The Nine Nations of North America (2024)

My (old) boss gave me this book, as we were fascinated by regional differences and how they could be revealed and respected. Which makes sense, as we were running a public market advocacy organization. Add to that our friends at Slow Food had begun a project named RAFT (Renewing America's Food Traditions) and were creating a map of food regions of America to show how food and culture can be the sovereign organizing principle rather than political boundaries drawn by surveyors hundreds of years ago. So that's how this fascinating book came to me.

Each "nation" (I believe less in nations than in city/states, so I wish he could call them that, but I do know he could not for argument's sake) is defined by some natural geographical boundaries and also by the author’s very interesting analysis of the commonalities in each region and how they offer clues as to their future direction: “Studying these nations is certainly more constructive that examining ideas such as “Colorado”.
He writes very well, finding lovely bites of information and great quotes for each nation. Maps are included for better descriptions than I give here.

Let me give you a tidbit for each:

The Breadbasket: Area west of Houston, north of Austin, east of Denver, up to Winnipeg and down to Chicago through St. Louis and Tulsa.
The nation that is most at peace with itself.

The Foundry: From DC to Cincinnati (following Ohio River), east of Indy, up to Milwaukee, Green Bay, north to Ottawa, over to Albany, Trenton and down to southern Connecticut.
The whole point of living here is work.

Dixie: Everything north of Ft. Meyers to Houston, up to St. Louis, down to Kentucky and over to DC, everything south.
Sociologically, climatically, historically. politically, topographically racially it’s a quilt.

New England: New Haven, to Providence, Boston, Burlington, Prince Edward Islands, Nova Scotia to Portsmouth.
Post industrial
(Emerson of Thoreau): “He chose to be rich by making his wants few.”

Mexamaerica: Mexico to California (west of Sierra Nevada range), south of Denver, east to Houston.
Binational, bicultural, bilingual.

The Empty Quarter (portion of Saudi Arabia is called Rub ‘al Khali - Empty Quarter).: West of Sierra Nevada, north to Alaska, and over to Lake Winnipeg and down following the Missouri River. Where the argument between empire and environment lives.

The Islands: South of Ft. Meyers, Keys. Cuba, Puerto Rico
Smugglers paradise.

Ecotopia: Anchorage to Point Conception to north of Sierra Nevada. Temperate island surrounded by a sea of envy

Quebec:
The most improbable yet the most undeniable nation.

A wonderful book that I am very glad to have read and more importantly, to share.

Somewhere out in the desert, there is a place called Four Corners. It's Navajo land, or so I understand, with little in the way of human habitation anywhere. It is famous only by accident; it's the place where the lines of latitude and longitude that mark the borders of four Southwestern states meet. It is marked by a stone showing the borders, and you can walk around the stone and be in all four states in less than a minute.

Big deal.

If you want to know what a real crossroads is like, come to Austin, Texas, baby. Right in the bottom-left-hand corner of the Old South, right on the edge of where the live oaks and bluebonnets turn into juniper and mesquite. To the east are charming little Southern towns like Taylor and Bastrop. To the west are charming little Western towns like Fredericksburg and Llano. And to the south is the bustling metropolis of San Antonio, where half the country-western morning show is done in Spanish, and the brush country of South Texas.

I can't show you any boundaries on your basic, normal map, of course. Oh, I can point to Interstate 35 and tell you that's about where the South ends -- except that the best Southern restaurant in town is a few blocks west. I can point to the Colorado River and say that the Hispanic influence is to the south, except for all the good Mexican places in North Austin. All I can say is that Austin is a border town without any real borders -- and that the only other large city in the country like it is Indianapolis.

Yes, that's right.

If you buy Joel Garreau's thesis, Austin is at the corner of three of the Nine Nations of North America. To the south is the nation of MexAmerica, stretching from Los Angeles to Houston and south to Monterrey. To the west is the nation of The Breadbasket, stretching from the Texas Hill Country to the barley fields of Saskatchewan. To the east is Dixie, which goes east to Virginia Beach and north to, you guessed it, Indianapolis, which also sits on the border between The Foundry and The Breadbasket.

I hope this isn't confusing you so far.

Garreau's thesis is that the borders between the U.S., Canada and Mexico mean nothing in terms of defining regions, and that the borders between states mean even less. There are no less than Nine Nations between the shores of the Atlantic and the Pacific. Traveling west to east, they are:

Ecotopia: The coastal strip between the Pacific and the Sierra Nevada and other mountains, running from Silicon Valley to Anchorage. Its capital is San Francisco. It produces high-technology and wacky environmental theory, and has the most to gain from increased trade with China.

MexAmerica: The southern parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, along with the northern Mexican states. Its twin capitals are Los Angeles and Houston. Its most prominent feature is the U.S. - Mexico border, the increase of trade brought by NAFTA, and the problems of illegal immigration and migrant workers. Spanish is fast becoming the dominant language.

The Empty Quarter: Its capital is Denver, but it stretches to the Arctic. Here in the Rocky Mountain states, Northern Canada and most of Alaska is where our greatest untapped natural resources lie, and our greatest untamed natural wilderness.

The Breadbasket: Dominated by farm-and-ranch concerns, this nation is the only one that's landlocked. It stretches from eastern Colorado to western Indiana, skirting the big border cities of Chicago and St. Louis. Kansas City is its capital.

Dixie: The Old Confederacy, if I'm still allowed to say that. It includes Kentucky and East Texas and Southeast Oklahoma, but excludes Northern Virginia and South Florida. The capital is in Atlanta, where I live now, but Atlanta is itself hardly Southern. ("I don't live in Georgia," I tell people, "I live in Atlanta.")

The Foundry: The Rust Belt of the Great Lakes states and southern Ontario, stretching all the way to New Jersey. The home of heavy industry, the birthplace of the brownfield. The most populated of the Nine Nations -- for now -- and the only one in which labor unions are a force. Its financial capital is New York, but its heart is in Detroit.

Quebec: The only Nation that exists on the map today, and the only one that knows more French than "merci beaucoup". It's in Canada, for now, and might be the first step on the road to the breakup of the nations we have now.

New England: Garreau throws in the Canadian Maritime Provinces, and excludes the Connecticut bedroom communities near New York, but it's basically what we have now on the map. Basically, if you're a Red Sox fan, you're in New England.

The Islands: Miami and points south, including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and northern Venezuela. The big industry is drug-running, followed by bootleg Jimmy Buffett CD's and tourism. You need a boat and a suntan to fit in.

The idea is great, staggering, if you will. It explains... well, not everything about cultural geography, but lots and lots. The book, on the other hand... well...

It's awfully, awfully dated, of course, by virtue of being twenty years old. There's quite a lot about the energy crisis that doesn't have much relevance to today (check back next week, though). It talks a lot about the limitless future of the microchip; and we're kind of seeing what those limits are now.

However, the book itself is secondary to the idea. Garreau explains the idea at length, even including aberrations like Manhattan, Washington DC, and Hawaii. He takes us to all Nine Nations and explains not only the boundaries but the ethos, and introduces us to the issues and the people that populate each of them. (Not to mention their unique mental illnesses; acute loneliness in the Empty Quarter, the link between joblessness and depression in the Foundry, and the trendy sillinesses of Ecotopia.)

If the idea interests you at all, or helps you in sorting out this wacky idea called America (and the even more wacky idea called Canada), this book is for you. Otherwise, go live your lives.

Usually, if I can remember the jist of a book I read 6 months earlier, I consider that it was worthwhile having read the book. I read this book more than 30 years ago and I still remember the names of his regions and consider them whenever I visit or read about any place in the US. It changed the way I think about North American geography and many times I've mentally tinkered with his regions as a way of updating them.

A truly eye opening book. I’ve lived in America most of my life and this was like seeing it for the first time. Of the nine “nations” of North America the author delves into in great detail to highlight their regional flavors, I’ve lived in three and spent time in another two. I can definitely confirm everything he’s saying, I just never saw what was going on around me with such detail, with the exception perhaps of my stint in Ectopia. While many leave their heart in San Francisco, Ectopia is where I left mine. Would love to return some day. And after reading this book I have a better sense of where exactly in Ectopia I would care to relocate.

This book is great homework for authors looking to set a story in a particularly region of the U.S. And it’s also invaluable for people who just want to see the big picture of what it’s really like to live in North America—it’s a distinctly different experience depending on what region you’re in. Different enough that the author’s title if a fair one.

"Writer hits homer but fails to score"

Twenty years ago I read Raymond Gastil's "Cultural Regions of the United States" and found it very interesting, so when I spotted the title of Garreau's book I bought it immediately, thinking that North America was an apter field for such researches than just the USA. No doubt, Garreau has some very interesting ideas. His choices for designating the nine nations are sound and appeal to the imagination as well. I was especially impressed with some of the conclusions he reached, back in the late `70s, (the book came out in 1981, so all the research was done prior to that). His view of south Florida and its connection to the Caribbean and South America proved extremely prescient given the events of 2000. The "MexAmerican" future of much of the Southwest is coming to pass. His predictions about the future of hi-tech in New England and environmental concerns in "Ecotopia" (northwest Pacific coast) also impress the reader of two decades on. But overall, I felt that THE NINE NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA fell through the cracks. Garreau really never defines what he means by a "nation". Is it different from a "cultural region" ? What are the defining characteristics of other world nations that may resemble one or more of the North American "nations" ? Does the author find any similarities ? Are economic realities often the basis of nations ? [Looking at Africa I would say no.] Secondly, his interviews and researches are extraordinarily diffuse, amounting sometimes to an unbelievably scattershot approach, hoping to hit something valuable. Time and time again, I found myself wondering, "What does this have to do with defining a nation ?" A total amateur myself, who has never attempted any work of the sort, I still felt that I could have rounded up more evidence in support of my argument than Garreau did. The reader often loses sight of any argument at all. The author's style is eminently readable, pleasant, and entertaining. He obviously has a great sense of humor. Whether that is enough to carry a reader through 390 pages is up to you.

Very good, prescient insight into America at the dawn of the Reagan years. Amazing how some issues seem to be at the exact same stage thirty-plus years later.

Garreau foretells of some things to come that will impact the US:
- the insulation of the Washington, DC area from the rest of the country, both economically and otherwise, rendering it less of a reflection on the country as a whole
- Miami as the epicenter of Latin American culture, and essentially the East Coast's answer to Las Vegas
- Mexican/Central/Southern American immigration and its impact on cities/regions (at the time confined to the American Southwest, but beginning to branch out)
- The importance of Silicon Valley and the Pacific Northwest for establishing direct links with the Far East (at the time this book was written, it was Japan, not China, seen as the forthcoming dominant economy)
- The rush to drill for oil in the upper Mountain West / northern Plains states and the impact of lower/semi-skilled workers pouring into rural communities with little infrastructure, housing, civil services, etc.

Yet there are other statements that have not come to bear. For example, Los Angeles has not eclipsed New York as the cultural & commercial vanguard city. And New England is not in terminal decline, nor are all of America's industrial cities.

The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau (Avon Books 1981)(973.92). The author argues that the state borders in North America, Canada, and Mexico are arbitrary and provide no meaningful distinctions. He proposes to redistrict North America into "nine nations" based on commonality of purpose and interests, natural features, ecosystems, and economic similarities. It's a fascinatingly cogent argument, and it makes as much sense today as when the book was written. My rating: 8/10, finished 1981.

After rereading this, I'm upgrading it to five stars. Yes, it's dated at this point, but I kept coming across stories I read years ago and still remembered because they became part of me. I had forgotten they originally came from this book. This remains my favorite book on North American regions ever. Recommended.

I can appreciate the premise a lot.

We can nitpick about this or that, whether Garreau's treatment is accurate or not (or whether it was in/accurate even when the book was published), but it doesn't change the overall message: you are where you live.

The fundamental fault with nation-states - that we all instinctively acknowledge - is just this: they are artificial. Differences might be eroding over time, but not necessarily. On the contrary: we have Scotts who want to be Scottish not British, Quebecers who want to be Quebecers rather than Canadian, the Basques, the Sami, etc. The list is getting longer - not shorter.

In moral stand point alone we should always let "nations" (for a lack of better word) be what they want to be. The geography matters. It always has and always will.

For example New Yorkers aren't exactly Americans either. They just happen to speak English (or at least try to for a whopping 36% of New Yorkers (and that particular piece of statistics is outdated by 8 years already, mind you) are foreign-born - and the rest are either out-of-towners or just plain old, largely anonymous suburbanites). New Yorkers are Big City Dwellers. Just like those living in Moscow, Tokio, Paris, London and so on. They have a different lifestyle, a different mind frame than someone who for example lives in a small town - let alone village or a farm. Just like the one who lives in Ithaca has less to do with him/her being an "American" than it is about him/her being someone who - for one reason or the other - resides in a distinctly University Town. Call them U-Towners if you will.

A yuppie (are we still allowed to use that term?) New Yorker can't expect to stay the same if s/he is to move to a less crowded place. Ditto with rednecks. It wouldn't work, it never does.

I'm guessing before patriotism people just got along. As neighbors they pretty much have to. They might hate each others guts but what can they do? If neither one is willing to call it quits and leave, there's only one thing they can do without a fear of retaliation: you learn to tolerate. In time you might learn to see your neighbor's point of view - or at least your kids will. Sometimes it takes a generation or two to dispel idiocy. In the end they all get along famously. And all is good.

That is until some first-grade assholes come along, tell you lies about your neighbor and finally ask you to wipe them off the face of the planet - for no good reason... Well, other than the gun pointed at your own head. We hate to kill but we dislike dying even more. It's just that simple.

Review title: The Splintering States of America

When you shop the last day of a charity used-book sale, you can find the stuff nobody else wanted that can be minor finds, like my previous Historic Britain review noted. In Nine Nations, I found a journalist's study of how geographically, historically, culturally, ethnically, and economically the US, while consisting of 50 governing units called states actually aligns into nine unique regions or nations. Long before the blunt-force Red State/Blue State divide on party voting grounds, Washington Post writer Joel Garreau expanded his journalists' bull-pen sessions into a newspaper series and finally this book-length survey published in 1981.

The borders of the 50 states, and their neighbors north and south, are mostly accidents of history or diplomacy, with a few logical borders along geographical barriers like rivers, lakes, or mountains, so based on his travels around the continent Garreau drew his own borders grouping states and regions into what he defines as de-facto self-sustained nations. I was intrigued to learn about how he drew his boundaries and if those boundaries matched the Red/Blue divide of today in bitterness and and the resulting fragility of the social fabric. While the America emerging from the 70s seemed a nation with deep fractures (I graduated from high school in 1977 and got married in 1980 so I remember well the double-digit inflation and unemployment that brought Jimmy Carter to defeat after a single term) in Garreau's survey the nine nations' borders represented natural transitions and not a broken union. "It's not that social contracts are dissolving; it's just that the new one are being born. . . . Our values are separable from our regimes." (p. xvi).

Consider, instead, the way North America really works. It is Nine Nations. Each has its capital and its distinctive web of power and influence. A few are allies, but many are adversaries. Several have readily acknowledged national poets, and many have characteristic dialects and mannerisms. Some are close to being raw frontiers; others have four centuries of history. Each has a peculiar economy; each commands a certain emotional allegiance from its citizens. These nations look different, feel different, and sound different from each other, and few of their boundaries match the political lines drawn on current maps. (p. 1)

Garreau steps the nine nations with a chapter for each. Some are obvious: New England, the Breadbasket, Dixie, the Foundry--his name for the industrial northeast, Great Lakes Canada, and the Rust Belt of the upper Midwest. Some were at the time unexpected but have proved prescient in the decades since: MexAmerica extends from northern Mexican to southern New Mexico and across to Los Angeles and along the San Joaquin Valley of California all the way to Sacramento. Along the California coast and north from Sacramento all the way along the coast of British Columbia to Southern Alaska is Ecotopia. Inland along the Rocky Mountains from Denver north to Prudhoe Bay is The Empty Quarter, kown for rugged unpopulated vista's and abundant coal, oil, and other mineral resources. South from its capital Miami, lies The Islands, encompassing the islands and coastlines of the Gulf of Mexico that define the Caribbean. And unique as the only nation with both a self-contained political border and a national language that isn't English is Quebec. Besides Quebec, none of the nations align with existing state or even national boundaries. The map section in the center shows the boundaries for each nation with its capital city and border cities. The capital of The Foundry is Detroit, with border cities Chicago on the west, Indianapolis and Cincinnati on the southwest, Washington DC and Baltimore on the southeast, New York City (but not Manhattan, which he explains in the "Aberrations" chapter), and Ottawa in the North. The maps are fun to study but would have been improved by showing existing state and national boundaries as lighter dotted lines.

The two nations crossing the US's southern borders--MexAmerica and The Islands--were facing the same issue of immigration that still dominates today's news. "It would appear that if [The Island's capital] Miami doesn't want these [Haitian and Cuban] refugees, its only option is to start taking an active hand in the affairs of the regimes under which they're starving. Either that, or push the boat people back out into the water to drown, which seems unlikely, although that's been the answer in other parts of the world. " (p. 180). MexAmericans complained about "alien hordes" (p. 216) while ignoring the fact that "the Anglo world is the latest invader of these parts, not the Indian, Mexican, and Spanish." (p. 217)

The Nations have matured and changed in relative importance over time. The Foundry was "still a formidable place" (p. 64) in 1981 despite its fading rust belt cities and the gloom and doom equating the decline of The Foundry with the decline of the United States. "The error, as this continent matures, is in our unquestioningly equating the inevitable decline in the Foundry's dominance with an inevitable decline in the world position of the United States or Canada." (p. 65) Elsewhere Garreau notes that "power, money, thought, talent, information, resources, and population" (p. 6) have and will disperse through the nine nations differently through time. And those thoughts (and power) often don't align. For example, "In MexAmerica [then as now facing chronic water shortages] the idea of a freshwater supply flowing unchecked into the sea is considered a crime against nature--a sin. In Ecotopia, leaving a river wild and free is viewed as a blow struck for God's original plan for the land." (p. 5). Indeed, Ecotopia, with its environmentalism and "smaller is better" Silicon Valley manufacturing, changed the definition of progress (P. 262). Meanwhile, in 1981, "Unlike Ecotopia, development is a religion in the Empty Quarter, which has done with so little for so long." (p. 306).

The half-century of history since those words were written by Garreau have opened the eyes of the faithful and confirmed to the apostate Ecotopians that development does have limits, and the limits are often driven by resources--surprisingly often water--or realities--technologies like fracking have side effects and world markets can make or break development. As Garreau saw then, "when it comes to the choices of agriculture, industrialization, urbanization, and wilderness" some nations will get to pick three out of four, but others only one. (p. 312)

Nine Nations is definitely written in a journalist's prose and style, with interesting vignettes and interviews used to make broader points. Garreau does include "Suggested References", which include unique things like nation-defining music and literature, but no footnotes. In that sense it isn't scholarly, but that doesn't diminish its value, and as the intervening decades have left it a historical artifact the cultural and time-bound references add to its value. And the last half-century hasn't proven him wrong.

How many people read a geography book because they feel like it? I think it was a first for me.

I read this back in the 90's. I was a mother returning to school to finish the degree I'd abandoned, and I was taking a class titled Geography of Cities. In one of his lectures, the instructor mentioned this book. It wasn't required of us, and in fact if I ordered it, the class would end before it would arrive. But I was intrigued. Dividing the continent into 9 nations based on their similarities of the things geography, as a discipline, is divided by: climate, topography, culture, and economics. Thus, my home in Seattle would not be part of Washington State, USA, but would instead be combined with the Willamette Valley (western Oregon between the Cascade Mountain range and the Pacific Ocean); what is now western British Columbia, Canada; and Northern California to the west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. I was intrigued. "Excuse me!" my hand flew up. "Could you give us that title and author one more time, please?"

Christmas morning it beckoned. I was on a school break (the luxury of being a college student!) and I was completely intrigued. I tore through it rapaciously. The narrative was so absorbing and the idea so interesting to me. Much of North America is divided politically, though of course rivers and other natural boundaries sometimes factor in. I enjoyed the read so much that I have referred at least a dozen other people to it, and have loaned it out perhaps as much as our downtown library has lent its own copy!

By now this is probably available at a discount somewhere. If you run across it, and if the notion of carving up the continent sparks interest in you as it did in me (not as a practical notion of course, just theoretical), give it a try. You haven't read a book like this one.

This study of regional differentiations is more entertainment than scholarly treatise. At this point much of the material is dated and most of it is anecdotal, but still interesting in the sense of getting a feel for local traditions and peculiarities. Some of the allegations are clearly untrue or at least no longer true and many border on stereotype, insult and rationalization. Still, an interesting start at a conversation about region, but not the last word.

A few reviews I've seen say it remains timely after 37 years, others have complained about how dated it is. I am on the side of dated. I prefer Colin Woodard's American Nations, because it delved into the why and how with a good historical analysis. Both books failed to catch the more important urban/rural divide and the digital divide (understandable with this book given when it was written).

A solidly useful book. Written by a newspaper man it reads well, informative enough to teach you a new way of thinking about America but not so completely dry that bores you to tears. The writting is engaging and descriptive.
As the title suggests the author considers America from the perspective of cultural similarities as opposed to state and national lines which are mostly arbitrary anyway.
The first nation he talks about is New England. New England as he sees it is the Northern East Coast. The oldest of the states, they consider themselves the only true civilized people in America. Essentially the place is all snobbery and idiocy. The people there refuse to build anything there like power plants to supply themselves with electricity because it would spoil their priceless view, which to be fair, the authors states is fairly spectacular (I wouldn't know I have never been). Still, the cold makes the place not all that great for farming, it doesn't seem to have many natural resources to fall back on, not that they would allow their vistas to be spoiled by such industry anyway means the this place of 'civilization' is completely dependent on the other nations for their wants.
The next nation he discusses is The Foundry. I write this from Baltimore which is where he opens the chapter, so this was the segment I was most interested in. The Foundry is the traditional home of the heavy industry, like steel mills and such. It stretches from below the New England nation down to Northern VA and inward to just after lake Michigan. It includes all the cities you would think of if you thought heavy industry Pittsburgh (the Steelers), Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. Anyways the Foundry is the historic home of such industry. The problem is the industry is moving away. Either being outsourced to other countries or plants having moved their operations closer to the source of this or that other plant. In a word the foundry is rusting and dying. People are following the jobs, which are moving south and the foundry needs to wake up and figure out what it is going to do in the future. Personally I found this rather heartbreaking and almost didn't keep reading.
The nest little bit he spends talking about places which are really not part of any nation because they are their own thing. Such places are like New York City and Washington D.C., and Alaska and Hawaii to a lesser extent. The New York City aberration does not include the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, or Harlem, those are all deeply ingrained Foundry. Alaska likes to take pride in being its won thing but is really one of the other nations he gets to later, and Hawaii he says is as much an Asian aberration as it is a North American one.
Dixie is next, it stretches from the base of the Foundry all the way down to the all but the very tip of Florida and inwards to about Houston, forming an arc back to the coast touching St. Louis. Dixie is one of the places all the jobs from the Foundry are going for lower wages. The wages paid in Dixie go a lot farther than they do up north so no one is complaining. Dixie is also the place international companies are going to get in on the American market. Dixie is growing fast and has embraced the mobile home as its housing of choice for all its new inhabitants. Interestingly enough all this growth has been helped rather than impeded by EPA regulations. Dixie politicians tell companies: 'yeah you have to meet these requirements but you should come here because we don't put any additional restrictions up, unlike other parts of the country.' Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions is that the south is still poor, stupid, and rural. Dixie is growing and these things are not nearly as true as they used to be and are continuing to change.
The next nation is the Islands which is the southern tip of Florida and all of the islands in the caribean. You can sum up the islands with the word Drugs. Everything is bought with drug money and everyone but the law men (and even a number of those guys) are in on it and there is no way to stop it.
Mexamerica follows which is Mexico and the area America killed the Mexicans for to make it part of America. Mexamerica is therefore full of people who have historically been Mexican which contributes to the general outlook on life as long suffering which contrasts the Anglo view of if the environment isn't just as you want it, alter it to fit your needs. Mexamerica population centers are products of the internal combustion engine which allows the speedy ferrying of goods to them and modern plumbing which transports the scarce water from all around to slake their people's first. In fact water is one of the principle concerns of the mexamerican citizen. Nothing is done without first thinking of where the water was going to come from for the project. The border between the US and Mexico is a joke with Mexican citizens allowed to leave for America and come back without a passport. The author speaks to how many Americans believe that all the benefits about illegals into the country goes to Mexico but this is not actually true. He notes that illegals not only work for lower wages than any other group in this country would be willing to take but the idea that they are draining the economy with welfare is false as well since many of the workers not only leave their families behind to be bread winners here and send the money back to them but the overwhelming majority have FICA taken out of their paychecks before they get them jsut like everyone else. They also don't particularly like living here and would much rather be back in Mexico. The author continues that the people that the more hardliners on securing the Mexican border are the people who know the least about the situation. There is another bit about how the real border is something like 75 miles inland from the stated Mexican American border where there is a lot of investment by more international companies looking to cash in on the Spanish speaking market that is also the site of a great deal of US investment money that ships goods to the US after taking advantage of dirt cheap wages which I would explain in more detail but I can't find the section and am too lazy to spend all that long looking for it.
On to Ecotopia. Ecotopia hugs the coast from northern California up along the edge of Alaska. Ecotopia is the land of deep woods where conservation and recycling is the name of the game. Essentially Ecotopia is the land of Hippies and Environmentalists. They are gifted with an abundance of renewable resources so they don't need to rely on other nations to supply them with much. That is about all I have to say about Ecotopia. It is beautiful out there, so sayeth the author and I agree.
I am tired of writing this review so I am going to super summarize.
The Empty Quarter is a nation that traces the outter edges of the West coast nations and explodes upwards. The Empty Quarter is where the population is super thin. It is the land where at any point of civilization it'll be something like 400 miles to the next major population center.
Moving briskly on the Breadbasket is exactly what is sounds like. It is where we grow everything. Problem being that a lot of people want to farm there but because there is such high demand the property prices are incredibly high, leading to less and less profit for the actual farmer if you can even call it that in the first place. A pittance is really what it is, just enough to keep them alive and farming. The author goes into how in America a farmer is on his own trying to get the best sales price for his goods on the open market and follows the market closely to take advantage of the least hike in prices to sell. In Canada they created a government board which buys it all from the farmers at a flat rate so that people don't get completley shafted.
Last is Quebec which has this whole separatist history and of course is the source of the French speaking Canadian everything. Interesting to note but not particularly relevant to the US other than it has this huge self sufficiency streak which hay leas to it supply the power for places like New York City which are power guzzlers.
The one real criticism of this book which is by and large awesome, informative, and interesting is that it is super dated. It was written in 1980 and as such all of his numbers are out of date. What I would really like to see is the author come back at this idea today and comment on what turned out from his predictions and what didn't, perhaps why. Revise the lines of the nations to reflect the changes and offer more predictions and trends to watch out for.

Because this revolves around geographical location, I'll have to reveal some information about myself first. It's also important to note that this book was written in the eighties, so you'll have a fun ride rating how tall some of Joel's points still stand. I'm writing this review in October, about a month after completion, and the timing is truly ideal. I'm mega curious as to how the political assblast was released in the past. Today, if you catch yourself absorbing any television, or programming with a commercial break, you're guaranteed the sneaky urge to launch the nearest throwable object through the screen; you see Mark Kelly paint his opposition in the sh*ttiest of lights, and the clips always look like some garbage class project. I've been lucky enough to have the experience through Telemundo, and listening to the previously mentioned candidate say he "approves this message" in his remarkably awful attempt at Spanish, is worth a chortle. Welcome to MexAmerica.
I've spent a couple weeks in Knoxville, I've slurped some grits in Jacksonville ;), and I've waited thirty minutes in the Philadelphia airport to grab the check for a stupid blue moon. I know about Dixie and I know about the Foundry.
I've seen Good Will Hunting and Scarface, I know about New England, I know about the Islands. Superman is from the breadbasket and Jacques Clouseau could be from Quebec. In my professional career, I'm investigating some ecotopia-spirited individuals, be ready to sign up for the abundance mindset. Consider getting out of your sustainable composting class and being off to Venture Capitalism 101.
In the digital age, it's mind-blowing to some about how we can't all get along. Born lucky and going strong as a glass half fuller, I'm impressed with how far we've got and how far it looks we're going. It's pretty nutty to consider that the Cuban GTA players of Miami are voting under the same flag as the conflicting Alaskans. Then you have the "aberrations", spots like DC where Politics is like Fantasy Football. That Manhattan pocket, I wonder if its really that wild. Hawaii's history and how "the island grew quickly in the seventies when “the introduction of jumbo jets that could dump 350 tourists from North America and Japan at a clip”. Hawaii is a place of ecotopian possibilities with mex american growth values and limits, run by asians” (118).
Joel put it down how it makes sense. He told a great story, provoking those who are simply interested in people.
Forgetful during the exposition of this review, I forgot to mention that I was about to start trainhopping before finding this book, yet this served as a sort of trial run. Hopping on trains, headed out east to get laid in Virginia, and learn about the current psychedelic use of the country along the way. (I made the crushing mistake of telling my parents my plan).
So. .
If you're reading this review, and want to re birth this adventure, make Joel and I proud. I'll get around to the train hopping later, or maybe we can go together. Usually a movie would have me stoked to go to one spot, like how Fast and Furious 1 makes you feel like you're really there in '01 LA, the Mexamerican capital. Get inspired, let the imagination roll. Little mini goal of mine is to make the journey, spend some time in each nation, get well rounded.
Mahalo

-vipersnipe October 1 2022

"We were never one nation, really".---Nathaniel Hawthorne, on the outbreak of the Civil War

Here's the one and only time I am ever going to agree with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, I hope: "It's time for a national divorce". Yes, Marjorie, but not of blue states from red states, as you suggest. A much better answer is found in the classic THE NINE NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA. ( I am omitting from this reviews Canada and Quebec, so it's really seven nations, not including Alaska or Hawaii.) Once I told a female friend that I had lived in, worked at, or visited all seven except what Joel Garreau calls, "The Empty Quarter", that vast stretch of land the begins at St. Louis and ends in Seattle. She was deeply offended. Taking the name from Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter, this region is likewise largely empty of people but mineral rich, with the Rockies standing in for sand dunes. Let it secede. Does anybody really care what happens in Wyoming? South Florida must declare its independence and link up with its true economic and cultural partner, the Caribbean. (I once suggested online the name "The Republic of New Africa" for this entity and got fried for it.) Dixie, as Garreau dubs the region from North Florida to Texas to Virginia, is already a compact and distinct nation, with its own dialect, food, race relations, bad education and overripe religion. Anybody who wants to stay in Mississippi deserves to live in Mississippi. Here's a Garreau observation that hits close to home: "For reasons I don't understand Cubans are the only major immigrant group to come to this country and not pick up a derogatory nickname, except with an adjective, as in "those f*cking Cubans!". The Pacific Northwest, with its wavy-gravy politics and an economy pointed at Japan and China must go, while Southern California belongs to the nation of Mexico, along with Arizona and New Mexico. I'm sure an American coup could be arranged in Mexico City. Dairyland, also mockingly known as the Midwest, can stay together but link up economically with Canada and Quebec---the three frost bite republics. New York is the natural leader of the remaining nation, the Northeast, though its not clear how Maine and Vermont would feel sharing revenue money with New York City. These are the nine, or of you prefer, seven notions of North America, for I agree with Garreau that a nation starts with an attitude. A marvelous book, still causing hot debate four decades after the first, but not last, edition.

I first heard about this title at a library conference in the 1980-90s and enjoyed reading it afterwards. If I had followed my original career plans, it would have been good basis for a history/other social sciences unit (as presented at the conference).

Since then some other similar titles have been published and I also found them interesting. The background to our separate "nations" within the nations is still true, but it's always interesting to see where things may have changed over the years.

While this book is in some ways dated (it was published in 1981), it still provides an insight into the economic, political, and geographic (in the full sense of the discipline) differences between areas of the United States, Canada, and Mexico that are not defined by political boundaries. It's a good companion to Colin Woodard's American Nations which takes a historical view of these regions.

It’s outdated now, but it was a great portrait of the different Americas in its day. I read it now because I believe somebody should write a new one now and there would be many more facets with a lot more to say, post Trump.

Interesting enough read. As it's an older book, it's interesting to see how much has changed in these modern "nations" as compared to the authors predictions. Overall an interesting read, but as dry as a crisp cider. Can't do half stars but 3.5/5

Interesting concept but use of anecdotes versus analytics fails to make a compelling case. Nonetheless travel and history has taught me there’s more than a kernel of truth in the notion.

out of date now, but very influential

Interesting premise, I disagree with how he has partitioned North America.

A good idea and well written, but it is a current events book from 1981 and suffers for its datedness. An updated version written for the current era would be well warranted.

It's a bit dated (1981), but much of it is very relevant still today. It is very well-written, engaging, and educational. I enjoyed it and I think you will, too!

Gave insight to regional differences

Excellent reference book to understand the historical cultural/economic/regional history of the US.

First off, let's realize the publication date on this is 1981. As such, it's rather dated.

His description of "nations," being places with common concerns, values, etc. is apt. As I've visited different states within the US, they definitely have different concerns, values, mores, attitudes, etc. It would be fascinating for him (or someone else) to do a follow-up, modernized version of this book, reflecting how things have changed (or remained the same) in the intervening decades.

That said, it's was a wry, funny and often enlightening trip throughout the US.

I've spent most of my life in either the Breadbasket or Dixie, depending on where you look. I call the Springfield, Missouri area home, these days, which is on the fringe of Dixie. I've also lived in the Saint Louis and Kansas City areas (KC is the capitol of the Breadbasket). I've been to Chicago and Detroit a time or two (the Foundry) and I've visited Boston part of the east coast (mostly New England). I absolutely love San Francisco, Seattle and Vancouver (Ecotopia). I have no use for Phoenix (MexAmerica). I like parts of North Carolina and Virginia (Dixie), even though their attitudes are more "southern" than where I live today. I've lived in the Provo/Orem/Salt Lake City/Ogden metroplex for a while, as well (Empty Quarter). I've not seen Quebec. I've spent very little time in the Islands (southern Florida, the Caribbean and parts of northern South America); I liked Puerto Rico.

And yes, that's all Nine Nations.

People in the Empty Quarter, which includes Utah and Colorado west of Denver, see the land as beautiful and waiting to be used. They look at the messes made in MexAmerica (Los Angeles) and the Foundry (the Rust Belt; Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburg) and decide that yeah, they need development but they can avoid making the mistakes those areas made. Ecotopia doesn't believe that development is really needed; better to leave the land as pristine as you inherited it. Those constitutes some very different attitudes.

New England tends to think of themselves as civilized and tends to regard the Breadbasket as backwards. The Breadbasket (including KC, St Louis and Minneapolis) are anything but backwards; the people there tend to fairly well-read, fairly well-informed and very pragmatic. Everyone finds New England and Ecotopia to be a bunch of snobs, albeit for different reasons.

Have seen most of them, I prefer Ecotopia. There's just something to be said for that rainy corner of North America, stretching from San Francisco up past Vancouver, BC and stretching into the southeastern corner of Alaska. I identify with their ideas that we don't NEED to tear the mountains down, stripmine the place and leave a mess. That's all too common in places like West Virginia.

Prior to reading this book, I had no real desire to see Quebec. Having read it, I'm thinking it might be nice. Don't know that I'd want to live there, but it would definitely be nice to visit.

The author's writing style is engaging and funny. He talks about how, after most of the US had determined that a central government, which can command an army to fend off other nations or have a national treasury to sponsor major public works projects, Dixie decided to 'rearrange the architecture of Fort Sumter.' I went back and read that line multiple times, laughing each time. Or, in Ecotopia, people think it's a bad idea to put a Liquid Natural Gas plant (which, if it explodes, has about the same destructive potential as a medium-yield atomic bomb) someplace seismically active. They think it's an even worse idea to put in a seismically active area, less than 100 miles from a nuclear reactor. And they think it's an even worse idea to put it in a seismically active area, less than 100 miles from a nuclear reactor and less than 100 miles from a major population center. That's not word-for-word but you get the idea. And I can't say as I disagree.

Realize that it's dated. Laugh at the fact that Wyoming is looking, at the time of the writing, at a major oil shale boom (boy, that sounds familiar). And catch up with some very interesting history along the way.

Garreau offers up an interesting snapshot of North America in 1980; where various regions stood and where they seemed to be heading in the wake of the 1970s. Had I read the book at the time it was published I might have given it a higher rating; from our vantage point, three decades removed from the time it was written, it is easy to identify what Garreau got right and what he got wrong. "Predictions," as Yogi Berra observed, "are tough to make, especially about the future."

One factor that perhaps deserved more consideration is that of interconnections (and the relative strength or weakness of those interconnections) between different regions. As an example, I have close relatives in five of the regions identified by Garreau. While the views of this small sample population have undoubtedly been influenced by growing up in what Garreau identifies as The Foundry, their views are also influenced by experiences in the regions which they currently reside in. Perhaps even more now than three decades ago, national and international media sources, both in news and entertainment, play a important role in influencing people.

I also felt that the book could have been stronger had Garreau taken into consideration previous works that had examined regional differences within North America, and how they might agree or conflict with his thesis. One such example would be Daniel Elezar's work in identifying the three primary political cultures (

Where to begin?

When I first read the basic premise of this book, I was very itrigued. I thought that there would be an in-depth discussion of the different interests of the "nine nations" and the ramifications of having such diverse interests bounded within a single country. What I found seemed more suited to a Rick Steves show. Basically, Garreau started with his premise, did little to back it up, and then meandered through random bits of quasi-journalism, comparing apples to oranges and expecting the reader to believe that since his thesis is obviously true, making the comparisons he does makes perfect sense. There is no sense of direction, no common thread holding things together, not even a conclusion to try to wrap things up.

In the end, I was left with a profound sense of "what the f*ck was the point of all that?" Sheer stubbornness allowed me to finish, working through the aforementioned problems with the subject matter, the horrible moments of un-PC datedness, and my personal annoyance at books that have very few section breaks.