I greatly enjoyed Woodard’s American Nations. I’ve been recommending it even since before reading it, and now that I’ve finished it, will continue to do so. However, I think it’s important to note that Woodard’s initial observations are perhaps better than his final conclusions. The history he has compiled is fascinating, and the regional identities are instantly recognizable to any American. However, once he gets into the modern era, his personal bias towards his own nation becomes increasingly transparent.
To paraphrase/satirize the tone in the final third, to this reader he came across as saying, “The worst things about Yankeedom are that they’re too pushy about wanting paradise on earth for peoples of all creeds and colors. The worst things about the Deep South are that they hate non-whites and want to keep people stupid and poor and miserable.”
This book, although thoughtful, well-written, and insightful, would have benefited from a Southern co-author who could provide a balancing perspective from outside Woodard’s native Yankee viewpoint. Surely all nations have qualities that are equally admirable, as well as failings that are equally distressing. Nonetheless, it remains a fascinating read and one that I will continue to go back to and recommend, albeit with qualifications.
(Two more small nitpicks — along with other reviewers, I was surprised at how little credit he gave Garreau. Also, I was surprised that there was no discussion of the national character of African Americans in the Deep South. It seems like a missed opportunity to observe and report on a parallel society, and strange that he should focus only on the white minority as the sole definers of that nation.)