September 14, 2012

Casual Friday


I snapped this photo while passing through the Columbia Valley in British Columbia, just south of the town of Radium Hot Springs and the southern edge of Kootenay National Park. Does this perhaps mark a notable exception to the characterization of the Pacific Northwest as the "none zone"? Or an indication that the narrative needs to be revised, or at least complicated? (On that note, see Dusty Hoesly's previous post). Or was I slightly north and east of the borders of none?
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

1 comment:

Transient and Permanent said...

Well, from here in Canada we actually would consider that to the be Pacific Southwest...

Somewhat following along with Dusty, it seems clear to me that there is no None Zone, just a Zone That Among Other Things Happens to Have a Higher Percentage of Nones While Still Being 75% Religiously Affiliated (And Two-Thirds of the Nones Believe in God). Sure, that's not as catchy, but it's a lot more accurate as a label. It's sort of like if we labeled New England the Unitarian Zone because Unitarian-Universalists are far more common and publicly observable there, despite being a very small fraction of the population much outnumbered, especially be Catholics.

But there's another question you're raising here that demands attention: can regions in the United States be fruitfully mapped across the border on to Canada (and what about Mexico and the Caribbean)? Is BC a kind of Canadian "None Zone," or should we perhaps say there is a None Zone that extends from Alaska seamlessly down to Northern California?

This is Jeff Wilson, by the way (I can't seem to get OpenID to work for me).

September 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)