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.
It seems like we all talk about the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West as generally homogeneous and unified regions, although we do acknowledge there are sub-regions within them. My question is the following: how much of it is based on geographic proximity? So if City A in the South, for example, is geographically closer to City B in the Midwest than to City C that's also in the South, would City A still be essentially the same as City C, or would there be a lot more noticeable similarities between City A and City B that don't exist between City B and City C?
Some examples:
1. The Carolinas compared with PA, NJ and OH vs. LA, MS, and AR, and east TX.
2. The Eastern Great Lakes (OH, MI, IN) compared to either the western northeast (PA, western NY) or the upper south (KY, TN) vs. western MN, western IA, and the Plains States.
3. Some western states such as AZ, NM, and CO compared with TX, OK (south) or KS, MO (Midwest), vs. the Pacific Northwest (western WA and OR.)
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.
