In terms of internal climate migration, I think it is important to realize that the US does not have one form of nationalism. My guess is that we have at least three competing forms of nationalism, and the White Christian Nationalist side of things is going to find itself on the move moreso than the others. For reference, we have the maps here at the Public Religion Research Institute: https://prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
Note that support for Christian Nationalism is strongest in the Southeast, Northern Plains, and the Great Plains states that connect those regions.
Compare this with the map of climate winners and losers at Pro Publica: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
My guess is that we will see some migration along the diagonal between these areas as people leave the Southeast and look for something like the "American Redoubt" for their idea of a nationalist utopia, and we are going to start seeing some stark regional divides between WA/ID and MN/SD. Think Ruby Ridge. There's more of that on tap, but the right is now much more aligned with their fringe, so that's going to be more difficult to deal with.
It's one of the things that would make me think harder about settling in places like Spokane, Eugene, or Fargo. Those could become the epicenters for violence fueled by dueling nationalisms in the region.
2 weeks ago
Also, not quite a punk band, but The Great Heathen Army is an Amon Amarth album (and song) title - not punk, but rather viking themed melodic death metal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK4MbGyCSXU
2 weeks ago
CharlesWT - The UK’s foreign-born population was 4.2% in 1951, 8.3% in 2001, and 16% in 2021.
I'm not taking issue with you here, CharlesWT, but I am going to note, for the sake of information literacy, that the Wiki entry you cite has some problems with the data that bear scrutiny.
The 1951 and 2001 data come from one data source and the 2021 data from another. The first set counts "foreign born" population, and the last one counts "migrants." Those two things are defined in the sources that are being cited, but a closer look at those shows that "foreign born" and "migrant" are not at all the same things, and the way that the Wiki article is written, they never foreground any difference.
If you chase the source for the earlier dates, you will find that, for example, in 1971 about a third of the "foreign born" population came from families where one or both parents were born in the UK.
That would mean that for the purposes of the data from 1971, Boris Johnson would count as "foreign born," but had he been born in 2017, he would not have counted for the table because he would not be considered a "migrant," since his parents were only abroad in the US temporarily while his father was attending university there.
I suspect that there are a lot of incongruities and methodological problems in that article, but I don't expect that the average reader - even one with an undergraduate degree - would have the habits of mind to check for, or reflect on, the impacts of such problems on the conclusions being drawn from them.
This is why teaching information literacy is so challenging, and why people get impatient with academics. To paraphrase The Who, the simple things we see are all complicated, and most of us just want to get our washing done.
Substitute your lies for fact I can see right through your plastic mac I look all white, but my dad was black My fine looking suit is really made out of sack
2 weeks ago
CharlesWT - There was a ten-year period during the Blair government England had more immigration than during the previous thousand years.
We ain't seen nothing yet. Climate inaction is going to redraw a whole lot of boundaries. And people are either going to be allowed to immigrate or we are going to have an unfathomable loss of life in many places.
I don't even want to think about the effect on other creatures and on flora.
In terms of internal climate migration, I think it is important to realize that the US does not have one form of nationalism. My guess is that we have at least three competing forms of nationalism, and the White Christian Nationalist side of things is going to find itself on the move moreso than the others. For reference, we have the maps here at the Public Religion Research Institute: https://prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
Note that support for Christian Nationalism is strongest in the Southeast, Northern Plains, and the Great Plains states that connect those regions.
Compare this with the map of climate winners and losers at Pro Publica: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
My guess is that we will see some migration along the diagonal between these areas as people leave the Southeast and look for something like the "American Redoubt" for their idea of a nationalist utopia, and we are going to start seeing some stark regional divides between WA/ID and MN/SD. Think Ruby Ridge. There's more of that on tap, but the right is now much more aligned with their fringe, so that's going to be more difficult to deal with.
It's one of the things that would make me think harder about settling in places like Spokane, Eugene, or Fargo. Those could become the epicenters for violence fueled by dueling nationalisms in the region.
Also, not quite a punk band, but The Great Heathen Army is an Amon Amarth album (and song) title - not punk, but rather viking themed melodic death metal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK4MbGyCSXU
CharlesWT - The UK’s foreign-born population was 4.2% in 1951, 8.3% in 2001, and 16% in 2021.
I'm not taking issue with you here, CharlesWT, but I am going to note, for the sake of information literacy, that the Wiki entry you cite has some problems with the data that bear scrutiny.
The 1951 and 2001 data come from one data source and the 2021 data from another. The first set counts "foreign born" population, and the last one counts "migrants." Those two things are defined in the sources that are being cited, but a closer look at those shows that "foreign born" and "migrant" are not at all the same things, and the way that the Wiki article is written, they never foreground any difference.
If you chase the source for the earlier dates, you will find that, for example, in 1971 about a third of the "foreign born" population came from families where one or both parents were born in the UK.
That would mean that for the purposes of the data from 1971, Boris Johnson would count as "foreign born," but had he been born in 2017, he would not have counted for the table because he would not be considered a "migrant," since his parents were only abroad in the US temporarily while his father was attending university there.
I suspect that there are a lot of incongruities and methodological problems in that article, but I don't expect that the average reader - even one with an undergraduate degree - would have the habits of mind to check for, or reflect on, the impacts of such problems on the conclusions being drawn from them.
This is why teaching information literacy is so challenging, and why people get impatient with academics. To paraphrase The Who, the simple things we see are all complicated, and most of us just want to get our washing done.
Substitute your lies for fact
I can see right through your plastic mac
I look all white, but my dad was black
My fine looking suit is really made out of sack
CharlesWT - There was a ten-year period during the Blair government England had more immigration than during the previous thousand years.
We ain't seen nothing yet. Climate inaction is going to redraw a whole lot of boundaries. And people are either going to be allowed to immigrate or we are going to have an unfathomable loss of life in many places.
I don't even want to think about the effect on other creatures and on flora.