Patchwork Quilts
Well, whether the media wants to acknowledge it or not (and so far they aren't willing to admit it-- just put on our blinders and pretend everything's dandy!), the recent election in Iraq doesn't mean everything's suddenly beautiful over there. As it is, the country's heading towards civil war, if it's not there already. The Kurds in the north were pretty much sold out during the U.S.'s march to war, but they aren't staying quiet and accepting it. On the contrary, their continued agitation for autonomy/independence keeps Turkey nervous. The Sunnis barely bothered to vote in the election last month, and the violence and tensions in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" just touches the surface of what are serious divisions between the Shiites and the Sunnis.
Is this all "our" fault? Not necessarily. It's rather ironic that our major "partner" in this senseless war is Britain; the British contributed to the problem that exists now. Much of the Middle East was once part of the Ottoman Empire. During World War I, the British intended to weaken the Ottoman Empire (which was already a shadow compared with its glory days) by inciting various nationalistic, tribal, and social groups within. One of the top British agents was T(homas) E(dward) Lawrence, better known to history (and filmdom!) as Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence was a rather odd duck, so to speak; he actually sympathized with the various Arab tribes and was not too pleased about what happened at the end of the war. Lawrence assisted in attacks on Ottoman strongholds and aided in stirring Arab nationalism. The end result was that when the war ended, the League of Nations rearranged the map, so to speak. In the Middle East, this meant creating new nations out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. Britain was assigned a mandatory over Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq. Ostensibly, this meant the British were to aid these nations in achieving self-government/democracy. France also was supposed to do the same thing in Syria and Lebanon. Unfortunately, what seemed nice, neat, and tidy on paper didn't work well in reality, especially in nations that suddenly were found to have tons of oil.
Just as the European powers had done in Africa a century earlier, new national boundaries were drawn rather arbitrarily, playing havoc with the fact that established ethnicities already had their own tribal/territorial boundaries set over centuries. All of this so far is a rather simplified summary, I know. But while reading coverage of Iraq the last couple of years, I've been wondering why Iraqis haven't been showering the British with as much animosity as they do the United States. After all, the League of Nations' lumping of the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis together, coupled with the British "mandatory" right afterwards contributed as much to the tensions in Iraq today as does the United States' incursion into internal Iraqi affairs based on the non-existence of WMDs.
Of course, the matter is much more complicated than that. But today, I read a somewhat satirical, somewhat thoughtful article on a possible division of Iraq. For those of you without the time or patience to read it, the author suggests that Iraq be divided into three different nations, then suggests the United States could well do the same.
This isn't an entirely new idea. Even as the British colonies rebelled against and seceded from the (first) British Empire, some regions maintained their independence. Vermont, for example, was an independent republic from 1777 to 1791, and some Vermonters are pushing for a second republic. Disgruntled North Carolinians seceded from that state and became the short-lived state of Franklin, before becoming absorbed into what would soon become Tennessee. Plenty of schoolchildren (and adults), especially in the Lone Star State, know all about how Texas was once an independent nation, from 1836 to 1845. Fewer people know, however, that when Texas was finally admitted to the Union, there was an escape clause available: the newly admitted state retained the option to divide itself into up to five states.
I've always found that interesting, and I think the idea has merit. If you look at Texas today, the state actually is three different states, at minimum. If you draw a line along the northern boundary at the Red River, then go directly southward, roughly on or paralleling 35 and 77, stopping at the Corpus Christi region, that's one state right there: East Texas. This land of piney woods is really an extension of the Old South, and its first settlers were indeed Southerners: the founding fathers of Texas and their compatriots. The Bowies came from Louisiana; Davy Crockett and Sam Houston from Tennessee.The politics, values, mores, and even the geography of this region fits in more with Ole Dixie.
Now you go back north, to San Antonio. From the western border of the line I've just drawn, follow roughly the path of I-10, raising it just slightly above the beltway surrounding San Antone. Go all the way to the New Mexico border, and there's your second state. This area is essentially the Rio Grande Valley; geographically it's got quite a bit in common with the northern states of Mexico that share the border. The ethnic diversity, politics, and needs of this area differ vastly from that of East Texas.
The final region is what's left over: all the area west of Dallas (which is an East Texas city to my mind) and north of San Antonio. This includes the Llano Estacado, and the cattle and oil regions: San Angelo, Midland, Abilene, Witchita Falls, and to some extent, Fort Worth, which has always been more of a cattle town than Dallas. I see this area as essentially the southernmost points of the Great Plains, and culturally and geographically, it fits in more with the Midwestern states than it does with the rest of Texas.
Of course, this division will never take place, but next time you're in Texas, keep your mouth shut, your eyes peeled, and pay attention. You'll see as you traverse the state the kind of changes, the differences that I mentioned.
Continuing with the interesting story of the patchwork that became this nation, you have that band of religious diehards known as the Latter-Day Saints, or more popularly the Mormons. After they fled to what is now Utah, they asserted hegemony over present-day Utah, and portions of the states surrounding it: much of Nevada, northern Arizona, parts of Southern California (Las Vegas, Nevada and San Bernardino were originally Mormon outposts to begin with), western Wyoming, and southeastern Idaho. They called it the state of Deseret, and actually had philosophical and physical conflicts with the United States for quite some time. James Buchanan actually sent the army westward to deal with Brigham Young and the Mormons. Mormon antipathy towards outsiders reached a peak in the famed Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857. It took quite some time before Mormon leaders found the idea of joining the Union appealing, and even longer to finally join, in 1896. Even today, Utah can seem like a world apart, especially once you're outside of Salt Lake City. I lived in Utah for two years, and while it is a beautiful place, and the people generally friendly, it is definitely a different mindset there.
I don't want to write a novel, so I'll keep mention of the Civil War fairly short. You should have studied this in high school/college, anyway. But it really is interesting to note that there was divided opinion in the North at the outset. Not everyone wanted to keep the country together, and many were happy to let the South go in peace. I sometimes wonder if maybe that was the better answer. Even today, the Southern states are quite different from the rest of the country, and it's one of the last areas of the United States were regional dialect, culture, and folkways still take hold. While homogenity is comfortable, distinctions are unique and should be preserved when possible.
Since the west was picked up as territory or spoils of war, there hasn't been as much dissension or threats to split, secede, or otherwise distinguish themselves. Here in California though, is the exception. Since the state was admitted in 1850 (and even slightly before that), there's been proposals (ranging from fantastical to deadly serious) of splitting the state. Usually it's to divide California into a north and south, but there was once a proposal to create three states. The traditional animosity between NorCal and SoCal is finally fading, but fading in favor of a different split: coastal areas versus the Central Valley. Even today, the very northern reaches rattle their sabers about jumping ship. One area where I think this might be a good idea is in Alpine County. During the winter, it's easier to do everything in Nevada when you're in the eastern part of the county than to try to go to western Alpine County, much less the rest of the state. Whoever drew the California boundaries back in 1850 obviously didn't consult a map or visit this area (which is very isolated and mountainous), and put the eastern border in the meadowlands, rather than along the summit of the Sierra Nevada.
While there are still rumblings here in California, the latest sounds of independence are coming from Vermont, as previously mentioned, and from Washington state. The recent bitterness over the exceedingly close gubernatorial race this past fall has prompted discussion of dividing that state into two. While I can see the idea has some merit, if they're really serious, they might want to talk to Oregon. Both states have east-west divides, and eastern Oregon has more in common with eastern Washington than it does with the rest of Oregon. For that matter, western Oregon and western Washington would fit together well.
This all doesn't even begin to touch on all the permutations and possibilities and threats over the 200+ years of American history. Hawaii has a legitimate beef with how the U.S. acquired it. Puerto Ricans are divided over whether to be a state, a member of a commonwealth with the U.S., or just leave things the way they are. There are little bits and pieces in Washington State, Minnesota, Michigan, and other border states where you have to go through Canada to get to the rest of the United States, or where being part of Canada would be a better fit.
We have our own struggles, divisions, strange splits, and geographical patchwork quilts. Who's to say what will or won't work for Iraq? It'll be interesting (at the very least!) to see what happens next.
Is this all "our" fault? Not necessarily. It's rather ironic that our major "partner" in this senseless war is Britain; the British contributed to the problem that exists now. Much of the Middle East was once part of the Ottoman Empire. During World War I, the British intended to weaken the Ottoman Empire (which was already a shadow compared with its glory days) by inciting various nationalistic, tribal, and social groups within. One of the top British agents was T(homas) E(dward) Lawrence, better known to history (and filmdom!) as Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence was a rather odd duck, so to speak; he actually sympathized with the various Arab tribes and was not too pleased about what happened at the end of the war. Lawrence assisted in attacks on Ottoman strongholds and aided in stirring Arab nationalism. The end result was that when the war ended, the League of Nations rearranged the map, so to speak. In the Middle East, this meant creating new nations out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. Britain was assigned a mandatory over Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq. Ostensibly, this meant the British were to aid these nations in achieving self-government/democracy. France also was supposed to do the same thing in Syria and Lebanon. Unfortunately, what seemed nice, neat, and tidy on paper didn't work well in reality, especially in nations that suddenly were found to have tons of oil.
Just as the European powers had done in Africa a century earlier, new national boundaries were drawn rather arbitrarily, playing havoc with the fact that established ethnicities already had their own tribal/territorial boundaries set over centuries. All of this so far is a rather simplified summary, I know. But while reading coverage of Iraq the last couple of years, I've been wondering why Iraqis haven't been showering the British with as much animosity as they do the United States. After all, the League of Nations' lumping of the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis together, coupled with the British "mandatory" right afterwards contributed as much to the tensions in Iraq today as does the United States' incursion into internal Iraqi affairs based on the non-existence of WMDs.
Of course, the matter is much more complicated than that. But today, I read a somewhat satirical, somewhat thoughtful article on a possible division of Iraq. For those of you without the time or patience to read it, the author suggests that Iraq be divided into three different nations, then suggests the United States could well do the same.
This isn't an entirely new idea. Even as the British colonies rebelled against and seceded from the (first) British Empire, some regions maintained their independence. Vermont, for example, was an independent republic from 1777 to 1791, and some Vermonters are pushing for a second republic. Disgruntled North Carolinians seceded from that state and became the short-lived state of Franklin, before becoming absorbed into what would soon become Tennessee. Plenty of schoolchildren (and adults), especially in the Lone Star State, know all about how Texas was once an independent nation, from 1836 to 1845. Fewer people know, however, that when Texas was finally admitted to the Union, there was an escape clause available: the newly admitted state retained the option to divide itself into up to five states.
I've always found that interesting, and I think the idea has merit. If you look at Texas today, the state actually is three different states, at minimum. If you draw a line along the northern boundary at the Red River, then go directly southward, roughly on or paralleling 35 and 77, stopping at the Corpus Christi region, that's one state right there: East Texas. This land of piney woods is really an extension of the Old South, and its first settlers were indeed Southerners: the founding fathers of Texas and their compatriots. The Bowies came from Louisiana; Davy Crockett and Sam Houston from Tennessee.The politics, values, mores, and even the geography of this region fits in more with Ole Dixie.
Now you go back north, to San Antonio. From the western border of the line I've just drawn, follow roughly the path of I-10, raising it just slightly above the beltway surrounding San Antone. Go all the way to the New Mexico border, and there's your second state. This area is essentially the Rio Grande Valley; geographically it's got quite a bit in common with the northern states of Mexico that share the border. The ethnic diversity, politics, and needs of this area differ vastly from that of East Texas.
The final region is what's left over: all the area west of Dallas (which is an East Texas city to my mind) and north of San Antonio. This includes the Llano Estacado, and the cattle and oil regions: San Angelo, Midland, Abilene, Witchita Falls, and to some extent, Fort Worth, which has always been more of a cattle town than Dallas. I see this area as essentially the southernmost points of the Great Plains, and culturally and geographically, it fits in more with the Midwestern states than it does with the rest of Texas.
Of course, this division will never take place, but next time you're in Texas, keep your mouth shut, your eyes peeled, and pay attention. You'll see as you traverse the state the kind of changes, the differences that I mentioned.
Continuing with the interesting story of the patchwork that became this nation, you have that band of religious diehards known as the Latter-Day Saints, or more popularly the Mormons. After they fled to what is now Utah, they asserted hegemony over present-day Utah, and portions of the states surrounding it: much of Nevada, northern Arizona, parts of Southern California (Las Vegas, Nevada and San Bernardino were originally Mormon outposts to begin with), western Wyoming, and southeastern Idaho. They called it the state of Deseret, and actually had philosophical and physical conflicts with the United States for quite some time. James Buchanan actually sent the army westward to deal with Brigham Young and the Mormons. Mormon antipathy towards outsiders reached a peak in the famed Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857. It took quite some time before Mormon leaders found the idea of joining the Union appealing, and even longer to finally join, in 1896. Even today, Utah can seem like a world apart, especially once you're outside of Salt Lake City. I lived in Utah for two years, and while it is a beautiful place, and the people generally friendly, it is definitely a different mindset there.
I don't want to write a novel, so I'll keep mention of the Civil War fairly short. You should have studied this in high school/college, anyway. But it really is interesting to note that there was divided opinion in the North at the outset. Not everyone wanted to keep the country together, and many were happy to let the South go in peace. I sometimes wonder if maybe that was the better answer. Even today, the Southern states are quite different from the rest of the country, and it's one of the last areas of the United States were regional dialect, culture, and folkways still take hold. While homogenity is comfortable, distinctions are unique and should be preserved when possible.
Since the west was picked up as territory or spoils of war, there hasn't been as much dissension or threats to split, secede, or otherwise distinguish themselves. Here in California though, is the exception. Since the state was admitted in 1850 (and even slightly before that), there's been proposals (ranging from fantastical to deadly serious) of splitting the state. Usually it's to divide California into a north and south, but there was once a proposal to create three states. The traditional animosity between NorCal and SoCal is finally fading, but fading in favor of a different split: coastal areas versus the Central Valley. Even today, the very northern reaches rattle their sabers about jumping ship. One area where I think this might be a good idea is in Alpine County. During the winter, it's easier to do everything in Nevada when you're in the eastern part of the county than to try to go to western Alpine County, much less the rest of the state. Whoever drew the California boundaries back in 1850 obviously didn't consult a map or visit this area (which is very isolated and mountainous), and put the eastern border in the meadowlands, rather than along the summit of the Sierra Nevada.
While there are still rumblings here in California, the latest sounds of independence are coming from Vermont, as previously mentioned, and from Washington state. The recent bitterness over the exceedingly close gubernatorial race this past fall has prompted discussion of dividing that state into two. While I can see the idea has some merit, if they're really serious, they might want to talk to Oregon. Both states have east-west divides, and eastern Oregon has more in common with eastern Washington than it does with the rest of Oregon. For that matter, western Oregon and western Washington would fit together well.
This all doesn't even begin to touch on all the permutations and possibilities and threats over the 200+ years of American history. Hawaii has a legitimate beef with how the U.S. acquired it. Puerto Ricans are divided over whether to be a state, a member of a commonwealth with the U.S., or just leave things the way they are. There are little bits and pieces in Washington State, Minnesota, Michigan, and other border states where you have to go through Canada to get to the rest of the United States, or where being part of Canada would be a better fit.
We have our own struggles, divisions, strange splits, and geographical patchwork quilts. Who's to say what will or won't work for Iraq? It'll be interesting (at the very least!) to see what happens next.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 9:59 PM
<< Home