Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's hard to place the mid-southern California counties like Moneterrey, SB County and SLO County, etc. Cities like Santa Barbara and Ventura seem to fit better with the Left Coast while others like San Luis, Santa Maria, Salinas, Oxnard fit better with the El Norte. It doesn't always make sense geographically though if this wasn't going strictly by counties the author could have had a sliver going down the coast between Monterrey and Ventura (so thin that even Santa Maria and Salinas got left out).
Los Angeles is tricky, in some ways I think it fits better with Left Coast (politically and more recent culturally) but in other ways I can see the El Norte (demographically). Also with its history of railroads and a center for trade in the west, perhaps it could go in the Far West (would make sense as a tie-in to the City vs. City thread about what city is most like LA and Denver is a popular choice)?
It's true, the Central Coast is sort of a mix--and Los Angeles has enough in common with some other elements of the Left Coast, that it could almost go either way. The fact that the California has a Hispanic population of over 37 percent of the total state population as well, means that "El Norte" is basically all over the state. Interestingly, SLO County is sort of an anomaly--at 21 percent Hispanic it's got the lowest percentages in the state outside of the Far North or Sierra.
I don't know if the author is going for what these areas were historically or what they've become however. Historically much of the Central Valley had a more Far West feel to it--though at this point, it's a little different due to the influences from the coast(like Sacramento being increasingly connected to the Bay) and from the south(the heavy Hispanic presence). And somewhere like San Bernadino County stretches far into the desert to the Nevada border so it's grouped in with the Far West , but considering most of the population is basically a eastern extension of Greater LA on the westside of the county, it almost feels logical that what ever region Los Angeles(and Riverside) is considered part of, San Bernadino would be as well. At one point you could say that Los Angeles was more a part of the Far West region due to rail connections, but at this point in history, yeah who knows...
Since the author stretches the Midlands region all the way to a couple lone counties in the corner of Colorado and New Mexico(and up a narrow strip of the Dakotas to Saskatchewan), he's obviously looking at this at a very specific county by county level somehow... I'm just curious if there was some other reason or demographic metric he was using to determine these borders--or he's just sort of coloring in counties as he goes along.
I think in general books like this tend to have sort of East Coast bias, so they often get very specific about the Northeast and parts of Midwest/Great Lakes and then just throw together the entire interior of the west outside of the coast into one giant subregion--maybe mentioning the Mormon culture of Utah and the margins of the surrounding states or not.
During Reconstruction the region resisted the Yankee effort to liberate AFrican slaves, driving it into a lasting alliance with tis former enemies: the overlords of the Tidewater and Deep Southern lowlands of Dixie.
This is hogwash. There weren't many slaves in Appalachia for a number of reasons but mainly poverty and topography.
Quote:
these American Boarderlanders despised Yankee teachers, Tidewater lords, and Deep Southern aristocrats.
I doubt the appalachians encountered many tidewater lords and southern aristocrats. Except the Coal and timber barons but didn't they come from the northeast? With teachers it would depend on the individual and their attitide.
Last edited by creeksitter; 02-11-2013 at 05:42 PM..
Tell me about it, it's insult to each of claim "nations" progression through out US history. All dude said about the South basically was their was slavery, racism and not much else. And this kills me "He argues that the influence of the original settlers is bigger in developing a region's culture than subsequent population migrations" I strongly disagree with that. Mass Migration, 300 years, rual to urbanization, Mass media, Technology make hell of a difference.
And don't get started on other weird stuff like DFW being Greater Appalachia. culturally and geography they have nothing in common.
Seems rather silly to get bogged down in minutia and judge a book on a generalized paragraph of each region. I'm sure the author has much more to say about the details, variations, etc.
Why so quick to claim something you haven't read "hogwash" or "a load?"
Seems rather silly to get bogged down in minutia and judge a book on a generalized paragraph of each region. I'm sure the author has much more to say about the details, variations, etc.
Why so quick to claim something you haven't read "hogwash" or "a load?"
I disagree with Central MD being part of "the Midlands"; while Baltimore is similar to Pittsburgh in some ways, people Montgomery/Howard/Baltimore counties overall have more in common with people in the Northeast. I get what he's saying in terms of matching them to original settlers, but it's not really apparent in the modern cultural sensibilities; people here are much more into the "rat race" mentality and lack the sort of "reserved/polite niceness" you see in much of the Midwest.
The originator of the Midlands is Baltimore and Philadelphia. That fits pretty well linguistically. When you say "Northeast," do you mean New York or Boston?
Seems rather silly to get bogged down in minutia and judge a book on a generalized paragraph of each region. I'm sure the author has much more to say about the details, variations, etc.
Why so quick to claim something you haven't read "hogwash" or "a load?"
What? he would go more into detail of the hogwash?
People pride founding of nations they celebrate that history. Southerns don't celebrate racism and slavery, it's not 1920. Everything describe about the south is insulting. Not to mention the studies and books written on how the country is divide up that conflicts with this. The new south, old south regions. As well the study and culture of mega regions. Not to mention the way states are swinging and predicted to become swing states don't match with what's he saying. Yes it's a load.
Also I lived in DFW no way in hell can you convince me or anyone from there or anyone from Appalachia, that DFW is "Greater Appalachia".
What? he would go more into detail of the hogwash?
People pride founding of nations they celebrate that history. Southerns don't celebrate racism and slavery, it's not 1920. Everything describe about the south is insulting. Not to mention the studies and books written on how the country is divide up that conflicts with this. The new south, old south regions. As well the study and culture of mega regions. Not to mention the way states are swinging and predicted to become swing states don't match with what's he saying. Yes it's a load.
Also I lived in DFW no way in hell can you convince me or anyone from there or anyone from Appalachia, that DFW is "Greater Appalachia".
He is pretty dismissive of certain regions. I actually toned down what I perceived as unflattering commentary (but tried to keep the gist of it). He does base his regions on earlier studies, so I would like to see the contradictory studies.
As for specific points, he doesn't say that celebration of racism is the defining feature of the Deep South today. That would be a respect for tradition and authority. He does say that race defines voting pattern--Republican for Whites and Democrat for Blacks (and the opposite 60 years ago).
Which states swinging fails to line up with his map? If anything, I think he went too closely to voting patterns, with some counties that are put in one region or another purely on voting patterns (there are areas where he clearly started drawing around the 2008 voting map). He describes Midland as the true swing voters. The states that are swinging tend to be because of voters from "El Norte." Colorado doesn't quite jive because Denver and Boulder aren't quite the rest of Colorado, but Hispanic voters had a major impact on the state. But the main reason I disagree with that categorization is that he doesn't say these are the regions that are set in stone. He says that they reflect 2010.
He describes a Deep South/Appalachia split in Texas as the Houston-Dallas rivalry. I can't get into specifics until I've read it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
