Is the West diverse enough culturally to be divided? (live in, versus)
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.
Odd. Most everybody I've met from Arizona in real space claim that it's pretty bible-beltish.
Phoenix is the 5th least religious city in the country. NPR also ranked Phoenix the 8th least bible-minded city in the USA. Arizona really isn't bible-beltish at all.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,548,539 times
Reputation: 6253
People. I got it. You're still acting like I'm trying to change your minds.
I'm telling you what I've heard. I am now sharing that information under the knowledge that I am not correct based on that. Stop repeating each other, I get it.
People. I got it. You're still acting like I'm trying to change your minds.
I'm telling you what I've heard. I am now sharing that information under the knowledge that I am not correct based on that. Stop repeating each other, I get it.
You said the key "fighting words" by associating us with the South. While the southern parts of Arizona and New Mexico have Confederate history the two states have been largely disconnected from that. I almost never see Confederate flags out here.
Lots of religious here but their influence is subtle. And there really is a lot of them so I don't believe the statistics on Arizona's rankings at all.
I was referring to the first one without the "divisions" going strictly off of the regions themselves. Many people still divide the country as West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. My thread was just questioning whether or not this is still accurate, given the West's rapid and explosive population growth and city expansion. I mean 100 years ago Phoenix was practically just created, and Arizona had only been a state for 2 years. Look at Phoenix and Arizona now, HUGE differences. And that can be said for all of the other Western states and their major cities.
I was referring to the first one without the "divisions" going strictly off of the regions themselves. Many people still divide the country as West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. My thread was just questioning whether or not this is still accurate, given the West's rapid and explosive population growth and city expansion. I mean 100 years ago Phoenix was practically just created, and Arizona had only been a state for 2 years. Look at Phoenix and Arizona now, HUGE differences. And that can be said for all of the other Western states and their major cities.
Well yes I don't think the term "West" should really be used since most people just end up talking about CA. And I think it still was inaccurate a 100 years ago. From my understanding the reason why the term is/was used is because for people back east, they didn't know much about the west so it was easier to just lump it all together. The term "west" still has its purpose but only in a very general way. and yes WA is very different from all of the western states except for OR, and has some similar qualities to CA, ID and possibly AK.
This is probably on of the more accurate maps that I have seen
I was referring to the first one without the "divisions" going strictly off of the regions themselves. Many people still divide the country as West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. My thread was just questioning whether or not this is still accurate, given the West's rapid and explosive population growth and city expansion. I mean 100 years ago Phoenix was practically just created, and Arizona had only been a state for 2 years. Look at Phoenix and Arizona now, HUGE differences. And that can be said for all of the other Western states and their major cities.
This thread has some weird stuff going into "What is the South" territory. Anyhow, if we are discussing the first map and going by population, as others have mentioned and you seemingly accepted earlier, the West is still accurate.
Going off 2010 Census numbers, the West has a population of 72.1 million, compared to 67.0 million for the Midwest and 55.4 million for the Northeast. 17 million isn't that much of a difference, especially if just taking out a single state, California, from the West to form it's own region would nearly double the range from the lowest to highest, among these three regions.
The region that would make the most sense to discuss dividing would be the South. With its population being 114.9 million from that census, the South is a behemoth that could be divided into two Northeasts (not exactly, of course, as these follow state borders).
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,548,539 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
Well yes I don't think the term "West" should really be used since most people just end up talking about CA. And I think it still was inaccurate a 100 years ago. From my understanding the reason why the term is/was used is because for people back east, they didn't know much about the west so it was easier to just lump it all together. The term "west" still has its purpose but only in a very general way. and yes WA is very different from all of the western states except for OR, and has some similar qualities to CA, ID and possibly AK.
This is probably on of the more accurate maps that I have seen
Neat maps.
In my opinion between them they hold some of the more reasonable regional borders I've seen. Seems a little less biased based on stereotypes than other regional maps I have seen before.
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.