Regional Character
I don't remember who I was discussing this with, but recently I had a conversation with someone, possibly even someone who reads and comments here on the blog, about the character of various regional cultures. What do I mean?
Well, take for example the culture of the West Coast. I'm from the West Coast, so I know a bit about it. In Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, you will find largely the same cultural character. Now, you'll have your various outposts of peculiarity with comparison to the rest of the region; for example, one would not expect the same definition of cultural normalcy in Seattle, Washington; or Portland or Eugene, Oregon. That having been disclaimed, these areas are, for the most part, defined by a culture descended from tough, hard working people who took the Oregon Trail to the Oregon Territory in the 1830's in order to procure farm land. The work was hard, they knew it was going to be hard going into it, and the culture inherent to the area was forged from the character of people who came and settled with an ultimate goal of conquering a savage, untamed land.
Then, you have California. Never part of the Oregon Territory, California was little more than a barren desert that had once been claimed and overseen by the Spanish. That changed, however, when a German named Sutter found gold. Pretty soon, every derelict and wannabe adventurer was using any means necessary, be it overland or by sea, to get to California in hopes of striking it rich with little or no actual effort or talent. The difference in location between San Francisco, California and Bend, Oregon is a matter of a few hundred miles, but the difference in culture is astonishing. Whereas Idahoans, Oregonians, and Washingtonians have developed a culture based originally on hard work and agriculture, California has developed the kind of culture one would expect from the descendants of compulsive lottery players.
Is there any question that I'm not a huge fan of California?
The point, though, is that we sometimes pay too little attention to what factors originated certain cultures. We look at the Northeast, New England, and people like myself or Mo-Licious or Aaron will point out how liberal it is. Is that any surprise when you consider that the original Old World settlers of New England were the malcontents, religious dissenters, and sometimes even prisoners who fled Europe, and particularly England, because they were sick of the old way of doing things? New England exists in the first place because England was, at that point, too conservative and unchanging for the tastes of these people; their solution was to found a batch of colonies and establish new ways of doing things.
And of course, it goes beyond America. England, for example, developed into the nation it is today through a combination of geographic separation from the rest of Europe, and relative ease of overland travel; their diversity comes from the requirement, both for protection and for trade, that they maintain a strong naval force. This led to exploration and the search for new markets, which led to involvement in India, the Middle East, Hong Kong, et cetera.
And the French? Well, there has to be a black sheep in every good hypothesis. In the case of the French, I blame the wine.
Well, take for example the culture of the West Coast. I'm from the West Coast, so I know a bit about it. In Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, you will find largely the same cultural character. Now, you'll have your various outposts of peculiarity with comparison to the rest of the region; for example, one would not expect the same definition of cultural normalcy in Seattle, Washington; or Portland or Eugene, Oregon. That having been disclaimed, these areas are, for the most part, defined by a culture descended from tough, hard working people who took the Oregon Trail to the Oregon Territory in the 1830's in order to procure farm land. The work was hard, they knew it was going to be hard going into it, and the culture inherent to the area was forged from the character of people who came and settled with an ultimate goal of conquering a savage, untamed land.
Then, you have California. Never part of the Oregon Territory, California was little more than a barren desert that had once been claimed and overseen by the Spanish. That changed, however, when a German named Sutter found gold. Pretty soon, every derelict and wannabe adventurer was using any means necessary, be it overland or by sea, to get to California in hopes of striking it rich with little or no actual effort or talent. The difference in location between San Francisco, California and Bend, Oregon is a matter of a few hundred miles, but the difference in culture is astonishing. Whereas Idahoans, Oregonians, and Washingtonians have developed a culture based originally on hard work and agriculture, California has developed the kind of culture one would expect from the descendants of compulsive lottery players.
Is there any question that I'm not a huge fan of California?
The point, though, is that we sometimes pay too little attention to what factors originated certain cultures. We look at the Northeast, New England, and people like myself or Mo-Licious or Aaron will point out how liberal it is. Is that any surprise when you consider that the original Old World settlers of New England were the malcontents, religious dissenters, and sometimes even prisoners who fled Europe, and particularly England, because they were sick of the old way of doing things? New England exists in the first place because England was, at that point, too conservative and unchanging for the tastes of these people; their solution was to found a batch of colonies and establish new ways of doing things.
And of course, it goes beyond America. England, for example, developed into the nation it is today through a combination of geographic separation from the rest of Europe, and relative ease of overland travel; their diversity comes from the requirement, both for protection and for trade, that they maintain a strong naval force. This led to exploration and the search for new markets, which led to involvement in India, the Middle East, Hong Kong, et cetera.
And the French? Well, there has to be a black sheep in every good hypothesis. In the case of the French, I blame the wine.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home