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.
i just want to say there is NO way that the whole of the US can be divided into just four regions.... MUCH to much land and varied ideas/interests to lump us all into four regions. Google Image Result for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/picrender.fcgi?book=healthus08&part=app2&blobname= app2f1.jpg that link does pretty well though i feel, eight different regions. (link with google image search for quick reference, because the map is in the middle of the page and there is a lot of stuff on it)
Oklahoma, all of New Mexico and Colorado, and the west side of Texas should all be included in the western region. Other than that, I'd say it's pretty accurate.
The line between the Northeast and the South goes through Summersville, WV. It does not go through Waynesburg, PA. I lived in the Pittsburgh area, and there's nothing even remotely Southern about the region. If there was, then I never would have experienced the degree of culture shock that I did when I lived in northeastern Georgia.
Um, nice try, I suppose. But, I really fail to see how the state of Ohio can identifiy with any part of Montana. Actually, having Ohio grouped together with any state west of the Mississippi River is a bit of a strech, in my opinion.
All of Texas is not the south. Anyplace west of the I-35 is western. East of it is considered southern. They have different feels to it and the western part is desert while the east is green with trees and humidity.
All of Texas is not the south. Anyplace west of the I-35 is western. East of it is considered southern. They have different feels to it and the western part is desert while the east is green with trees and humidity.
While the western half of Texas does not fit very well with the rest of the South in a topographical sense, the vast majority of West Texas -- having been mostly settled by pioneers from the southeast -- is just a very unique sub-region of the larger South.
Other than the El Paso area, very little of Texas has anything in common, either historically or culturally, with the true "western" states (i.e. Rocky Mountain and desert Southwest). However, there is this "Western" thing about Texas in popular mindset that is, I believe, mostly due to the influence of Hollywood, and does not tell the whole story when it comes to regional affiliation.
For one thing, there are at least two "Wests." One is that "Old West" of the post-bellum frontier, and it is not a region but an era of history. That is, the time of cowboys and cattle drives and ranching and other icons made famous in the classic western movies. A goodly portion of Texas is very much part of that, certainly.
However, that particular frontier West of Texas legend is not, in essence, separate from "the South" From the Old South, or Deep South, or Southeast? Of course. But not from that basic historical and cultural connection with the entity known as The South. Anymore than this same "frontier West" era in Kansas separates that state from the Midwest
For one thing, it was those settlers from states like Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc, that made up the vast majority of west Texas pioneer stock and became those cowboys and gunslingers and ranchers (in fact, the anglo Texas cowboy mostly derived his habits and lifestyle from the Old South cattle drover, not the Mexican vaquero). And most of those Texans were not cowboys anyway, Lonesome Dove not withstanding! LOL.
Most, as to be expected given their deeper South roots, were small famers and cotton was king. More importantly, it was this Southern stock which brought their culture into West Texas and simply transplanted it to a new and different environment, transforming into a unique sub-region of the larger South itself. That is, the "western South." Those settlers never thought of themselves as anything but Southerners, and in socio-culture surveys today, the majority of their decendents in west Texas today consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners.
The other "West" are those states in the western part of the country which constitute a true region in terms of common history, culture, politics, etc. And Texas -- with that trans-pecos exception -- is not part of it. While distinctions are often made between southeastern states and much of Texas, much broader differences exist when the comparisson is to states like Colorado or Utah or Arizona (undeniably western states today). Southern Baptist churches, Southern American English spoken, ante-bellum history, a true established "cotton culture", Confederate history...all of which exist extensively in Texas, are virtually unknown in the true West. Finally, to bring up again the surveys on regional identification, the vast majority of people in these mountain states, unlike in Texas, rightfully consider themselves to live in the West and be westerners.
Most of western Texas (and goodly parts of Oklahoma as well) is just a very different and independent sub-region of the "Greater South". It is the "western South." A place where the traditional South traits and qualities also contains many characteristics of the old frontier West. This is a whole different critter than being "Southwestern" or "Western" in the modern day sense.
There seems to be a lot of debate over what constitutes Southern states. Personally, as an objective West Coast native, I would consider Kentucky and Virginia to be part of the South. Texas would be both South or Southwest, depending on area. Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas would be Midwest. I'm not saying this is accurate- just saying that it is what some outsiders imagine these states to be like.
I think the western region needs to be divided into smaller regions as well. California, Oregon, and Washington should have their own region of "Pacific West", since these states have a lot in common with each other and very little to nothing in common with the states on the eastern border of the western region.
To be completely accurate, we probably need these regions: South, Mid Atlantic, Northeast, Great Lakes, Midwest, Mountain West, Southwest, and Pacific West. That way, Michigan is not lumped in with Oklahoma, Montana is not lumped in with Arizona, etc.
1. Washington, DC
2. Philadelphia, PA
3. New York, NY
4. Erie, PA
5. State College, PA
6. Youngstown, OH
7. Atlanta, GA
8. Los Angeles, CA
9. Chicago, IL
10. Cleveland, OH
Looks to me like Pittsburgh is focused more toward the Northeast, considering Pittsburgh's top three cities are all part of the Northeast megalopolis, and the other two are nearby cities in Pennsylvania. Here's Cleveland's list by comparison:
Facebook profile for Cleveland, OH - Friends
1. Akron, OH
2. Columbus, OH
3. Chicago, IL
4. Toledo, OH
5. New York, NY
6. Atlanta, GA
7. Cincinnati, OH
8. Washington, DC
9. Los Angeles, CA
10. Pittsburgh, PA
The top of Cleveland's list is mainly Ohio cities plus Chicago. While Pittsburgh is more focused on New York than Chicago, the opposite is true of Cleveland.
Ironically, for as similar as everybody thinks that Pittsburgh and Cleveland are to each other, the connections between the two are relatively weak given their geographic proximity. While Pittsburgh and Cleveland may have been demographically similar to each other in 1980, I think Pittsburgh has now become more similar to Cincinnati in that regard.
Anyway, go ahead and keep implying that Pittsburgh is too "undesirable" for the Midwest if it helps you sleep at night. Pittsburgh doesn't seem to give a **** anyway, considering its primary focus is the Northeast.
There seems to be a lot of debate over what constitutes Southern states. Personally, as an objective West Coast native, I would consider Kentucky and Virginia to be part of the South. Texas would be both South or Southwest, depending on area. Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas would be Midwest. I'm not saying this is accurate- just saying that it is what some outsiders imagine these states to be like.
I think the western region needs to be divided into smaller regions as well. California, Oregon, and Washington should have their own region of "Pacific West", since these states have a lot in common with each other and very little to nothing in common with the states on the eastern border of the western region.
To be completely accurate, we probably need these regions: South, Mid Atlantic, Northeast, Great Lakes, Midwest, Mountain West, Southwest, and Pacific West. That way, Michigan is not lumped in with Oklahoma, Montana is not lumped in with Arizona, etc.
>>>>>
I'm not saying this is accurate- just saying that it is what some outsiders imagine these states to be like.
<<<<<
This is an excellent admission.
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.
