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.
And when did you last do an extensive tour of the entire state of Missouri south of 70?
Oh, thats right, on your last pleasure trip to Branson.
Cuz, you know, the entire southern half of the state looks just like Branson.
I guess you have a hard time with irony?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac
It was you who stated the only part of MO that isn't midwestern is the SE boot hill.
Many /most areas of MO below I-70 doesn't resemble the midwest agriculturally wise ( especially SW MO )
As I already stated.
I'm going to the farm in Missouri in 2 weeks, I am gonna take lots and lots of pictures of farms that raise corn south of 70, and DONT look like Branson, just for you!
Its clear as day you really havent traveled much in Missouri south of 70.
Many /most areas of MO below I-70 doesn't resemble the midwest agriculturally wise ( especially SW MO )
this is true, but as you can see, niether does the upper half of michigan, minnesota and wisconsin, not to mention the fact that western missippi has a lot in common agriculturally with the midwest. thats not the only factor. much of missouri below i-70 is not culturally southern, but midwestern. the locals think of themselves that way, and that is quite key.
this same logic could be applied to north and south dakota i suppose, as one can clearly see that 2/3 of the state doesnt share the same agricultural traits as much of the midwest. i have no idea what its like there. but missourians (at least the ones a good 20 miles from arkansas) michiganders and minnesotans DO consider themselves midwestern, despite not really being part of the midwestern agricultural belt.
Last edited by JimmyJohnWilson; 10-26-2010 at 09:35 PM..
this is true, but as you can see, niether does the upper half of michigan, minnesota and wisconsin, not to mention the fact that western missippi has a lot in common agriculturally with the midwest. thats not the only factor. much of missouri below i-70 is not culturally southern, but midwestern. the locals think of themselves that way, and that is quite key.
this same logic could be applied to north and south dakota i suppose, as one can clearly see that 2/3 of the state doesnt share the same agricultural traits as much of the midwest. i have no idea what its like there. but missourians (at least the ones a good 20 miles from arkansas) michiganders and minnesotans DO consider themselves midwestern, despite not really being part of the midwestern agricultural belt.
(Notice the outliers in the High Plains that are part of the feedlot, packing plant, slaughterhouse belt on that corn for grain map)
Southern Missouri is not agriculturally midwestern. It is really a westward extension of the upland South with a good deal of dense woods and mixed topography that support smaller scale local agricultural operations that often are in the realm of smaller ranches and dairy farms as opposed to corn and soybean farms. Culturally, I don't find southern Missouri that midwestern at all although a number of the lightly traveled natives would disagree. Climatically, southern Missouri has far more in common with the South with lots of rainfall and less well-defined seasonal changes in temperature due to being fairly far south in latitude. Educationally, most of Missouri south of I-70 severely lags behind many rural areas of the country- particularly areas north of the Mason Dixon line. This pattern of low educational attainment levels and systemic rural poverty problems in rural areas of Missouri is an issue much more common to the rural South than most areas of the Midwest without a doubt.
I'm going to the farm in Missouri in 2 weeks, I am gonna take lots and lots of pictures of farms that raise corn south of 70, and DONT look like Branson, just for you!
Its clear as day you really havent traveled much in Missouri south of 70.
Yes, sugar, I know exactly what I said.
It is also no surprise that the BEST ag soils in Missouri south of I-70 tend to follow major rivers as well as river valleys. Many areas of southern Missouri have rugged and uneven topography that is not really conducive for large-scale agriculture at all. Many would agree that the Ozarks have an upland South cultural component similar to that of the Appalachians, but with "some" Midwest elements.
this is true, but as you can see, niether does the upper half of michigan, minnesota and wisconsin, not to mention the fact that western missippi has a lot in common agriculturally with the midwest. thats not the only factor. much of missouri below i-70 is not culturally southern, but midwestern. the locals think of themselves that way, and that is quite key.
this same logic could be applied to north and south dakota i suppose, as one can clearly see that 2/3 of the state doesnt share the same agricultural traits as much of the midwest. i have no idea what its like there. but missourians (at least the ones a good 20 miles from arkansas) michiganders and minnesotans DO consider themselves midwestern, despite not really being part of the midwestern agricultural belt.
I trust you're just forgetting the Great Lakes? And their effect on climate.
Or are they not 'Midwestern', also?
Also using your narrow definition based on cultivation of a single species of legume, and one of grass, it would seem that the 'Bootheel' of Mo, eastern Arkansas, and NE Louisiana are also 'Midwestern'; far more than Duluth, Saginaw, or Wausau.
Makes zero sense.
Last edited by Geechie North; 10-26-2010 at 10:47 PM..
I trust you're just forgetting the Great Lakes? And their effect on climate.
Or are they not 'Midwestern', also?
thats my point exactly. the topic of this thread (and previous posts) is claims agriculture is the only factor in gauging what is, and isnt, the midwest. my point is that the Great lakes areas are part of the midwest despite not sharing the same agriculture. thats my entire point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
Also using your narrow definition based on cultivation of a single species of legume, and one of grass, it would seem that the 'Bootheel' of Mo, eastern Arkansas, and NE Louisiana are also 'Midwestern'; far more than Duluth, Saginaw, or Wausau.
Makes zero sense.
makes zero sense, because you didnt read very carefully. its not "my narrow definition", i posted this to disprove that narrow definition. i even said that if agriculture was the only factor that western mississppi would be part of the midwest. did you even read my post? because youve not posted a single thing hear that contradicts any of my points.
thats my point exactly. the topic of this thread (and previous posts) is claims agriculture is the only factor in gauging what is, and isnt, the midwest. my point is that the Great lakes areas are part of the midwest despite not sharing the same agriculture. thats my entire point.
makes zero sense, because you didnt read very carefully. its not "my narrow definition", i posted this to disprove that narrow definition. i even said that if agriculture was the only factor that western mississppi would be part of the midwest. did you even read my post? because youve not posted a single thing hear that contradicts any of my points.
I admit, your post (earlier) did confuse me.
But the main point is that AG, while not the only factor, is a chief definer of what is 'Midwestern':
Agriculture gross domestic product in $ billionsRankStateGDPPercentage of U.S.
1California$27.317.3%
2Texas$9.86.2%
3Iowa$8.75.5%
4Washington$74.5%
5Illinois$6.34%
6Florida$6.23.9%
7Minnesota$5.73.6%
8Nebraska$5.63.6%
9Wisconsin$4.52.9%
10Oregon$42.5% Agriculture sector top states by percentage of state economy"
Note that 50% of those states are Midwestern.
Lots of factors create the regions of the US- History, ethnicity, attitudes, etc.
I now understand from an earlier thread that some (and some not) from Missouri are desperate to be considered Midwestern, and while there are many factors that say it's a transition zone between true Midwest and Upper South, I also agree that what people think they are is also important, so for those Missourians who consider themselves Midwestern, that is fine by me.
Just don't expect many of us who are not from the 'Show Me' state to agree.
Last edited by Geechie North; 10-27-2010 at 08:38 AM..
But the main point is that AG, while not the only factor, is a chief definer of what is 'Midwestern':
Just don't expect many of us who are not from the 'Show Me' state to agree.
Heres the long and short of it.
No matter what is raised agriculturally, Missourians DO consider themselves Midwesterners, save for the extreme Bootheel.
Having lived in several locations in Missouri, including the Bootheel, I am qualified to know of which I speak.
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.