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.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,684,299 times
Reputation: 10256
Advertisements
These maps have serious problems.
Anyone bothered by greater Appalachia not going into Pennsylvania and NY state? If it doesn't bother you, ride the PA Tpk from Philadelphia to the Ohio state line, which will also point out that Philadelphia doesn't equal Pittsburgh, they barely coexist in the state, much less the rest of that area taking in Ontario.
Then there's Chesapeake. Sure. According to that, Delmarva doesn't include Delaware. Anyone ever ride Route 13 down Delmarva?
Anyone bothered by greater Appalachia not going into Pennsylvania and NY state? If it doesn't bother you, ride the PA Tpk from Philadelphia to the Ohio state line, which will also point out that Philadelphia doesn't equal Pittsburgh, they barely coexist in the state, much less the rest of that area taking in Ontario.
It does go into Pennsylvania. Again, one needs to actually read the book, not just nitpick the map.
He places the Triangle, Greensboro, and most of eastern North Carolina in Tidewater, while Winston-Salem, Charlotte, and the western Piedmont/mountains are in Greater Appalachia. Finally, Wilmington and Fayetteville are placed in the Deep South. His argument primarily focuses on history, but would you say this is accurate?
So, costellopresley, what do you mean by "accurate"? Obviously it's not accurate in the real world, but I have not read the book so can't say whether in context it makes more sense. BUT if I was going to make a map like this with these boundaries I would not pick these names. I think that is the problem folks have with it. If you said "Great Wagon Road Land" instead of "Greater Appalachia" and something else for "Tidewater" that might work, but the names he chose are names that already designate specific regions and it's weird to say Raleigh and Greensboro are "Tidewater" when in the Real World they most definitely are not. I like the Food Nations map better.
The Piedmont is considered Greater Appalachia so Greensboro and Durham/Chapel Hill should certainly be included. Raleigh is a fall line city geographically but more like an interior Piedmont city culturally so throw it in Greater Appalachia as well. I also just noticed that this map has all of the Charlotte metro within NC as part of Greater Appalachia, but the SC metro counties are Deep South which is utterly ridiculous. York, Lancaster, and Chester counties all have the same sort of history and culture as their NC counterparts and were also settled by pioneers traveling south on the Great Wagon Road from PA.
If Durham and Chapel Hill are split from Raleigh, then you have the same problem that's created in the Triad, and the SC suburbs of Charlotte. These large connected metro areas aren't culturally split.
BTW, does anyone know of a map that shows the actual Fall Line against the municipalities in NC? I've seen reference to Raleigh being a Fall Line city and I've seen references that the Fall Line is actually east of the city. In Richmond it's easy to see the rapids on the James River cutting through the city, but the Neuse River doesn't run through the middle of Raleigh, rather along its eastern edge.
If Durham and Chapel Hill are split from Raleigh, then you have the same problem that's created in the Triad, and the SC suburbs of Charlotte. These large connected metro areas aren't culturally split.
I agree, and technically the fall line is where the Piedmont begins so all of the Triangle's cities belong in the same region which is what I was advocating.
It does go into Pennsylvania. Again, one needs to actually read the book, not just nitpick the map.
I see that the author names the regions according to the Europeans that settled them. Even still, I think he makes some mistakes at the margins and in some cases, tracks too closely to state lines.
I see that the author names the regions according to the Europeans that settled them. Even still, I think he makes some mistakes at the margins and in some cases, tracks too closely to state lines.
And again, if you'd READ the book, you'd understand why thats the case, and in fact, understand that was the authors intent. For hopefully the last time, the map is NOT meant to be examined, parsed and criticized as a freestanding document. It means nothing without the context of the book itself.
And again, if you'd READ the book, you'd understand why thats the case, and in fact, understand that was the authors intent. For hopefully the last time, the map is NOT meant to be examined, parsed and criticized as a freestanding document. It means nothing without the context of the book itself.
Well, it's a bit of a conundrum to have folks see the map as a stand alone in a thread without a quick synopsis of what the book says about the 3 regions that are represented in the state. We can only react to what we see and read/see.
And again, if you'd READ the book, you'd understand why thats the case, and in fact, understand that was the authors intent. For hopefully the last time, the map is NOT meant to be examined, parsed and criticized as a freestanding document. It means nothing without the context of the book itself.
First of all, you need to calm down and stop sniping at people like you wrote the book yourself. And if you weren't so quick to pounce on folks, you'd realize that I was actually underscoring your point. I'm not going to buy a book just to make a few posts on a C-D thread but I did at least read an article by the author himself wherein he explained the rationale behind the regional nomenclature he chose (I meant to provide the link to the article in my previous post).
Don't bother responding if you insist on addressing me in such an unjustifiably arrogant and demeaning tone.
The book is pretty biased. But, you should read it. You'll learn a bunch of stuff from it. But, the basic premise boils down -- people here are like that because USA has these regional cultures and they make up 11-12 nations that always compete with each other. Events happen here because people here are inherently ..... You can fill in the blanks based on the stereotypes you know about American regions.
Dividing the nation who moves around a lot by regional cultures is pretty lazy. His book picks and chooses events and says "see, this happened because Yankeedom's culture is like this." It never occurs to him that the Yankeedom money actually propelled a lot of atrocities that happened out west and elsewhere. Money was flowing from up north to support all the atrocious things he describes, including the railways. Anyway, even though I didn't care about his book and do not agree with it, y'all picking on this map without understanding the basic premise of why he created it is kinda silly.
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.
