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.
Like I've said before. What REALLY makes the south "southern" is the relatively low percentage of non-hispanic whites (and relatively high percentage of blacks) in a VERY rural region of America. No other "rural" region of America has such ethnic diversity. This is due in large part to slavery and the south's farming culture that has MANY hispanics moving to southern states for work (NC's hispanic population outnumbers KY's black population by more than 2 to 1; this margin is MUCH higher in states like GA and FL)
Every one of your posts pretty much states things you've said many times before. Low percentage of non-hispanic whites blah blah blah...you don't know as much as you think about Kentucky. Have you been to Shelbyville? Big hispanic population (9.51%) in comparison to other communities. KY has a sizable RURAL black population due to the fact that slavery was prevalent here. Kentucky does have RURAL diversity. I'm betting more so then our neighbors to the north. There are many maps people have posted to prove that point. Slavery and the south's farming culture...how does KY not fit into this? We had slavery, and a lot of our economy still revolves around agriculture. Please don't start comparing populations, NC has more than double the population than KY's, so of course they are going to have more hispanics and blacks. DUH. What defines "southerness" to you? And none of us want to hear any more of your demographic BS so feel free to leave that out.
I finally had the chance to read your post about KY and Tenn's percentage of blacks (the one where you deleted the population of Memphis). My response to that post is "cooooooooome oooooooooooon bruh"!!! How on Earth can you call this a "fair" comparison? If you really wanted to be "fair", you would have deleted Memphis and LOUISVILLE out of each state AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
Because the Memphis area is unlike any other region in both Kentucky and Tennessee...MEMPHIS IS COMPRISED OF LOWLAND SOUTHERN CULTURE. The region of Memphis is more of a resemblance to the heavily black lower Mississippi Delta than to the Nashville Basin region of Middle Tennessee which is UPLAND SOUTHERN CULTURE along with Louisville, Lexington, Knoxville, ECT..! Louisville's MSA has a black population of 170,000 where Nashville has a MSA black population of just under 200,000. Compare that to Memphis which has over 500,000 blacks comprising 50% of it's entire population. Compare that to Louisville's 15% and Nashville's 17%. So out of all three major city's in the region which one stands out the most....Ding ding ding MEMPHIS 10!!!!!
LOL then for YOUR sake I only took out 3 counties in the Memphis Metropolitan area and look how much of a drop Tennessee's black population took, what if I'd taken out three more from that Memphis/Mississippi Delta region....Your jaw would drop.
Quote:
The next time you decide to "cut and paste" major cities within a southern state, just make sure you take Louisville out of KY too. Then make your comparison.
Or better how about you recognize that culture does not form strictly along state boundaries, but is rather undefined. Either way I'd think that I'd rather take a reputed sociologist hands on research over your opinioin anyday. As can been seen both Kentucky and Tennessee are comprised mainly of Upland Southern culture with the exception of the Mississippi delta regions of both states. Once again dude YOU LOSE....LOL Do you wish to continue you with butt whoopins?
Really? I don't think so. Louisville is a blend of South and Midwest. So is much of KY. It is not a bad thing.
No one is saying that it is a bad thing. These characteristic blends are what help Louisville stand out in the long list of major Southern cities.
Quote:
The fact that you see threads like this proves it is not 100% southern....
Woowee don't tempt me. No one says that Louisville is 100% Southern, however I do tend to see by posters suchas yourself that when these arguments aren't presented you tend to overstate the Midwestern qualities of the city and minimize if not completely ignore the Southern ones.
Quote:
Now preparing for the LouisvilleSlugger maps and tirade
Well forgive me if I chose to reference scholarly sources to back my opinion, rather than just make claims
Quote:
I do feel northern KY suburbs around Cincy are pretty Midwestern
As do I and most people on this forum.
Quote:
Also, at least a good half of Louisville is Midwestern.
Half...ummm no. Sadly I don't see how one can even make a claim when theres no measuring stick of regional identity around the city. I'd prefer to use the available data we do half for Louisville/Jefferson county as a whole to make a conclusions.
Quote:
Parts of Louisville are decidedly southern, even more so than parts of Atlanta or even Nashville when I lived briefly in those towns.
Dude with Atlanta and Nashville it all has to do with the transplants. You can tell who was from Atlanta alot of times simply by there dialect and family ties throughout the inner city. You see most people in the actually city of Atlanta were from atlanta (mostly the run down areas). When you get to Gwinnet county and all of those suburban regions that's where you find most of your transplants from all over the country. The transplants often referred to the city of Atlanta as "real Atlanta" because that's where the true generational natives were. How often do you here of a T.I, Bone Crusher, Shawty Lo, claiming to be from Gwinnet county, GA...never.
In Louisville's case the it's almost the same. One user not to long ago actually posted maps of the districts in the city and the percentage of which were actually from the city of Louisville. The areas that you refer to as the "Southern areas" were the ones with the most natives to Louisville..the South End, West End,...ect. Not surprisingly the East End and the Churchill downs/UofL area of town also had high percentages of Natives. The regions however that had the lowest percentage of Natives was the St. Matthews and far Eastern regions of the city. Those are the areas that I here most advocates of a "Midwestern Louisville" referencing.
Unfortunately it offers no explanation for non conforming metropolitan areas. However I would guess that since it shows that places like St. Louis, KC, DC, Chicago are truely their own islands of culture that don't bare strong resemblance to demographics/culture in their states or surrounding areas. Alot of St. Lounatics gladly distinguish St. Louis from the surrounding areas of Missouri and even their suburban areas for what ever region.
To slugger: Only people that are lost (or confused) need maps to guide their direction. With that said, keep on reading your maps my friend. Eventually, you might just find your way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdawg
NC has more than double the population than KY's, so of course they are going to have more hispanics and blacks. DUH.
Good Point!!! Let's look at the percentages of blacks and hispanics for these two states instead.
NC's percentage of hispanics is nearly as large (or better yet, as small) as KY's percentage of blacks. Also, nearly 44% of KY's already small black population lives in Jefferson County. Without Jefferson County, KY has an average black population of 5.2%. Remember this the next time you try to claim that KY has a "sizable" rural black population. The only "sizable" black population you'll find living in KY are all in one midwestern county. There just aren't many "southern blacks" in KY. This is neither a "good thing" nor "bad thing". It is just a cultural observation that CLEARLY separates KY from the "real south".
If KY's rural black population is "sizable" to you, then what you would find in the "real south" would probably . Never mind. I won't even go there.
Anyways, go to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, NC, SC, Louisiana etc etc etc. Then (and ONLY then) will you know what a "sizable" rural black population really looks like.
My point in bringing up race and ethnic diversity is because "someone" keeps posting maps that COMPLETELY ignore the racial demographics of the south vs KY. If I were to visit KY solely on "slugger's" maps, I would be VERY disappointed at what I saw in person when I arrived in KY. Many of sluggers maps fail at explaining the growth and diversity patterns of the south vs KY. This is why I post the stats straight from the US census. There is CLEARLY a cultural/racial connection between KY, Missouri, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and West Virginia. Whether slugger wishes to admit to it is on him. The bottom line is NO ONE on this thread can refute the US census evidence I have brought to this exchange. So to "slugger" (like I stated before) keep posting those maps buddy. Maybe you will eventually find your way. You are obviously lost and desperately need to "map" your way out.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 11-06-2009 at 01:42 PM..
To slugger: Only people that are lost (or confused) need maps to guide their direction. With that said, keep on reading your maps my friend. Eventually, you might just find your way.
Good Point!!! Let's look at the percentages of blacks and hispanics for these two states instead.
NC's percentage of hispanics is nearly as large (or better yet, as small) as KY's percentage of blacks. Also, nearly 44% of KY's already small black population lives in Jefferson County. Without Jefferson County, KY has an average black population of 5.2%. Remember this the next time you try to claim that KY has a "sizable" rural black population. The only "sizable" black population you'll find living in KY are all in one midwestern county. There just aren't many "southern blacks" in KY. This is neither a "good thing" nor "bad think". It is just a cultural observation that CLEARLY separates KY from the "real south".
If KY's rural black population is "sizable" to you, then what you would find in the "real south" would probably . Never mind. I won't even go there.
Anyways, go to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, NC, SC, Louisiana etc etc etc. Then (and ONLY then) will you know what a "sizable" rural black population really looks like.
Dude I don't care what those states black population are. Kentucky is upper south, grouped with Tennessee and parts of other southern states, as well as southern portions of midwestern states. No one here is saying Kentucky is the deep south like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and even parts of North Carolina. The Mid-south is DIFFERENT than the Deep South. Do you get that? They are BOTH southern, but in different ways, one of those ways is that the black population is higher in the Deep South, and that is probably the biggest difference.
To slugger: [/b]Only people that are lost (or confused) need maps to guide their direction. With that said, keep on reading your maps my friend. Eventually, you might just find your way.
Good Point!!! Let's look at the percentages of blacks and hispanics for these two states instead.
Gee great response to your butt whoopin. Once again your debating skills are minimal to say the least. You cannot address half of the points that I've posted up...Rather you opt to ramble on and on about Kentucky and North Carolina's black and hispanic population. While you're at it post New York, Ohio, and Illinois minority population and it will prove how much more Southern they are than Kentucky
Quote:
My point in bringing up race and ethnic diversity is because "someone" keeps posting maps
No actually you brought up race prior to me reentering the debate. Remember it was your main reasoning as to why Kentucky is not Southern dispite Kentucky's demographic mirroring the Upland Southern region of Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, ECT...
Quote:
that COMPLETELY ignore the racial demographics of the south vs KY. If I were to visit KY solely on "slugger's" maps, I would be VERY disappointed at what I saw in person when I arrived in KY.
Oh please don't talk to me about ignoring anything. You haven't addressed ANY of my sourced rebuttals to your shallow arguments. The fact of the matter is there are states with much larger black populations than Kentucky's in both the North and the South (in fact Ky lands right in the middle nationally)of the Mason Dixon Line. So what differientates the large Northern population from the large Southern populations....Ding Ding Ding the South's large RURAL black population. Funny how you can acknowledge that the Deep South has a much larger black population than both Upland Kentucky and Tennessee, but you don't want to acknowledge that even those relatively low (compared to the Deep South) populations in the rural areas are still much denser in population than any other non Southern state.
You also seem to not want to acknowledge that Upland Southern culture is still Southern culture, without as heavy a concentration of blacks as the Lowland South. You have tried your freakin best to ignore that Upland Southern culture is not just the former border states of the Civil War, but actually comprises almost all of Tennssee and Arkansas along with the Southern regions of the Lower Midwest. I've acknowledged EVERYTHING that you've thrown at me, but YOU are the one running from what I've presented. That's why your argument has fallen under such critism from other posters and is standing on it's last leg of credibility!
Quote:
Many of sluggers maps fail at explaining the growth and diversity patterns of the south vs KY.
Such as...What? My sources are specific and show the regions broken down into sub regions and so on. You on the other hand are using STRICTLY Census data to determine culture..Do you really know how ridiculous that is? Take Tennessee for instance you acknowledge that the Census data states that it has just over a million blacks within the state lines. Does the Census data that you've presented tell you where those blacks are concentrated?....Does it tell you that the black population is divided evenly with the 95 counties of Tennessee...No it doesn't. Does it tell you that there are counties in Tennessee with a black population of 0...No it doesn't. So how do you take this information and coordinate it with culture when you don't know the concentration of the population.
What you've attempted to do with Tennessee's black population of one million is throw it around to show that it belongs with the rest of South, essentially masking the fact that HALF of that population lives in 3 counties in the EXTREME Southwest corner of the state bordering the Mississippi Delta. So what does that say about the other 92 counties throughout the rest of the state?
Quote:
This is why I post the stats straight from the US census.
Which is why your argument is flawed...very!
Quote:
There is CLEARLY a cultural/racial connection between KY, Missouri, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and West Virginia.
LMAO NO DOUBT....My question to you is why in the Hell are you so pertrified to mention that Kentucky has a cultural connection with Tennesssee. Which in all likelyhood is probably the stongest cultural connection it has. You're indenial about Upland Southern culture engulfing Tennessee, and half of Arkansas...WHY? Because it will kill your argument!
Quote:
Whether slugger wishes to admit to it is on him. The bottom line is NO ONE on this thread can refute the US census evidence I have brought to this exchange. So to "slugger" (like I stated before) keep posting those maps buddy. Maybe you will eventually find your way. You are obviously lost and desperately need to "map" your way out.
Dude you don't know anything about culture you'd simply prefer to mask things with Census bureau facts. Some of my maps that I so "desperately need" are FACTS suchas religious affiliation (You know the one that proves that Kentucky is one of the most heavily Baptist states even amongst the South), or slave populations. The other maps are SCHOLARLY MAPS suchas Linguistics (You the maps that prove that Kentucky speaks with a Southern dialect), the cultural maps researched by leading sociologist (culture experts) which place Kentucky and Tennessee FIRMLY within the Upland South. Or how about the reputed sociologist John Sheldon Reed stating that Kentucky is a Southern state along with Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, Ect.
Then you make your argument look even dumber your beloved census bureau places Kentucky the South
Dude I don't care what those states black population are. Kentucky is upper south, grouped with Tennessee and parts of other southern states, as well as southern portions of midwestern states. No one here is saying Kentucky is the deep south like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and even parts of North Carolina. The Mid-south is DIFFERENT than the Deep South. Do you get that? They are BOTH southern, but in different ways, one of those ways is that the black population is higher in the Deep South, and that is probably the biggest difference.
I couldn't have summed it up better. It's obvious UrbanCharlotte already has his mind made up and isn't willing to listen to the opinion of the other Southerners on this thread...He's stuck with his head in the sand.
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.
The next time you decide to "cut and paste" major cities within a southern state, just make sure you take Louisville out of KY too. Then make your comparison.
Except for the fact that Kentucky has a rural black population density most similar to Upland Tennessee!
. Never mind. I won't even go there.
