New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Chicago Tribune article
in reply to a message by Cleveland Kent Evans
Very good article! Except ... it's left me feeling rather foreign. I know that red and blue are the colours of your two main political parties, though I've got no clue which is which ... and is there a political reason why Jack should be popular in "blue" states and Jackson in "red" ones? JFK and, er, Andrew Jackson? Or does politics follow demographics, meaning that the name choice isn't a political one but related to parents' education level, occupation etc in the usual way?
Reagan was a popular president; there seem to be plenty of little Reagan girls but not little Ronald boys. Which is odd ... but is there also a red/blue divide there?
There was a kiddy's picture book a couple of decades ago called "Why are there more questions than answers, Granddad?" I neve read it, but perhaps I should have ...
All the best
Reagan was a popular president; there seem to be plenty of little Reagan girls but not little Ronald boys. Which is odd ... but is there also a red/blue divide there?
There was a kiddy's picture book a couple of decades ago called "Why are there more questions than answers, Granddad?" I neve read it, but perhaps I should have ...
All the best
1
Replies
Lol, it's interesting to hear a non-American perspective on this! Blue is the color of the Democrats (liberal) and red is the Republicans (conservative). I was looking at a map of the French presidential election recently, and was so confused because I assumed red is conservative & blue is liberal there, too.
As to your real question, to my ear, Jackson has a more "country" sound. It goes along with other surname style names like Landon, Logan, etc. that are newer as fns. Conservative states ironically tend to use newer names. The main exception to this is the South, which is conservative, but which has used surnames as fns forever...which is why Jackson sounds like a country name (it is also the last name of Stonewall Jackson, a Confederate general after whom many Southern boys were once named).
Jack, on the other hand, fits in with more blue state trends. It is more of a classic fn, so it goes with names like Nicholas, Joseph, etc. which I believe are more popular in blue states.
Oh, and the reason you'll rarely see little boys named Ronald is because it's very old fashioned as a name. It was hugely popular back in the 30s and 40s, so it's definitely still a grandpa name. The sound (with the double consonant ending) is also quite outdated. Reagan, on the other hand, fits in with a bunch of current trends: surname, ends in N, 'ay' sound... Add all that to the popularity of the president (among conservatives, lol), and I bet you have a red state hit.
As to your real question, to my ear, Jackson has a more "country" sound. It goes along with other surname style names like Landon, Logan, etc. that are newer as fns. Conservative states ironically tend to use newer names. The main exception to this is the South, which is conservative, but which has used surnames as fns forever...which is why Jackson sounds like a country name (it is also the last name of Stonewall Jackson, a Confederate general after whom many Southern boys were once named).
Jack, on the other hand, fits in with more blue state trends. It is more of a classic fn, so it goes with names like Nicholas, Joseph, etc. which I believe are more popular in blue states.
Oh, and the reason you'll rarely see little boys named Ronald is because it's very old fashioned as a name. It was hugely popular back in the 30s and 40s, so it's definitely still a grandpa name. The sound (with the double consonant ending) is also quite outdated. Reagan, on the other hand, fits in with a bunch of current trends: surname, ends in N, 'ay' sound... Add all that to the popularity of the president (among conservatives, lol), and I bet you have a red state hit.
1
Thanks, Molly! Much appreciated, and most interesting. Plus, thanks to you, I've got it finally worked out - red and Republican alliterate so conveniently that even I can't forget.
We don't do red and blue in South Africa, never have, but in the UK it's blue for Conservative and, naturally, red for Labour, which leaves yellow for the Liberal Democrats. France, I've got no clue; I'd expect red to be Socialist and beyond there too, but logic and politics don't mesh ...
All the best
We don't do red and blue in South Africa, never have, but in the UK it's blue for Conservative and, naturally, red for Labour, which leaves yellow for the Liberal Democrats. France, I've got no clue; I'd expect red to be Socialist and beyond there too, but logic and politics don't mesh ...
All the best
1
The "red vs. blue" meaning "Republican vs. Democrat" is actually a rather new thing in the USA, going back only to the year 2000 when the television networks used maps using that color division when reporting the results of that extremely close Presidentail elections. Red and blue were chosen years ago as the colors of the two parties on electoral maps because of "red, white, and blue" being the colors of the USA flag. Originally, however, the TV networks actually alternated from one election to another which party was red and which was blue, and actually the Democrats more often were red. As the following discussion at Google answers shows, when Reagan had his landslide elections, TV commentators called the resulting maps "Lake Reagan" because that year blue was the Republican color! It seems that the weeks on end reporting that attended the controversy over the Bush vs. Gore election is what cemented the idea that "red is Republican" in the minds of Americans. Before that in the USA, as well as the rest of the world, red was more likely to be seen as the "leftist" color. :)
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=415905
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=415905
This message was edited 5/22/2007, 10:05 AM
1