## fenixpollo

Lombard Beige said:


> Also perhaps I am thinking in terms of what would happen in Europe in similar circumstances.


Exactly.  That's the great thing about this thread -- so that non-Americans can create a non-European context for understanding the U.S.


----------



## gotitadeleche

JamesM said:


> I re-read your post, gotitadeleche, but I don't see a reference "West vs. Southwest" in it.  Can you explain?



Sorry James, that was a typo. I meant to say post #40.

Fenix, I am taking an informal survey of the Texans I know about whether they think Texas is part of the Southwest or South. I will let you know.



> I may indeed be totally out of touch with the rest of America, but my gut response is that the likelihood (anytime in the near future) of a popular revolt leading to secession, division, or a Quebec-style non-English speaking state are roughly 10 in one million. As I said earlier, you might want to ask a Texan for his (her/their) opinion.
> I wonder what other forer@s' (American & other) opinions are about the secession/partition/non-English-speaking State - I suppose that is straying off the topic.



I agree with lizzeymac's post. Although I have heard that there are some extremist groups in Texas that support secession, it is a small group. I don't personally know of anyone who supports that idea.


----------



## Bonjules

lizzeymac said:


> _If_ Puerto Rico became a state I suppose it is _possible_ that official bilingualism would be retained. It's unlikely that Puerto Rico will vote in favor of statehood in the near future. The political structure that governs Puerto Rico constrains them & perhaps disadvantages them but it also protects their culture & that it extremely important to the residents of Puerto Rico.
> -


 
Puerto Rico is an interesting case in terms of this thread.

I agree that it is unlikely it will become a state, for more than one reason. 
1. Inhabitants here are mostly happy with with the economic support by the U.S. (quite significant) and the relative cultural independence (I agree w. Lizzey)of the status quo, although the acculturation through commerce is strong.
2. They would probably vote for statehood, if otherwise econ. support was threatened to be cut off entirely.
3. If they were a state, it would have to be officially bilingual, since 80% , some say 90% are monolingual Spanish; 'English only' instruction was a total failure.
4. No matter how PR voted, Congress would have to admit it into the Union. This is unlikely; it would be the poorest state with the biggest social problems and the weakest economy.
5. It would be the first and only clearly 'hispanic' state in the US; probably the only state that on admission was not majority 'USamerican' culturally (not sure of the ## in Hawaii at the time). Given the current climate it is hard to see how a majority in Congress could be found to support this.

saludos desde P.R., donde tenemos 'proteccio'n sin representacio'n!


----------



## cuchuflete

Lombard Beige said:


> What I meant was that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, I assume it would maintain Spanish and English as official languages, and if it did so I assume that in other states, such as New Mexico, there would be increased pressure for official bilingualism, etc., as in Canada. I wasn't thinking beyond that.



Last time I checked, New Mexico already has two _official_ languages, Spanish and English.  Most states have none.  Coming at this from an EU point of view, where pizza baking requirements get  put into place by burrrocrats, I can see the source of your concern.  In the US it's less formal.  Most federal and state agencies provide printed material for things of general interest, such as voting and taxes, in more than one language.  This is done because it makes sense to the population served.

Such attacks of 2+2=4 are a small counterweight to some of our foreign policies.  

If the citizens of Puerto Rico ever select statehood...they vote on status from time to time, and neither statehood nor independence achieves a majority...and the US Congress vote to accept Puerto Rico as a state, then that new state would have the absolute right to determine, among other things, whether to have a one or two chamber for legislation, and whether it wants to have one official language, or two, or none.  


_Edit:  I was wrong.  New Mexico was, temporarily, officially bi-lingual.  It now has no official language.

Wikipedia:  _New Mexico is commonly thought to have Spanish as an official language alongside English, due to the widespread usage of Spanish in the state. Although the original state constitution of 1912 provided for a temporarily bilingual government, New Mexico has no official language. Nevertheless, the state government publishes election ballots and a driver's manual in both languages, and, in 1995, New Mexico adopted a "State Bilingual Song", titled "New Mexico-Mi Lindo Nuevo México".


----------



## HistofEng

^^ In Miami-Dade County, for example, almost all county documents (even the papers sent home to parents of public school students) are automatically provided in English, Spanish, _and_ Haitian-Creole.


----------

