Don't you let them hear you say that in DC, Becks.

Oh yeah! Except for DC!

(Although I'd be happy just with voting rights and stuff.)

Are you sure it's not just losing a that state you can't imagine? It didn't raise many eyebrows when Alaska and Hawaii became states, nor would it (I imagine) with DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. - it's just a matter of politics. Losing a state hasn't happened in ages, and for good reason.

re: 3

When was the last time the US lost a state, out of interest?

3 - Nah. Even gaining a state seems weird. We've got a big round number!

When was the last time the US lost a state, out of interest?

East Dakota, 1923. We've looked everywhere for it.

When was the last time the US lost a state, out of interest?

Not quite what you mean, but there is the lost State of Franklin.

4: Just a clumsy reference to the Civil War - we got those back of course.

5: 48 was a nice number too! It's 2*2*2*2*3, divisible by quite a lot.

51-55, not so much.

There's a Texas secession movement too. They made the Times some years ago because of their strategy of flooding the state with piddling bureaucratic claims. I remember that part of their schtick was a claim to Texas' original borders. So their spokesman was quoted saying "We have Aspen, we have Vail. This is good."

East Carolina University's band once did a halftime tribute to "East Carolina: The Forgotten State."

I don't want my state to secede. There are, however, a few states I'd like to kick the hell out.

I have a paranoid and probably ill-educated fear that if Democrats ever look as if we're going to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Texas will fission into five states, each with two senators. (Isn't that part of the treaty they joined the US under? That they could split into five parts at whim?)

It would be great if the states split up, because then Maryland could finally invade and occupy Delaware. We could put an end to their toll booths and take over the beaches we so richly deserve....

I'd've commented there, but I left the password for my pseudmail at home. Damn onerous security.

So I'll ask here (and who better than Megan to answer), that if California secedes and if the US is pissed, how feasible a project would it be for them to reroute the Colorado river to keep it in Arizona?

I am aware that this marks me as an idiot, but I confess that when I consider adding a 51st state one of my first thoughts is to wonder what that's going to do to the arrangement of stars on the flag.

Secessionists - and I say this as the distant relative of an extremely well-known secessionist from history - are idiots.

s/are idiots/are also idiots, but for different, more idiotic reasons.

13: I think the state once had that right, but it might have been invalidated by Reconstruction.

16: Link.

16: You've got a seriously bewhiskered Confederate lurking in your ancestry? Neat.

I've long believed that the whole idea of converting territories to states was a mistaken idea that should be reversed. Can't see what good's come of it.

I can think of 10 fine potential states, and they come with a great national anthem. Why oh why must they resist Manifest Destiny?

I've argued for years that we ought to give Florida back to Spain -- I wouldn't even ask for our money back.

20: Yeah, let's start with the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio.

I've long believed that the whole idea of converting territories to states was a mistaken idea that should be reversed. Can't see what good's come of it.

I'm pretty sure that if the process of converting territories into states hadn't been rather well established, Deseret (ruled by Brigham Young) would have been a bigger problem for the US.

may be this is a very stupid idea, but i always thought that Mexico could become another US state, and your illegal immigration problem is like solved overnight

19: Remembered more for crazy eyes than whiskers, but yeah.

Man, it's early in the morning - at least by my caffeine clock - so I'm having a completely irrational reaction of the "Paradisial Pacifica? Yeah, right" variety. Solution: coffee! How can anyone contemplate secession when there's delicious coffee to be had?

When I went to summer camp in Canada there was a kid who insisted there were 51 or 52 states in the US. I listed all 50 for him and he kept insisting I had forgotten some.
I've argued for years that we ought to give Florida back to Spain
Should have sold it a couple years ago and locked in your profit, now there's a glut in the market.

26: Oh, come now. Don't you know land prices in Florida have gone up 2001 since a thousand percent?

The rate of foreclosures on states is increasing. Can barely flip them any more.

I really sorta think of it as the U.S. dissolving into a few smaller countries. But no, I don't expect it to happen.

How feasible would it be to hold back the Colorado to punish a broken-away California? I don't know the plumbing on the Colorado at all, but I think they could store an awful lot of it away before it ever gets here, if they don't care whether they have a river at all. Lake Mead's been pretty empty recently.

But, they have compacts to deliver Colorado River water to Mexico, which they currently do through CA. They would have to re-route that to keep their international treaty with Mexico.

29: The US doesn't have a very good record with keeping international treaties. I don't see why fractions of it would do any better, particularly during times of upheaval.

But, the emotions behind it... You think that people really love the notion of the US more than they would love their smaller region? I don't care much at all about the whole U.S.. I'm sure parts of it are very nice, but I have no feelings whatsoever for, say, Michigan, and there are parts of the U.S. I would happily never have an association with again. I'm surprised (because I am a peasant) at the idea that it would bother people a lot to break up.

re: secession and countries splitting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/13/scotland.scotland

True to character, all I can think of is the extra immigration paperwork just to drive home for Christmas.

I'm pretty sure that if the process of converting territories into states hadn't been rather well established, Deseret (ruled by Brigham Young) would have been a bigger problem for the US.

I didn't say anything about giving up the territories, mind you, just not making them states. A certain amount of local self-government would be allowed, of course, within careful limits.

I feel attached to the entire US. Of course I was born in the midwest, raised in the east, and now live in the west. Also, watching college football strengthens my affinity for the various regions.

How about voting for Ron Paul and getting some actual real live federalism in the U.S.? States are way too centrally controlled from DC, DC preempts way too much of the tax base as well as the national borrowing ability, etc. Large states are especially screwed because of the undemocratic Senate.

A lot of what one might desire from secession could be achieved by true federalism. Only our messed up foreign policy would continue to be a problem. But Paul is against that too!

33: Don't you already have to do this now?

36: Federalism in what policy direction? Social policy I can see - I don't like the DOMA or how highway money etc. is held hostage to various demands - but seemstame with healthcare, social security, environment, and various business regulations, we're better off all living in the same regime.

During this administration, California isn't better living under the federal regime. They've been weakening our environmental laws. It doesn't have to be that way, but it has been recently.

You people seem to be forgetting that the US is primarily the support crew for the biggest military ever. Nothing that hinders or inconveniences war efforts will be tolerated. Perhaps limited independence would be accepted on a sort of protectorate basis, with the semi-independent region still paying war taxes to the remaining US. There would even be an advantage to that, since the remaining US could go to war against a detached California without raising all kinds of embarassing and puzzling questions.

A lot of what one might desire from secession could be achieved by true federalism. Only our messed up foreign policy would continue to be a problem

Federalism sounds great. If we could have six or eight smaller countries, united only by ease of immigration from one to another, there would be real incentives for them to become good places to live and draw people there.

Of course, some people would have to grow up in NoAbortionStan, but if they could move away easily to a place that isn't influenced by NoAbortionStan's politics, that's a necessary evil.

If we could have six or eight smaller countries, united only by ease of immigration from one to another, there would be real incentives for them to become good places to live and draw people there.

Like the EU, you mean?

Yes, exactly like the EU.

Like the EU, you mean?

How easy in immigration withing the EU? I know travel is easy, but I don't know anything about changing nationality?

in should be is in 44 obviously.

Texas will fission into five states, each with two senators. (Isn't that part of the treaty they joined the US under? That they could split into five parts at whim?)

Like Voltron, you mean?

Exactly like Voltron. I've been fretting about this for ages, and I'm sure it's no longer a viable legal option, but no one's ever shown me exactly what makes it no longer a viable legal option.

There are parts of the country that I would sorely miss if the Union were to dissolve. Texas would probably erect a 20-foot-tall wall around the perimeter of the state, and I'd never be able to get home. I like living on the East Coast but I don't feel much affection for it and I wouldn't much miss it as a place if I were to leave the District.

Yea, but states have become irrelevant. We let them do ceremonial stuff, like nominate Presidents, but they don't much affect our lives, beyond being the constituencies that elect Senators. It used to be that people really were citizens of a state. You were born, were schooled, worked, retired, died all in one state, or at most two. Now, people are mobile. It's not that unusual for someone to be born in one state, educated in another, get a first job in a third, marry in a fourth, settle to a career where one lives in a fifth, works in a sixth, and spends summer weekends in a seventh, retire to an eighth (or buy an RV and migrate between many). Megan is an exception. Becks perhaps overdoes the mobility bit, but is closer to typical.

If you wanted to make states important again, Antonin Scalia told you how -- repeal two amendments: the direct election of Senators and the income tax amendments. Devolve responsibility for the things the Federal government now does with its money back to the states and return the Senate to being the place state governments do their negotiating.

Once you've done that, then the states become important once again and how many there are matters. But right now, who cares?

Texas fission: a live possibility. Looks like it would also require the consent of Congress?

but they don't much affect our lives, beyond being the constituencies that elect Senators as well as:

--do a lot of the running of our schools
--maintain a lot of our roads
--to some degree regulate/limit the power of our municipalities
--set and collect sales tax
--do a good bit of the regulation of business
--set marriage policies
--regulate a great deal of election law
--fund and manage public universities

and on and on and on. Day-to-day life in NC might be a lot like life in SC or VA or TN but there are a lot of things that the state itself controls or maintains. On the other hand, I'm one of the people who has never lived in any state other than the one in which I was born.

Liquor laws vary tremendously from state to state, and it's annoying. Federalism sux.

The Texas seccessionists were universally recognized as Looney Tunes. They were left alone for a while because the county sheriff knew someone was going to get killed if they were confronted. One of them freaked when he saw a deputy's car and TOOK HIS NEIGHBOR HOSTAGE.
That speaks to the sort of folks they were. (Someone did get killed.) Texans are not agitating for seccession (or fission).

The Texas secessionists were universally recognized as Looney Tunes.

By other Texans? Where is the line drawn down there? As a Portland journalist said, if one possum were cuter than aother, only a third possum could tell.

They've been weakening our environmental laws. It doesn't have to be that way, but it has been recently.

On the other hand, without California, it would be even easier for the rest of the U.S. to continue its "hell with the world, we'll emit as much greenhouse gas as we want" attitude indefinitely.

51:

Yes, but most of these are more nuisances (even the liquor laws that 52 objects to) than life-changing. In the DC suburbs I suspect it matters more which side of a school district line you live than which side of a state line.

The Federal government imposes a whole bunch of constraints on states (by the pressure of money, if no other way). Our mobility, too, constrains them. How different are states policies on the items you list? How much does it matter which state you live in?

56: Well, if I lived in Mass. I'd be married now.

I apologize for the way 57 comes off as a lame attempt at an in your face sort of response; that's not how it's intended. It's just the first, most major difference that comes to mind, so I listed it. I'm familiar with the way NC regulates a lot of things but not with the way other states regulate most things differently so without some research I can't come up with a substantive answer other than that, or to note that if they'd grown up in one of some states rather than others then my nephews would have had Creationist stickers on their biology textbooks or that in some states friends of mine who have had abortions would not have been able to get them - that kind of thing which could be written off as an exception.

Even if they are exceptional circumstances that demonstrate rarely-seen differences from one state to another, they're sufficiently significant to me to make me believe that states very much still matter.

Has anyone here read Garreau's Nine Nations of North America?

Ari, that reminded me of this map, which my hippie 8th-grade Social Studies teacher had hanging on the wall in my little hometown in Mexamerica.

It depresses me to see abortion and marriage rights potentially dismissable as "exceptions." In particular, abortion, birth control and RU486 (let's not forget that lots of states have tried to restrict all three) can be life-changing for, oh, at least half the population.

I want one of those maps. Ebay here I come.

By other Texans? Where is the line drawn down there? As a Portland journalist said, if one possum were cuter than aother, only a third possum could tell.

We knew they were Looney Tunes because the "Republic of Texas" was partly a tax protest scheme. Real Texans cheat.

How easy is immigration within the EU?
There are rights to :
free movement of goods (very strong)
free movement of labour (strong)
freedom of establishment (strong)
free movement of capital (not as strong yet)

So you can go to another country, take a job or set up a business, and generally bring spouses and children. You also get the same entitlements as the locals with the exception of unemployment assistance.

Isn't free movement of labor in the EU less free in the case of recent members?

65. Yes, but the restrictions are time limited.

66: Measured in years? Postponable at the moment of truth?

The dark side of Vermont's secessionist sympathies, which mostly exemplify the state's endearingly quirky independent streak, is that some towns have decided that they should likewise be allowed to secede from the state to protect their financial interests. Mostly, though, VT secessionists are an interesting bunch of activists; not crazy/violent like their Texas counterparts, though they appeal similarly to their state's history as an independent republic (the Vermont Commons site is an interesting read).

I've always thought a non-US Vermont would more likely be achieved by annexation of the northern part of the state by a newly independent Quebec, or by federation with the ideologically similar Cascadia, sort of like East and West Pakistan in 1947. Of course, the latter didn't work out too well for Bangladesh in the end, so probably best leave things as they are.

Megan's post struck me as a very Californian perspective. I don't think any other state has such a strong sense among its people of an identity as citizens of the state rather than the US. Maybe Texas.

69: I wouldn't so much except for all the Texan jokes around here.

69: I'd say Texas is (at least) comparable as a state, and NY as a city.

68: Quebec isn't really feasible on its own, I think. At least, not without a very, very amicable breakup (which I don't see) Maybe if it absorbed some bits of the states it would be more so.

71.2: I agree. The secessionist movement there is, or has been, more robust than any modern US counterpart, but the goal is still a pipe dream.

I'd say Texas is (at least) comparable as a state, and NY as a city.

Okay, but that still leaves 47.5 (or so) other states where American identity is much stronger than state identity. That is, I can see this idea playing well in those three places, and maybe in the South if we're talking about devolving into regions rather than individual states, but in the rest of the country it sounds like a non-starter.

69: Hello?

67. Varies

Hello?

Right, right, sorry. 46.5 other states.

I don't know enough about Alaska to know what opinion there is like, but it's another possibility.

It depresses me to see abortion and marriage rights potentially dismissable as "exceptions."

It doesn't thrill me to suggest that they could be, either, and it's not how I think of them - I consider recognition of reproductive rights to be my most important issue for reasons too complicated to go into here - but I was half-heartedly trying to preempt anyone who might consider them that way as the sorts of things that don't matter day-to-day.

And generally I'd bet that there's a fair bit of state identity lurking in lots of places. The commentariat here tends to be of the mobile and cosmopolitan sort, but that demographic is not universally loved. People who have been in a place a long time tend to identify with it, and there are lots of those people.

49: Everyone whom I've encountered who supports repeal of the 17th doesn't know their pre-enactment history well enough. Many states already had something like a non-binding preference election for who their legislatures should choose as Senators, and the state legislatures followed these non-binding elections with a high degree of regularity. Read about it in Akhil Amar's book here, or, more accessibly, in this blog post, and later entries in the same series.

Elbie: There was a well-researched 2004 law review article on splitting Texas here.

But, the emotions behind it... You think that people really love the notion of the US more than they would love their smaller region?

Well, I for one have friends and loved ones scattered all around the US, and have lived in several states. I would not like to have to get a visa to visit my college roommate. Nor would I like to get an academic job in some less than wonderful state and find myself furthermore cut off from the rest of my country of birth.

The Florida Keys seceded and became the "Conch Republic" in 1982.

People who have been in a place a long time tend to identify with it, and there are lots of those people.

More than they identify with the US, though? There's certainly a great deal of state identity out there, and I for one identify very strongly with NM, but I suspect that outside of a very few places a suggestion that the US be dissolved would be met nearly universally with "why would we want to do that?"

83: Well, yeah, but then I think the relevant category for Megan isn't "Californian" but "Megan."

Sorry:
the link in 82.

I fixed the link in 82 for you. I just hate looking at broken HTML.

84 - No no. I am the embodiment of Californian attitudes. True Californians all think exactly like I do. The ones who don't think just like me are still learning, but will get there soon. Glorious day!

The most endearingly Meganish part of the post was the way she had a hard time understanding why anyone would not want to dissolve the US. It makes perfect sense to her!

And yeah, I do suspect this attitude isn't very common even in the few places I mentioned. Just much more likely to arise there than elsewhere.

88 - You can't imagine how often people surprise me. Again! And again! All the time!

(No one has yet given me a reason I understand.)

Minivet's link in 18 features an awesome flag with the stars in a sort of starburst/circle pattern. I'd be in favor of a 51st state only on the condition that we can have that flag.

No one has yet given me a reason I understand.

People really don't like it when suddenly their friends and relatives, who used to be in the same country as them, are suddenly across a national border, without having moved. Cf. India and Pakistan.

91: You'd only need to adjust the spacing a tiny bit to get a peace symbol in there.

Yeah, that makes some sense, but in my arcane weighing system seems like a small point compared to the advantages of having a country composed of familiar ground, with like-minded people.

No one has yet given me a reason I understand.

Since most people are coming at this from a very different starting point, I doubt anyone will.

Yeah, that makes some sense, but in my arcane weighing system seems like a small point compared to the advantages of having a country composed of familiar ground, with like-minded people.

How is this better than having a town like that within a big, diverse country?

Quit being reasonable, Megan. It doesn't work. I've tried to tell you.

seems like a small point compared to the advantages of having a country composed of familiar ground, with like-minded people.

You rejected splitting NorCal and SoCal. You *don't have* a country with like-minded people.

Kotsko posed a similar question once, with bonus insinuations of fascism.

And I'd really like to see an answer to Magpie's question over on the thread at Megan's place: under what definitions of "racist" and "imperialist" does the U.S. qualify but California does not?

re: 44

Probably pwned above [I've not read all the comments], but citizens of all of the long-standing EU countries have total mobility between states with no 'immigration' required. You just move there and get a job.

It's more complicated for the recent members [the former Eastern Bloc countries] with some countries extending them immediate reciprocal rights [the UK and Ireland, basically] and the rest imposing a 'grace' period of several years before those rights kick in [everyone else].

100: I'd like to see an answer to that too.

I would bet the thinking is "what people who live there now support". I'm not sure that it holds up even then, but it couldn't possibly be a historical argument.

In order to teach I've signed an oath to defend the state of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So if California secedes, I'll be defending her against all you american invaders.

But they aren't even articulating their objections well (rfts did.). I don't understand what the nation-ness part is that is important.

Mo did in 35 - he likes all of America.
John Emerson gives a reason - it requires the full population of the US to fight imperial wars.

But with the EU as a model, other objections are just logistics. A couple people have said "but I really like all America", but most people are saying, "it isn't even possible" while naming entirely solvable problems.

No one has yet given me a reason I understand.

Further, I can easily see why you wouldn't mind dissolving the US, because you don't care about parts other than California. But not everyone adores the bit of the country they live in or feels that they are surrounded by like-minded people. Can you not see that it would be fucking annoying to be told, "See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya! Enjoy your sinking ship!"

Ha, sorry that my more combative follow-up crossed with 105.

a country composed of familiar ground, with like-minded people

I'm afraid you're going to have difficulty finding that in any state. Regardless, "California: Independence and Uniformity" is going to be a tough slogan to run on.

It's certainly possible, but I think a lot of people have a hard time seeing what the advantages are. Homogeneity doesn't really work, since California is one of the least homogeneous states.

106 gets it exactly right. This idea fucks anyone who lives in large parts of the rest of the country and is negatively affected by the Republican Party's platform and policies.

It's odd to think that the EU viewed as an entity might (and only might) end up more accurately approximating the federalist ideals than the US does.

It's odd to think that the EU viewed as an entity might (and only might) end up more accurately approximating the federalist ideals than the US does.

It certainly seems to be exhibiting the problems with such a system to a greater extent than the US has in a very long time.

Sandow Birk's War of the Californias is pretty funny.

Probably pwned above [I've not read all the comments], but citizens of all of the long-standing EU countries have total mobility between states with no 'immigration' required. You just move there and get a job.

Ya emir responded above with about the same information, but it sounds like there are some things that don't transfer as well between countries, such as social services. I am assuming to get all the benefits of the country you would have to have citizenship not just the ability to work there correct? Also how does that work with tax systems? I would guess that some of the tax revenue being VAT based would smooth that out, but I believe there are still income taxes for most or all EU countries. How does that play out?

98 - No way, man. I realized in undergrad that my fundamental identity is multi-cultural/mixed race from a coastal megapolis. I am way more like someone from SF, LA and SD than I am like someone from a small town or the Central Valley. The north-south divide is so much smaller than NoCal people like to think.

Working on 100, 102, 103.

It's odd to think that the EU viewed as an entity might (and only might) end up more accurately approximating the federalist ideals than the US does.

It seems like a natural conclusion to me.

I think the reason that Californians have a much stronger sense of state identity is two-fold. First, the state is large enough that you rarely leave it (I'm not counting the first 20 miles of Nevada as not California). Secondly, the public education system is such that many many fewer people leave the state for college than was my experience on the east coast. The combination of these two factors means that many native Californians really don't know anything at all about anywhere else in the country.

California is one of the least homogeneous states.

Don't be silly, teo, we all know California is uniformly beachfront vineyards on ski slopes covered in desert-growing pines planted by stoners who voted for Schwarzenegger.

(No one has yet given me a reason I understand.)

Try these:

As has been pointed out above, almost no one in America feels as parochial about their state as Californians and Texans do.

Most people don't even feel especially parochial about their regions, broadly defined. Iowans may spout a lot of salt-of-the-earth crap about the virtues of Midwesterners, but they don't actually feel a lot of affinity for, say North Dakota, Minnesota, and Ohio. Those places don't really have much more in common with each other than they do with parts of other regions.

Following on, the regions that do feel cohesive - say, the Rust Belt, or the Upper Plains - are, in fact, too small to be viable. Part of the reason Pacifica feels viable is that A. it's big, B. it's reasonably dense, C. it's rich (thanks in part to a lot of defense spending) and D. it's conceptually united by the ocean. But Seattle and San Diego don't belong together any more than Boston and Atlanta. Your love of CA (and, in particular, your sentiment for your birthplace in LA) is blurring your vision of what would make a cohesive polity. Hearst Castle to Vancouver (as long as we're playing with boundaries, let's be honest) is cohesive; Calexico to Bellingham? Not so much.

A lot of Americans actually are all rah-rah-USA. There's a lot to be said about how middle-Americans responded to 9-11, but there's no denying that millions of people who had viewed NYC with distant ambivalence at best suddenly felt emotionally connected, in a way that they wouldn't have to a similar attack in Montreal or Mexico City. "Sea to shining sea" and all that.

Lastly, on a personal note, I think that the expansiveness of the country gives a lot of value to the concepts of mobility and starting over. I've lived near NYC, in Miami, and now in Pittsburgh; regionally, I feel a strong affinity for New York, but my hometown is now Pittsburgh. I've been able to make all these changes without any crisis of identity - I'm an American. My wife could get an EU passport for Germany (pretty sure - she was born there, and her dad's a citizen), and I love it over there. But I couldn't really move to Bregenz, even though it's gorgeous and the architecture is way better. Deep down, I'm not a rootless cosmopolitan. It would be weird for one's birth region to be so definitive and, frankly, limiting (how many Californians were Midwesterners a generation or two ago? how much less likely if that were immigration, not just relocation?).

I am way more like someone from SF, LA and SD than I am like someone from a small town or the Central Valley. The north-south divide is so much smaller than NoCal people like to think.

I'm sure you realize that this doesn't actually solve the problem with your argument. It just shifts the divide from North-South to Coastal-Inland.

Can you not see that it would be fucking annoying to be told, "See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya! Enjoy your sinking ship!"

I should admit that that is a decent percentage of my emotions on the issue. But I figured that that is how everyone felt! Happy to cast off CA, bunch of hippie freaks that they are! See, then we could all go our own regional ways and add variance to the system.

Secondly, the public education system is such that many many fewer people leave the state for college than was my experience on the east coast.

Also true of Florida.

The idea of dividing up into 50 countries is obviously stupid, but as a Pennsylvanian all my life I would be okay with being joined up with New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware. That would be fine even if NYC was left to be its own place with Long Island. But Pennsylvania doesn't have any characteristics that would make it make sense to be autonomous. The major city has a large amount of its suburbs in New Jersey and Delaware, for example.

more accurately approximating the federalist ideals

I.e., total dysfunctionality? We did the Constitution thing for a reason, and when that still turned out to be more federalist than we could make work, we had a less amicable constitutional moment and beefed up the central government some more.

Insurance and queing rights for subsidized housing are also issues in moving around in the EU. If your job and situation allow you to buy a place or you're willing to live in one shitty room, mobile. Otherwise, not very.

123: Yeah, personally I'm kind of fond of the 14th Amendment.

No, NPH, "total dysfunctionality" is not actually an ideal. What were the actual ideals?

But I figured that that is how everyone felt! Happy to cast off CA, bunch of hippie freaks that they are!

We do kind of like all the money you guys bring in, though.

add variance to the system

This way actually has more variance to the system. My happy in Berkeley, DC, or Ohio self would prefer not to be gerrymandered off any more than I already am, thanks.

120 - Yeah, but the Sierras are a really obvious boundary feature and I know that it is possible to understand the peoples east of the Coast Range and west of the Sierras. I did an education abroad type program with them when I studied agriculture and once I got over their exoticism, they were just like real people.

"More variance in the system," I suppose I mean.

126:
1. Don't fuck with my local power structure.
2. Don't fuck with my slaves.

112/123: Yes, I didn't mean that it was a positive development. Just that they might end up giving the experiment a much more serious run than the US ever did.

Oh, and
3. Don't tax me to pay for stuff for those other guys.

What were the actual ideals?

The ability of local elites to maintain their power over most political decisions. Also the preservation of slavery.

Don't fuck with my slaves.

Only I get to do that.

100, 102, 103 - OK. My essential American shame is with slavery and Jim Crow in the South. The obvious comparison to that is the Spanish mission system and elimination of the Native Californians. But, it seems to me that that was ALSO a problem in the South (colonial invasion and eradication of the indigenous natives). So for me, I would be trading up if I came from a country that ONLY wiped out the natives, and wasn't COMPLETELY FUCKED UP about black people for another couple centuries.

Then you're all, what about the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese Internment and all. To which I say, yeah, that was bad shit. It really was. But it wasn't as bad (in numbers of lynchings, in enforcing poverty, repressing voting rights, all of it) as the South was.

It isn't that CA was perfect. But it was roughly the same as everywhere that wasn't the South for its time, and way better than the South. Ditching that American legacy would feel great to me.

(Do I really feel a generalized American shame for slavery and Jim Crow? Yes. I've cried for it before. As long as I'm American, I have to claim what America does.)

It's probably not unusual for any number of people to wish they weren't American, given all this country has to be ashamed of (then and now). If it's an answer to cease to be an official part of the US, well, most people who feel that strongly about it leave the country. I'm not sure their shame abates.

So for me, I would be trading up if I came from a country that ONLY wiped out the natives, and wasn't COMPLETELY FUCKED UP about black people for another couple centuries.

You need to read the book Magpie linked to in her comment.

But it wasn't as bad (in numbers of lynchings, in enforcing poverty, repressing voting rights, all of it) as the South was.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You started off saying CA wasn't racist; now you're saying "well, it was, but it wasn't as bad as the South!"

94

"Yeah, that makes some sense, but in my arcane weighing system seems like a small point compared to the advantages of having a country composed of familiar ground, with like-minded people."

This sounds a bit like the Balkan thinking "Why should I be a minority in your country when instead you can be a minority in my country?" which hasn't worked out so well for them.

California independence sounds just fine until the Cascadians and pan-Californians go to war over NoCal, and Megan and I are shooting at each other across the front lines somewhere in Mendocino County.

You need to read the book Magpie linked to in her comment.

Requested from the library. I'll be surprised if it radically revises my view of CA history, which is not purely rosy, but I'm looking forward to it.

Yes, I moved the goalposts and hopefully I won't move them again from this point. But "relatively less racist" is sortof all a person can hope for in their history of place.

But "relatively less racist" is sortof all a person can hope for in their history of place.

Megan, I love you and all that, but judging your own guilt for historical atrocities by current political boundaries is kinda strange.

I know, but there it is. The clear solution is to move current political boundaries!

I can make it work emotionally as judging the acceptability of patriotism: that is thinking "I couldn't be an American patriot, given Jim Crow. That would be wrong, because I would be endorsing America's racial history with my patriotism. But I could be a Californian patriot, because CA's racial history isn't so bad."

I agree with Shearer. I must reconsider my lifestyle choices.

||

Do any Bay Areans here have employment leads? If so, could you please email me? It may just be the heat of the moment, but right now I think I am not that far from the quitting grad school threshold.

I have some computer skills, if that's worth anything. Thanks.

|>

146: E-mail sent.

144: I guess I'm more of the turtles all the way down school of thought, but I can sort of see that. It's still kinda strange.

"[...]But I could be a Californian patriot, because CA's racial history isn't so bad."

OTOH, we did wipe out the animal on our state flag.

Megan, if you're going to have historical and societal guilt, than you can't run away from it just my shifting boundaries. Where did the people in California come from? Other than those who seem to have come from Mars, everyone else came, in the historic and societal sense, from somewhere where people did bad shit to other people.

I'm probably pretty far from the mean on this sort of thing: I may have noted previously telling my daughter she couldn't wear anti-Israel t-shirts in public anywhere she would be identified as German.

I think what I'm saying is that "my people suck less than those other people" is not an emotional move that has any resonance for me. Nor is it really one that I would have expected from Megan, for that matter.

Californian history is the usual sad tale of exploitation, oppression, and short-sightedness. Californian people are no different than people anywhere else, except happier because they live in California.

But CALIFORNIA is AWESOME, and totally deserves to be its own nation. It should be capital of the WORLD!

Nor is it really one that I would have expected from Megan

All due respect, but Megan is very tribal. She's also very loving and inclusive, but she seems to have (as revealed in her blog) a very strong sense of attachment to "her tribe," and that's pretty much inevitably going to lead to at least some us vs them mentality. She doesn't want her tribe associated with those nasty Southerners, and the only connection she sees is the national one. Break up that nation, and there's no longer any connection between her tribe and the Bubbas.

I apologize, Megan, for the dime store psychologizing.

What I'm driving at here is: California was specially created by God to be the bestest place ever. This is pretty clear to an objective observer examining the evidence in an unbiased manner. It's almost an insult to mix somewhere like that into some big "nation" that includes places like Dubuque, Akron, etc. I mean, it's just absurd.

I was kind of shocked when I visited CA and met an actual lifelong Californian. But I'll admit that some of the shock was seeing arrogance and condescension being directed towards New Yorkers, not from them.

You know, Megan's tears have moved me to give up my racism. Right there, mid-lynching, my hands and heart just froze up.

There's been an interesting shift in Californian identity over the last couple of decades, among white American Californians (as opposed to Mexican/Asian immigrants). From the 30s through the 60s, most white Californians were immigrants from other states. Once housing prices starting going nuts in the 80s, public services decayed after Prop 13, and poor Mexican immigrants flooded in, American migration from other states slowed greatly. Eventually the American migration flow reversed, so more Americans leave California than enter. I think this was mostly under the pressure of skyrocketing housing prices -- it's very difficult to sell in most states and have enough $ to buy in California, and very tempting to sell in California and buy elsewhere.

What that means in practice is that most white Californians are now "native", lifelong Californians in a way they weren't in previous generations. So you get Megan's kind of loyalty. Of course, it takes a Megan to have Megan's particular brand of impassioned loyalty, but you get what I mean.

Chantix Day 4: I become a troll. Sorry.

People think that I'm joking when I refer to myself as a peasant. But I actually mean that precise peasant attitude of parochialism and narrow-mindedness and belief that one is at the center of the world that one finds in peasants.

I am inclusive. Everyone is welcome to come here and think like me. Or stay away and disagree with me or whatever. But yeah. I'm a peasant.

157: No, that was fair. Cranky, but fair.

I meant 158.

156, 158 - But that cracked me up.

159: I always get annoyed that a parochial affection for my home town reads as NYC arrogance and triumphialism. I'd feel this way if I were from Fort Lauderdale, probably.

But yeah. I'm a peasant.

Also: strong enough to handle a plow!

Peasant table manners, peasant speech idiosyncracies to mark you as a local? All peasants have these, it's more than just an attitude.

From the 30s through the 60s, most white Californians were immigrants from other states.

Yeah, I was wondering when someone was going to mention the word "Okie".

that one finds in peasants

Does one?

Well, I don't have the peasant habit of naming people directly by infirmities (Gordo, or Stumpy).

166: Another possibly Okie-related tidbit: California went Republican in every Presidential election but one between 1948 and 1992 (the only time it went Blue was the Johnson landslide in 64). It's been a pretty conservative state politically until recently.

163: a parochial affection for my home town reads as NYC arrogance and triumphialism

Whereas my parochial affection for NYC morphed into arrogance and triumphalism when we moved to Miami in 1979. At that time, it was far more an overgrown Sunbelt retirement community than big city, much less Capital of the Americas. It was so self-evidently inferior to New York that we couldn't stand it (except my sister, who turned into a beach bum teenager), and were so happy to return to NY (actually suburban NJ, but blame corporate HQ relocation, not us) 7 years later.

Anyway, NYC still defines "city" to me in a way that won't ever change. It just IS The City. I understand there are other viewpoints, but... you know. They're wrong.

Yes, that's, like, the mark of an ignorant peasant. Not putting your traditions and culture in the context of a larger community. Naming yourself as The People and thinking that deviance from The Usual Ways is nonsense. That is what a peasant IS, and you break free from it when your ass is colonized or you travel abroad or live in big cities or something.

(You see traces of it in ignorantly mocking accents or names. Peasant behavior.)

Unless you make your peasant-association with a way of life in a big city, which is equally parochial.

Outsiders think that Big City people are being snobs, but they are really acting like any other ignorant peasant.

I've enjoyed tolerable days in NYC, but have never loved it. People do, but then people also love Jerry Springer.

I'm in NYC for a few hours at this very moment: I'm looking out the window at a ridiculous multi-colored galss thing, at 8th Ave and maybe 42d or, more likely 43d. What on earth is it? What were they smoking.

That is what a peasant IS, and you break free from it when your ass is colonized

I think we know what the southerners here have to do now.

People do, but then people also love Jerry Springer.

Hmphf. When I visited the Rockies, I was polite about them.

174: Cue the banjo section?

Why do people talk about racism as if it were a thing of the past?

I'm looking out the window at a ridiculous multi-colored galss thing, at 8th Ave and maybe 42d or, more likely 43d. What on earth is it? What were they smoking.

It's probably a building. Are there people going in and out of it?

177 meant more generally than this thread --- this week I heard a local radio station going on about people stuck in the 60s, `like civil rights didn't happen'.

Why do people talk about racism as if it were a thing of the past?

Because if they concede that racism still exists, that opens up the possibility that they or people they know might be racists. And who wants to grapple with that?

The glass is way better than half full today. Fine food and better company (and I'm having dinner with a friend before I go home).

Then you're all, what about the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese Internment and all. To which I say, yeah, that was bad shit. It really was. But it wasn't as bad (in numbers of lynchings, in enforcing poverty, repressing voting rights, all of it) as the South was.

Yes, but we've got our Native population oppression AND our share of shame for slavery (even if California didn't come in as a slave state, we still wanted to be part of a country that allowed it), AND we have our own legacy of racism towards the Chinese and Japanese that points further east don't. After all, Texas had a pretty substantial population of Germans, and as high as anti-German sentiment was during the world wars, Texans never took away their property and locked them up in camps in Nebraska.

Also: we're demonstrably not better than the rest of the country now about race. Just try calling the cops from your neighborhood, then try it from West Oakland or Fruitvale and see how quickly they respond.

Re: secession, I'd rather fix the system from within. After all, this year we actually had some electoral clout, even if we did piss it away on Hillary.

178 -- They look like ants.

Now that it's dark, the thing has a lit up curved white stripe, 1st to 30th (or so) floor. Blinking on and off.

169: This:
It's been a pretty conservative state politically until recently.

does not necessarily follow from this:
California went Republican in every Presidential election but one between 1948 and 1992 (the only time it went Blue was the Johnson landslide in 64).

IME California as a whole has been pretty squarely centrist during that time period; we've tended to elect milquetoast fiscal-conservative/social-liberal governors and senators. California hasn't moved left so much as stayed put while the Republicans moved right.

183: I'm pretty sure it's a hotel. Everyone thinks it's hideous, but as its hideousness is all it has to distinguish it, I'm blanking on the details. A W? A Westin? Can't remember!

Just try calling the cops from your neighborhood, then try it from West Oakland or Fruitvale and see how quickly they respond.

I know, although I'm not willing to agree or argue about relative rates of racism in the U.S. I don't have enough evidence to make that comparison. Also, racism in the rest of the country is confusing to me, because it is about black and white people, not about excrutiatingly gradated distinctions between different Asian-Am and Latino countries of origin.

186: Megan, there's plenty of black and white racism in cali too. Arguing about relative rates of racism seems to me a mugs game. It's a racist place, everywhere. It's a lot better than some places, and a lot worse than it could be.

183: It is indeed the new Westin Hotel on 43d and 8th.

Awful!

Sure. That just wasn't what I was navigating in middle and high school. I learned different aspects of racist behavior when I was impressionable.

Thanks oudemia. Someone ought to call the Westin: the need to buy some light bulbs for the big white stripe.

I guess I'm just a peasant: when I'm looking for a hotel room, an outward appearance 'distinguished by its hideousness' isn't on my list of factors to consider.

190.1: You're also not Japanese.

At this rate we'll have your secret identity figured out in no time.

Um, .2.

191 -- If you get too close, I'll switch to N/pi.

I was betting that Napi meant the Arquitectonica building. There was a pretty long piece about it in the New Yorker ~4 years ago, when it opened.

I've been living out of California for the last nine years, but I completely identify with the positions that Megan is taking here. Back in college, my SoCal friends and I used to game out the post-succession civil war.

194: It is indeed. BTW, I thought I mailed your dvd a week ago, and instead I found it in my bag. I apologize for being an idiot, and will drop it in the mail tomorrow!

No one linked this Californian's map of the US?

Megan's views are typically coastal Californian. 117 nails it. Why would you leave? It's beautiful, rich, the states that surround it are either very similar (to the north) or not worth going to (to the east), and has the best state universities in the country. Bay Areans go to UCLA for college, and Southlanders go to Berkeley for their "break away from home" experience.