I'm not sure how to articulate my thought on this subject, so bear with me and grant me some latitude. Formerly people did not identify themselves particularly according to the state where they lived, for example maybe before 1700. People may instead have identified themselves with their religion, their ethnicity, their province. The phememon of coupling one's personal identity to a specific state is somewhat recent -- say over the last 200-300 years.
If you DON'T locate your identity in the state -- for example, the United States of America -- what changes? Let's say instead I identify myself as a member of a socio-economic class -- the middle class, the upper middle class. Or identify myself as a Christian or a Catholic, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Morman. Maybe I identify myself as an educated man. Maybe I identify myself as a mountain country man, a northwoods man, etc. What happens if my personal sense of identity is LESS coupled to the state in which I reside?
It seems to me if you see your identity as more defined by things other than the state where you reside, that you are less liable to look on the growth of the national governments authorities and powers. I think you may be more pleased to see the powers of governments expressly delimited and contained rather than unrestrictedly expandable.
I know I haven't made my point well. Nevertheless, any thoughts? Has my unfocused ramble stimulated anyone's thoughts? Why are we seeming to accept without batting an eye the government jumping the tracks and pounding along into new areas that, frankly, seem sinister in their unboundedness to me. Additionally sinister in that those sworn to uphold the constitution are among those who are not batting an eye or raising a voice when these exceptions take place.
I agree with what you're saying, and I think most people do define themselves according to more than state of birth or residence, even if they vocally reference that particularly identity from time to time. On the other hand, I'd say that just about every state has a pronounced and fairly entrenched culture, even with current demographic and migratory trends. Take the sister states of Maryland and Virginia, for example.
I was born in Maryland and consider myself a Marylander in terms of birth and culture. Having lived in Virginia for most of my adult life, however, I consider myself a Virginian in terms of residency, politics, and social allegiance. As much as I hate living a couple hours from my family, I can't bring myself to move back due to the high taxes, dependence on the federal government, pronounced leftwing political structure, social decay, environmental degradation, and just plain scumminess of Maryland. Virginia has it's problems, too, but I just feel free here, with cleaner streets, higher-quality employment, less state regulation, a business-friendly political and social culture, tons of beautiful land, etc. I made a choice to be a Virginian, and I still feel very fortunate, if not proud, to have done so.
I was indefinite in my post. By "state" I don't mean state such as State of Illinois, State of Texas, State of California. I mean the idea of the nation combined with the government.
I have lived in three states -- born in Illinois left at the age of 25, lived in Oklahoma for 14 years, moved to Texas from Oklahoma where I have been now 15 years. I don't feel any particular allegiance to any of these states. I like being in Texas because it has no income tax, it has no tax on food, it has a good labor market in Dallas. Change those facts and I could be gone tomorrow. I will move to whatever state my calculations indicate will provide me a better standard of living. My youngest child is about 9 years away from graduating in college. After this point my wife and I will reconsider where we would most like to live. I won't be bound by any emotional or loyalty ties to a state when I make this decision.
I guess one way to continue my query would be to ask what is different about the same consideration with reference to the nation that one lives in. What makes living in the US better than living in England, France, Germany, Australia, Canada? Of course, questions of language and tax structures enter into this question. But suppose you could compare all these even up and get to a point that there are three countries that are equally suitable to the US or even slightly better. Many people would be aghast at the contemplation of moving to another country. This is the phenomenon I'm interested in thinking about and discussing. My ancestors came here to the US from Europe because they wanted better economic opportunity. Why couldn't the street go both ways if there was a better opportunity elsewhere? But people don't think this way. Have they been brainwashed by the government?
My sister won't think of visiting any place outside of the US because she wants to see the US first. To my mind where the vacation takes place -- inside US, outside US -- doesn't come into the consideration but rather the quality of the destination and the cost. I may prefer to go to hike in the Andes rather than hike the Appalachian Trail if the costs were equal, the fact that the Appalachian Trail is in the US and the Andes may be in Chile seems irrelevant to me. This is the conception of state that I'm curious about. Why do some have this thought or constraint? Is this thought linked in some way to the tendency to entrust the government with solving our problems rather than seeing them as problems of individuals who happen to live in the same country?
Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, I think economic considerations are probably the most important factor in the decision to migrate. You hear and read more about that from new residents than political freedom or cultural differences, etc.
The flip side of that coin is the drive for stability. That tends to be something most people in general, particularly older generation, value more than most other things. I think most people would prefer not to move internationally if they could help it. Of course, life is relatively unstable in many other countries around the world, and so migration offers potentially greater incentives as opposed to staying put. Moving is stressful if you're relocating across the street, let alone across the world, but it might be worth it if you're got next to nothing where you are.
Culture obviously plays an important role, too, in both the motivation to move or not to move. We grow up seeing the flag, hearing the national anthem, and experiencing the American way of life with our fellow Americans. The same is true in many other places (and even more in some of the more nationalized countries like China, for instance). That provides comfort to some and discomfort to others.
Bottom line, I think that people define the state more than the government in most cases throughout history. Revolutionary states have attempted to drastically reprogram their societies, but more often than not, I think it's the people who have had their way in the end. The state didn't birth itself; it's a human construct.
Anyway, as far as vacations go, I've traveled to as many foreign countries as I have U.S. states. I think seeing the world is extremely important because it offers travelers as much insight into other's lives and it does our own. You see what's different and what's the same. In my experience, that's made more appreciate the U.S. more than I had before.
Your sister is probably going to look forward to coming home in the end, so I don't think she should avoid visiting the rest of the world. The trip is what you make of it.
You've expanded the approach in several directions.
Considering just these...
Quote:
Let's say instead I identify myself as a member of a socio-economic class -- the middle class, the upper middle class. Or identify myself as a Christian or a Catholic, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Morman. Maybe I identify myself as an educated man. Maybe I identify myself as a mountain country man, a northwoods man, etc. What happens if my personal sense of identity is LESS coupled to the state in which I reside?
Quote:
Why do some have this thought or constraint?
Quote:
The state didn't birth itself; it's a human construct.
The idea of "state" or even religion as a layer of identity is an interesting topic.
It is something people ascribe to their minds as a way of trying to understand themselves and others.
If you can understand California politics, supposedly you understand Californians better somehow...or arguably even yourself.
But it goes much deeper than just politics. Once you buy into the mental masturbation, you begin to believe you can 'know' how people behave by their region. "Yankees" are like this or that...we hear that surface from time to time. Or we're told what to expect from Cannucks or the French.
In a way, it is a sign of mental dereliction, a glorified version of "What's your sign?"
Boundaries, however, do more than draw lines in the sand. The collective codified decisions of those in power within the lines affect your ability to identify with the inhabitants to one degree or another. Hiking in Iran is problematic. The Appalachian trail is less so.
Linkage of self with the state
