It's an interesting work and well worth reading, although it's more than a bit broad-brush in its discriminants. Ferligoj, Batagelj and Doreian did an analysis a few years ago using relational-constraint clustering of counties with Census data and found that the "Nine Nations" thesis actually conforms quite well to clustering by race, age, land usage and economic data.
My dad loved it in the '80s, and I read it some time in the late 80s when I was in my tweens. I probably didn't understand a lot, and I've forgotten a lot, but that map is good, and I do use it a short hand a lot in my thinking to this day.
Though I do think that some peopleº treat it as more than a short hand - and like all stereotypes it can cause more harm than good when actually believed.
º I recently heard a barista talking passionately about "Freeing Cascadiaºº"
ººNot literally one of the 9 nations, but a related idea
Cascadia the idea appears to be growing in the Seattle region.
Can't say I entirely disagree: the PNW does have a definite bent to its culture (I've lived in PNW^H^H^HCascadia for about a year now - loving it so far).
I have. I loved it. I mean no book is perfect, but it is well written and researched. What makes it most interesting is when you consider the state of the world when it was written (1981) and how much of it is still relevant today.
I read the book when it came out and found it thought-provoking enough to remember it 33 years later. If you're only familiar with part of North America, it's a good look at how different various regions are. It's probably too dated now for me to recommend it.
I found Garreau's other book "Edge City" to have more impact on my views in the long run, and I'd recommend it.
I read it, back in the day. In fact, I think I still have a copy.
I thought it made a lot of sense. I mean, you can take anything too far, and any place has a spectrum of people in it. Even so, as the author said, events happen differently in different parts of the country, and the difference is something you can describe.
I read it a few years back. It provides pretty detailed and interesting explanations for naming certain cultural regions and drawing divisions the way they are. But even in '81, and especially now, there are a lot more aberrations than Garreau sees fit to point out. Myself, and others, have highlighted some of these unacknowledged aberrations elsewhere in the thread. Some aberrations might be large enough to even designate new "Nations". But for someone living outside the US, or anyone else unfamiliar with the general cultural differences and boundaries within the US, the book would still be worth reading and learning from even today, even if it paints in broad strokes.
It's possible to quibble with how some of the cultural areas are delimited. I would've drawn the lines differently - I think the divisions in Colin Woodard's more recent "American Nations" are more accurate (although also imperfect). The main takeaway is that the USA is incredibly culturally diverse, which is why it's so difficult to get things done on the federal level and why it'd probably be better served by even less centralization in government policy.
I found this book valuable, but for me it was preaching to the choir - it's pretty compatible with my own politics, and meshes with my own experience living in each of California, New York, and Texas.
