Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-16-2009, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,731 posts, read 14,284,505 times
Reputation: 2774

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC1DAY View Post
1. IMO, the difference is in culture and money. The people have a different mentality of life in Charleston, SC than in Dallas, TX. The reason for this is because the metro area of Dallas is 6.5 M people and it grew by 19% from 2000 to 2007.

Do you think that the people coming to Dallas were from rural Texas? I think not. They were coming from the Northeast, Miami, Atanta, Cali, all over the west coast, etc.

That is why small towns in the south still have the redneck feel is because there is not a lot of white collar jobs, which in return keeps the population low. Also, if you have not noticed rednecks do not like big cities..... they want to be in rural areas. So, if there were rednecks in Dallas then I can guarantee you when they saw the population boom that most of them went to a rural area farther from Dallas.

2. In the rural south (towns and states).... I have seen people that speak like Larry The Cable, hunt, go muddin, watch nascar, every activity that a redneck does, but they have a 4 yr college degree, own a average house and are making a decent living

Just because someone has a college degree, makes a decent living and owns a house it doesnt disqualify them from being a redneck.

EX) I knew a friend of my sisters that had every indication of being a redneck..... trust me when I say everything. I was having a convo with him and I found out the guy is a pharmacist. So just because you have a little bit of money and a college degree it doesnt disqualify you from being a redneck
Work that MBA.

 
Old 03-16-2009, 11:42 PM
 
2,057 posts, read 5,468,661 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsteelerfan View Post
YA, actually it is! That's the definition of "backwards"! Looking at a "quilt" and "appreciating the colors"?... What are you, some kind of Mary?........
HAHA... thats funny
 
Old 03-16-2009, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,731 posts, read 14,284,505 times
Reputation: 2774
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC1DAY View Post
HAHA... thats funny
Yeah, if he was being sarcastic it is pretty funny.

If he was being serious, it's extremely sad and very base.
 
Old 03-17-2009, 01:08 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,285,866 times
Reputation: 18436
I can't name whole states as being progressive.

California has very progressive parts (LA, SF), but some of the most backwards parts I have ever seen too (Santa Rosa and north to the border, central valley, rural parts, Bakersfield, Orange county-most backwards affluent area in the country).

NY has progressive parts (NYC) but the rest might be too steeped in tradition to be progressive. Same with Mass. (Boston) and Connecticut.

IL, WI, and MN are progressive, but have backwards parts.

I would classify every state that went RED in this last election as being backwards but containing progressive areas that are very small.
 
Old 03-17-2009, 06:46 AM
 
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,631,181 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
I can't name whole states as being progressive.

California has very progressive parts (LA, SF), but some of the most backwards parts I have ever seen too (Santa Rosa and north to the border, central valley, rural parts, Bakersfield, Orange county-most backwards affluent area in the country).

NY has progressive parts (NYC) but the rest might be too steeped in tradition to be progressive. Same with Mass. (Boston) and Connecticut.

IL, WI, and MN are progressive, but have backwards parts.

I would classify every state that went RED in this last election as being backwards but containing progressive areas that are very small.
IL, WI, and MN have one or two cities at most that could be classified as progressive. But you discount entire southern states with many more cities and larger populations than that, *cough* like Texas *cough* Makes no sense. With a few exceptions, most cities would be progressive to varying degrees, not entire states.
 
Old 03-17-2009, 03:07 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,789,930 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by th3vault View Post
Florida's a purple state.... not blue. Sure it went for Obama this time but not by much and passed a constitutional amendment gay marriage AND civil union ban by over 60% of the vote in 66 of 67 counties and Florida was red the election before and 537 votes the election before that. Republican governor, Republican House and Republican Senate...... I would not call Florida a blue state.

And as you said earlier.... one metro does not make a state. You have a lot of seniors on the west coast, the South in N Florida and the interior peninsula..... and the Tampa and Orlando metros are a 50/50 split.... not either totally backwards or totally progressive...... the only "progressive" areas are Broward/Palm Beach and parts of Dade and the Keys.....

Though you are correct that Florida isn't Mississippi...... it also isn't California......
But compared to ALOT of other states. But like you said, ONE metro doent make a whole state. So in that case Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Conneticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Every state in the south except Texas, is in the same boat as florida. Because every single one of those state has ONE huge city that is progressive and the rest of the state is still pretty backwards. That's what I think. California has a republican Gov. NYC had a republican mayor.

Last edited by polo89; 03-17-2009 at 03:16 PM..
 
Old 03-17-2009, 03:08 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,789,930 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Again, the difference isn't in culture, it's in money. Urban areas have more money. Rural areas have less money. There are rednecks in every state. Even in big cities like Chicago and Boston. They're just outnumbered by people who care about being politically correct. For every hick you can find in rural Tennessee, I can find an artist, writer, or philosopher. Culture isn't just in books and museums. Culture is what's all around us. The man who goes hunting deer every fall may be someone with a deep appreciation of the beauty around him, someone who waits for the fall, for the silence in the woods when he can hear a twig breaking beneath a hoof, for the solitude of the early morning and the creeping cold that makes visible his breath. There's culture in the quilts pieced together by the ladies in the church, there's culture in the evening meal you sit down to partake. The "backwards" people are the ones who don't look around themselves to see what their culture offers, and long for the culture elsewhere. Certainly, I love the museums and galleries in New York City, the bookstores, the concerts, the opera and the plays. But it's not "backwards" to come home to Arkansas and to breathe deep of the clean air, to climb the hills and look across the green verdant landscape for miles and miles. It's not "backwards" to listen the lyrics of country music, and hear that poetry any more than it is "backwards" to listen to rap and hear the rhythms of the street. It's not "backwards" to look at a quilt, and to appreciate the colors and composition of it like any piece of modern art, and to know the hours of loving labor that created it. "Backwards" is putting down things you don't take the time to understand.
I like the post.
 
Old 03-17-2009, 03:15 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,789,930 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
I can't name whole states as being progressive.

California has very progressive parts (LA, SF), but some of the most backwards parts I have ever seen too (Santa Rosa and north to the border, central valley, rural parts, Bakersfield, Orange county-most backwards affluent area in the country).

NY has progressive parts (NYC) but the rest might be too steeped in tradition to be progressive. Same with Mass. (Boston) and Connecticut.

IL, WI, and MN are progressive, but have backwards parts.

I would classify every state that went RED in this last election as being backwards but containing progressive areas that are very small.
Exactly. There is no state that is ALL the way progressive. ANY state whether it be a blue or a red are gonna have big cities that are progressive, BUT outside of those cities you'll still find backwards people who dont want to change. Even New York, outside of NYC you'll find people who are just as backwards as people in stereotypically backwards states. And california also. Around bakersfield you'll find people like that. Heck, even in LA you'll find PLENTY of white power skinheads with backwards thinking. So there isnt any "progressive" state.
 
Old 03-17-2009, 04:21 PM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,048,610 times
Reputation: 11352
I hate these....it always just turns into hurt feelings and then rage....


If I had to choose, and certainly there are only opinions for the most part.

Progressive: Washington, Oregon, Mass., New York

Backwards: Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana


I think a more interesting question would be what states are normally clumped together in the "progressive/backwards" pools of thought, but in reality tend to buck that trend.
 
Old 03-17-2009, 04:27 PM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,048,610 times
Reputation: 11352
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
But compared to ALOT of other states. But like you said, ONE metro doent make a whole state. So in that case Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Conneticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Every state in the south except Texas, is in the same boat as florida. Because every single one of those state has ONE huge city that is progressive and the rest of the state is still pretty backwards. That's what I think. California has a republican Gov. NYC had a republican mayor.
I'd definitely disagree here. Places like Wisconsin, Conneticut and New Hampshire are actually fairly progressive places, regardless of where you're living.

Wisconsin is much more progressive in the non-urban areas then you'd think. Not to mention places like Madison.

Same with Iowa.

Iowa is a fairly rural state, is mostly white, and has a median age higher than the national average.

In 2008 though, 53 Iowa counties (well over half), a majority of them rural, voted for Obama over McCain. That would be seen as fairly progressive for a state that taken at face value would look to be a sure-win for McCain.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top