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.
Northeast, Mountain West and PNW all destroy the midwest/south.
Seriously, why even continue this debate? It's like arguing which two farm teams are going to win the double-A title this year, when the Yankees/Red Sox are on. Could the piddly, hideous midwest and the blistering, run-down, unbelievably backwards south please step aside and let the big boys fight this one out?
Kay, thanks.
LOL
Folks! ding, ding, ding ding... we have a new worst post on the internets.
Congratulations on being the only person to take my first post serious.
Anyway, where is the stretch? Well, other than being located in the former Confederate States of America, which was 140 years ago, what do Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock and San Antonio have in common culturally with the likes of Charlotte, Richmond, Jacksonville, Atlanta, and Miami? NOTHING.
Of course Austin and Miami are southern cities - geographically, but culturally they are completely different. Oklahoma and a LARGE part of Texas are very much southwestern like New Mexico. Furthermore, most from Texas would never claim they have the same culture as those in southeastern states - you should know this as someone who lived in Fort Worth. BTW, I'm from the south too and grouping all of these cities into two, distinct regions is beyond ridiculous.
I got to laugh because I'm trying not angry ROFL, listen. I'm a Ex Fort Worth resident DFW is my second home I was born in Chicago but grown up back and forth between Atlanta and DFW, the Dal in my user name is for Dallas, I still have family in DFW, I also know a crazy amount of people from OKC and etc especially When I lived in DFW. I lived in Charlotte for a year but that's different story.
Texas and OK are large states most of there populations stay on the east and central areas. They cultural have more in common with Louisiana and Arkansas then anything. The only parts of those states that are like New Mexico is the western end which pretty rural with a few midsize cities, again They are large states. Different part of those states can be in different regions.
See where is Memphis, Shreveport, little Rock, Jackson, Texarkana, Tyler, Longview, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc at? Where is any of the mid south cities?
Quote:
Again, you can't tell me cities like Charlotte, Richmond, and Tampa have more in common culturally with cities like Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Austin than cities like Kansas City, Wichita and St. Louis just because they are located south. BTW, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay are connected to Minneapolis culturally.
Again you skipping southern cities. And jumping end to end. Those middle cities your skipping are the bridge and they completely southern. Those southern middle cities have hella way more in common then those Midwestern cities do with the other southern cities.
OKC may have mix culture of both
DFW hell NO! as it has more in common with generally the south
Austin is a mix culture but has nothing to do with the midwest, it's the south and southwest.
The south is not monolithic, I don't know who ever told you southern culture is monolithic but that's wrong. Even worse, so now I guess there's right and wrong southerns. ) Just as the Midwest is not as monolithic which was my point. Growing up I never taught of the Northern plains as the Midwest but it is! Which is not the same thing as the great lake regions but it's Midwestern cultural No less.
Exactly. It's meaningless. Why? Because it's not the freakin 1800s!!
I don't even see what your crying over what we should discount Texas or discount the south Atlantic but don't count both or the south as a whole. ) But ignore the great lakes and northern plains changes in the Midwest. It doesn't even make sense.
Also NO. It's meaningless as in Minneapolis is still the Midwest and never mind it's still the US. Minneapolis is distant to the bulk of Midwestern cities when most southern cities are actually closer. Mean while Minneapolis has cultural ties to Canada but that's meaningless. the same with bringing up the Northern plains to southern plains it's meaningless that like comparing the southeast to the Ohio valley.
Here's some numbers for the Central American communities in the Miami & Chicago metro areas:
In regards to Africa, Chicago's foreign born population from Africa numbers 40,887 and Miami numbers 19,754 with Chicago's largest group hailing from Nigeria (10,251) and Miami's from South Africa (3,788).
I apologize for my ignorance, I originally had it as central America being Miami but second guessed myself when thinking of Chicago's immigration draw and central America being as overlooked as it is on the world radar
Congratulations on being the only person to take my first post serious.
Anyway, where is the stretch? Well, other than being located in the former Confederate States of America, which was 140 years ago, what do Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock and San Antonio have in common culturally with the likes of Charlotte, Richmond, Jacksonville, Atlanta, and Miami? NOTHING.
Of course Austin and Miami are southern cities - geographically, but culturally they are completely different. Oklahoma and a LARGE part of Texas are very much southwestern like New Mexico. Furthermore, most from Texas would never claim they have the same culture as those in southeastern states - you should know this as someone who lived in Fort Worth. BTW, I'm from the south too and grouping all of these cities into two, distinct regions is beyond ridiculous.
Exactly. It's meaningless. Why? Because it's not the freakin 1800s!!
Again, you can't tell me cities like Charlotte, Richmond, and Tampa have more in common culturally with cities like Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Austin than cities like Kansas City, Wichita and St. Louis just because they are located south. BTW, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay are connected to Minneapolis culturally.
CSA's over a million, not in order "Note the south has 19 MSA over million"
The South "not including DC and Baltimore, it's not fair as it is but you add them. if you want"
1. Houston
2. Dallas/FT Worth
3. Miami
4. Atlanta
5. San Antonio
6. Austin
7. Nashville
8. Richmond
9. Orlando
10. Jacksonville
11. New Orleans
12. Charlotte
13. Tampa,
14. Oklahoma city,
15. Raleigh/Durham
16. Louisville,
17. Memphis,
18. Birmingham,
19. Norfolk/Virginia Beach
20. Greenville/Spartanburg
21. Greensboro, Winston-Salem
22. Knoxville-Sevierville
The Midwest
1.Chicago
2. Detroit/Flint
3. Minneapolis/St Paul
4. St. Louis
5. Cleveland
6. Kansas City
7. Columbus
8. Cincinnati
9. Indianapolis
10. Milwaukee
Another note there are more 500,000 to a million midsize metros in the South Also. Tulsa MSA is 5 years to being over a million.
How do the cities of the Mountain West 'destroy' those of the Midwest? What do they even have, Denver, SLC, ABQ? Chicago is arguably better than any city in the West aside from SF, although I personally find LA more interesting.
Well I disagree with him about the south but unless we're talking about Chicago or Minneapolis then he does bring up a great point. The rest of the midwest is replaceable and nothing special, really its the fourth wheel when we discuss the 4 major U.S. regions. I like Indy in the midwest, its a fast rising star for their region but still waiting for it to get to 3 million before I include it with my top two choices for the region. Midwest has no salt water coast, no place to go yachting, cruises, dolphins, sea world, palm trees, white sand beaches, topical/sub tropical/continental climate, high mountain peaks, etc
Fresh water in those great lakes and Chicago/Minneapolis is all they have going for them IMO. Really I think pitting the midwest against California would be a closer match for the midwest and even then its a blowout victory for California IMO
My votes with the South. Chicago as a city is larger and has more to offer than the largest Southern cities, and Minneapolis/St. Paul is also a nice metro area, but outside of those two cites, the Southern cities as a whole would win most comparisons, hands down. And that's without DC. Since the Census Bureau gives DC to the South, it's basically the icing on the cake for the South.
On the DC being in the South argument, prior to 1970, it was very Southern in nature, maybe not to the extent of most Deep South cities, but it was more Southern than a lot of people want to admit. I'm old enough to remember how DC was back then. It was basically the Northern fringe of the old Jim Crow South, complete with the de jure system of segregation, common in the rest of the Deep South. Most Northeastern and Midwestern cities at the time, practiced de facto segregation. Many of the institutions and organizations that exist in DC, especially in the African American community are very common in Southern cities, not as much in cities outside of the South. Since 1970, it has become more culturally aligned with the other cities in the Bos-Wash corridor, with much more of a Mid-Atlantic vibe, and much less of a Southern feel.
At the end of the day it can also be said that DFW, Houston, Atlanta, and Miami are a lot less Southern than they were in 1970. Being Southern is more of a cultural phenomenon, instead of strictly being based on geography.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
Also NO. It's meaningless as in Minneapolis is still the Midwest and never mind it's still the US. Minneapolis is distant to the bulk of Midwestern cities when most southern cities are actually closer. Mean while Minneapolis has cultural ties to Canada but that's meaningless. the same with bringing up the Northern plains to southern plains it's meaningless that like comparing the southeast to the Ohio valley.
Atlanta is closer to Nashville and Charlotte than Minneapolis is to the next 1+ million city, but Atlanta is much further away from the next major, global-esque city than Minneapolis is to Chicago. So although you're close to some other cities, Minneapolis is closer to Chicago, a truly global city. It's also 5 hours to Milwaukee and Omaha, 4 hours to Madison and Des Moines, and 7 hours to KC. St. Louis isn't so far as it is difficult to navigate to without direct interstate connection, but it could also be included. So although isolated, so is Atlanta, and I wouldn't consider Charlotte, Nashville, Birmingham or Jacksonville as "better" than KC, Omaha, Milwaukee, or Madison......not to mention Chicago.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11
Well I disagree with him about the south but unless we're talking about Chicago or Minneapolis then he does bring up a great point. The rest of the midwest is replaceable and nothing special, really its the fourth wheel when we discuss the 4 major U.S. regions. I like Indy in the midwest, its a fast rising star for their region but still waiting for it to get to 3 million before I include it with my top two choices for the region. Midwest has no salt water coast, no place to go yachting, cruises, dolphins, sea world, palm trees, white sand beaches, topical/sub tropical/continental climate, high mountain peaks, etc
Fresh water in those great lakes and Chicago/Minneapolis is all they have going for them IMO. Really I think pitting the midwest against California would be a closer match for the midwest and even then its a blowout victory for California IMO
The midwest, its becoming the forgotten region
That's how we feel/felt about the South, until people blindly migrated there for God knows why.
To me, it the difference between the "has beens" and the "never was/were". The Midwest cities were once truly great American cities and meccas for cultural attractions, while with exceptions here and there (Atlanta being one), most Southern cities never were truly great at one point in American history. There are 6+ cities in the Midwest that were once top 15 cities in this country.....can you say that about the South? It is a very interesting thing to be here in Cleveland (where we recently relocated for family reasons) and be in a city that is widely considered one of the least desirable places to relocate to in this country, yet you can see that this city was CLEARLY a very important place in America at some point, because the city is built to be another Chicago, Philly or Boston, yet never maintained its growth and robustness. The same could be probably said for Detroit, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh (not sure if it counts as Midwestern), Milwaukee, and Chicago.....and even the Twin Cities, Kansas City, Indy, and Columbus.
I got to laugh because I'm trying not angry ROFL, listen. I'm a Ex Fort Worth resident DFW is my second home I was born in Chicago but grown up back and forth between Atlanta and DFW, the Dal in my user name is for Dallas, I still have family in DFW, I also know a crazy amount of people from OKC and etc especially When I lived in DFW. I lived in Charlotte for a year but that's different story.
Texas and OK are large states most of there populations stay on the east and central areas. They cultural have more in common with Louisiana and Arkansas then anything. The only parts of those states that are like New Mexico is the western end which pretty rural with a few midsize cities, again They are large states. Different part of those states can be in different regions.
See where is Memphis, Shreveport, little Rock, Jackson, Texarkana, Tyler, Longview, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc at? Where is any of the mid south cities?
Again you skipping southern cities. And jumping end to end. Those middle cities your skipping are the bridge and they completely southern. Those southern middle cities have hella way more in common then those Midwestern cities do with the other southern cities.
OKC may have mix culture of both
DFW hell NO! as it has more in common with generally the south
Austin is a mix culture but has nothing to do with the midwest, it's the south and southwest.
The south is not monolithic, I don't know who ever told you southern culture is monolithic but that's wrong. Even worse, so now I guess there's right and wrong southerns. ) Just as the Midwest is not as monolithic which was my point. Growing up I never taught of the Northern plains as the Midwest but it is! Which is not the same thing as the great lake regions but it's Midwestern cultural No less.
I don't even see what your crying over what we should discount Texas or discount the south Atlantic but don't count both or the south as a whole. ) But ignore the great lakes and northern plains changes in the Midwest. It doesn't even make sense.
Also NO. It's meaningless as in Minneapolis is still the Midwest and never mind it's still the US. Minneapolis is distant to the bulk of Midwestern cities when most southern cities are actually closer. Mean while Minneapolis has cultural ties to Canada but that's meaningless. the same with bringing up the Northern plains to southern plains it's meaningless that like comparing the southeast to the Ohio valley.
Where is the yawn icon?
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.
Congratulations on being the only person to take my first post serious. 
[/quote]
