The American Nations regions across North America

Perceived Map Inaccuracies and Overgeneralizations

• Several commenters see “Far West” and “Greater Appalachia” as lazy catch‑alls that collapse very different places (e.g., High Plains vs Appalachia, West Texas vs eastern Tennessee, Deschutes County vs coastal Oregon/California).
• The “Far West” / Mormon corridor (Deseret) is viewed as distinct enough to deserve its own region.
• Grouping PEI with the wrong region was initially misread; Greenland labeled as “First Nation” is criticized as both conceptually wrong (Inuit vs “First Nations”) and an example of collapsing highly diverse northern Indigenous cultures.
• Many think California’s internal cultural splits (SoCal, Bay Area, Central Valley, mountain regions like Tahoe/Humboldt) are ignored.
• Alaska is said to feel more like a mix of Left Coast, First Nation, and Texas, with some parts argued to be culturally “Yankeedom.”
• Some see Canada’s “Midlands” area as actually a Loyalist culture, distinct from the US Midlands.

Methodology, Rigor, and Bias

• Multiple people look for a methodology section and don’t find a clear explanation beyond references to the book American Nations and a related site.
• Where methods are inferred, they appear to be based mainly on original European settlement/immigration patterns and county‑level data, not current demographics.
• Critics call the framework ad hoc, statistically opaque, and “Buzzfeed‑quiz‑like,” with branded region names (“Left Coast,” “Yankeedom”) and perceived bias favoring New England and the West Coast.
• Others say that, despite nitpicks, the broad thesis—historical settlement shaping lasting regional cultures—has explanatory power.

Regional Border Oddities (Local Examples)

• DC area: calling it a “federal entity” is seen as erasing a largely Black local culture. County assignments (PG/Fairfax/Loudoun vs Montgomery) feel arbitrary; some propose a dedicated “Capital Area.”
• Atlanta: the metro area is split along county lines that don’t match lived cultural divides.
• Chicago is the only region shown as an explicit blend, though commenters note many borders are fuzzy in practice.
• New Orleans / south Louisiana grouped into “New France” draws pushback from people who see Louisiana and Quebec as having little in common.
• Midwestern classifications (e.g., Wisconsin/Minnesota as Yankeedom, central Texas as “Greater Appalachia”) are widely doubted.

Historical and Cultural Explanations

• Some defend certain groupings (e.g., southern Indiana/Illinois/Ohio as “southern/Appalachia‑light”) using migration history and shared religion, foodways, and accents.
• One detailed thread links Ohio/Indiana/Illinois patterns to 18th‑century “Indian Reserve” policy, later Virginian/Kentuckian settlement, and east‑west rather than north‑south cultural orientation.

Alternative Frameworks and Tools

• Other schema mentioned: Albion’s Seed, The Nine Nations of North America, US megaregions, and the secessionist novel Ecotopia.
• Some prefer megaregion maps or population‑weighted cartograms (e.g., tilegrams) as more intuitive and reflective of where people actually live.