Do you s'pose this IS why red state america hates blue state america?

I just finished reading a non-fiction book titled "Bad Land" about the homesteading of the American western plains and all of the mendacious tricks that were used to convince sensible people to leave everything behind to try "dry farming" -- tricks and lies and traps that drove people into severe hardship and poverty. Most claims were abandoned. The offspring of those who fell for the line now generally hate the government and liberals and citified blue state America, and they live in places like Sand Point Idaho, eastern Oregon, etc.

Is this why red state America hates blue state America so? Because there's an undercurrent of being mistreated or underserved by the government in generations past?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Land:_An_American_Romance

The real "baddies" would appear to be the copywriters for the railroad land sale campaign.

and it's just too easy to try and pigeon hole people or in this case states. I actually don't think the pigeon hole of Red State America hates the pigeon hole of Blue State America. People are more worried about their own daily circumstances and don't really care what is going on in the "political" word even though perhaps they should be. Hence our voting turnouts.

I think it's probably part of the cause, but not the ultimate answer. What really strikes me is that the days of feed sack dresses and barefoot kids picking cotton and baling hay all summer is within the living memory of many people in the red states. Those memories are of making a living under incredibly hard conditions, and doing it as a family, doing it almost alone.

People in the blue states endured equally challenging issues, but the population was often concentrated more in small towns or urban areas. In those places it was industry that held sway. To make dangerous and lethal situations better, people joined unions-- and the help and protection of the unions is within the living memory of many people living in the blue states. We get emotional about the dangers of the coal mines and the help of the unions here, the same way people in red states get emotional about the memory of their grand parents being put off the family farm because they couldn't come up with money to pay the note on the tractor, or some such thing.

Anyway, the group approach became more popular and accepted in blue states. People in blue states experienced the benefit of organizing, and embraced a social (even socialist) orientation that is anathema to the farmer and rancher.

While many of causes of the red/blue divide are historic, you need to remember that they have been exploited for political gain. Remember Nixon's Southern Strategy. He looked at the racist buttons he could push among southern voters and he pushed them, and it worked. As I understand Obama is the first president to move beyond that approach and to win.

Above all, it seems to me that the only way we can move beyond the divide is through compassion for past pain and feelings of betrayal.

:thumbsup:

came mostly from Italy and lived in New York City. There was just always the history of close knit families living in very small, concentrated areas in my family. I live in the 3rd most densely populated state and there is not a feeling of being a loner here. I can understand the different attitudes of the midwest. It is just a different type of area.

....so the premise of red states hating blue states is a manufactured lie. And no, it has nothing to do with the 1800s. The republicans hate democrats because they are told to....it's that simple. Ask a republican why they hate democrats and you'll see what I mean. They come up with some of the most outrageous lies you'll ever hear, quoting untruths as fact. When you correct them, you get nothing more than a "Harrumph!" or a "bullshit". These people listen to people like Limbaugh or Hannity who spew lies all day long, and they essentially program these idiots into believing mistruths. That's why you get the lies from republicans when you ask them why. The media is responsible for the hatred between political parties. People who are politically knowledgable are in the minority. Most are just hardworking Americans who only care about putting food on the table and clothes on their backs, and they are just looking for some relief in these days when corporations are bleeding us dry.

No matter how well off they might be the government has always victimized them. I think it's sociopathic. And Obama was right. They cling to their religion and their guns.

this is something that sticks out like sore thumb to me, but somehow people don't seem to pick up on it ...

There is a near pathological victim mentality, and an enabling of the complete rejection of responsibility - there is a LOT of blame and criticism thrown out from the right ...

"Red" makes them think "communist", and that scares 'em!

"You guys should be red and we should be blue!"

Go team.

do you think Americans know their history well enough to even know what you are referring to?

I am not a historian but as I recall the progressive movement of the last century began in many of the places you were talking about. At one point one of the most Liberal states in the Union was Kansas.

These people were cynical of the government they had but to them that meant one had to change the government to make it work better.

Maybe modern cons took that distrust and used it for their own ends. But it seems that that the actual dislike stems from something else.

Not to mention, rural and urban areas have always had a culture gap. This isnt' even an American phenomena. People live different lives, have different experiences and needs and so drift apart.

we came from, generally, that goes back about 1.5 generations. All of the baggage, as well as the benefits are foisted upon us long before we become cognizant enough to realize we can reason things out.

In a way, we're lucky that we basically take things back a generation and a half, some cultures still wage war on others for things that go back 5-6 generations.

already stated about the "red state" versus "blue state" manufactured controversy, I read this book several years back. I also was raised in a dry-land region of MT - although not the area depicted in this book - and my paternal grandfather lost his own homestead there during the Depression, was devastated financially and was among those who continued westward.

As a returning WWII vet, my father returned to the MT area where his own father had failed. He became a successful businessman and community leader. In many ways, he became a role model, not only for his generation but for younger ones, He and my mother raised all five of us to "pass it forward" and to empathize with those who were not as fortunate as we. They were staunch progressive Democrats to the end of their days and raised all of us to be that way. They would both be absolutely delighted to see President Obama where he is today, although they would probably have some of the same disappointments as I that today's Dems in general are much too centrist and accommodating with what passes for the Republican party.

Even in that tiny town, my parents found many people whose political beliefs were similar to theirs. But those people were generally those who kept themselves informed, whether formally educated or not. My own parents believed in the promise and power of education and worked with others to establish scholarships to help young citizens of the community see the world with their own eyes and grow. The community, unfortunately, is getting smaller each year because too many of the younger ones have left. There are few opportunities for them if they are not large landholders.

Yes, there was egregious mistreatment, mostly by the railroads so that they could line their own pockets. They made the dry-land area sound like paradise when it was nothing like that and encouraged immigrants who were used to closely-knit European communities to live on isolated land holdings. While the government, through its extension agents, may first have exacerbated the situation by giving advice that wasn't appropriate, that was not deliberate mistreatment. In areas like mine, the agents' advice improved with experience and knowledge of the areas to which they were assigned. But small homesteads were never going to make it there.

Much as I enjoy the writings of Jonathan Raban, in this book, he captured a microcosmic experience of one area and his assessment is a very bleak one. If anything, it explains how people got used to isolation and to counting on themselves only, reinforcing that isolation and continuing a vicious cycle that is as destructive as cyclical dependence on the welfare state is. If anything, Republican policies keep emphasizing that isolation. Looking to "community" is denigrated; asking for help is considered a weakness. We need to keep making the case that we are all in this together. Looking to each other for assistance is actually a strength.

It's about culture, religion, economics, history and race. But mainly race.