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: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll
I didnt say it started in Chicago. I said that it came to St. Louis via Chicago. It clearly started on the East Coast, then made its way to the Great Lakes, then St. Louis. They could have simultaneously evolved, but there's happens to be a nice little "dialect corridor" connecting Chicago to St. Louis, so it makes more sense to assume that it spread from one city to the other rather than simultaneously evolved in both and then neatly connected together. Chicago shows more characteristics of the vowel shift because it's closer to many other cities with the shift, St. Louis shows less characteristics because its only close to one city with the shift, Chicago.
the point is, when looking at a religious map, MO looks more out of place in the North than it does in the South. You bringing up religion doesn't help your case of MO being Northern. Yes, there are slightly more Catholics than Southern Baptists in MO (15% vs 14% in the year 2000) The Association of Religion Data Archives | Maps & Reports But you never see such a high percentage of Southern Baptists in the Northern state, although you can see a similar percentage of Catholics in a Southern state. Yes, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana are anomalies, but they're still part of the South regardless. You wont find such anomalies in the North, unless you count MO as a Northern state. No Northern state comes close at all. I didnt bring up the part about religion, you did. I'm merely pointing out that it makes MO seem less Northern.
Again, I'm not trying to argue that MO is a Southern state. And just because it's Midwestern doesn't make it Northern. States West of the Mississippi generally dont count in the Northern/Southern, unless they're so far North or South that they cant be considered the opposite. MO & KS happen to be in the middle, so they dont get labeled as either. Just like CO, UT, NV, and CA dont get labeled as North or South.
From a geographic standpoint, I would agree. The religion does make it less Northern, but you have to consider that it is only one influence. You can't say Texas, Florida, and Louisiana compare to Missouri...their Catholic presence are due to characteristics very out of place in the rest of the south. To say that makes Missouri stand out less is just wrong. Florida's Catholics are primarily composed of people not native to the state...louisiana's Catholics come from their French and Creole influences. Texas' come from Hispanics. Missouri's come from their own American natives, so there is a HUGE difference. I'm not really sure how you came to the conclusion that states west of the Mississippi can't be considered northern under your criteria other than from a geographic standpoint. In any case, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I have admitted Missouri to have stronger Southern influences than the rest of the Midwest. if we are to say Missouri and Kansas aren't the North, we're going to have to say Maryland and Delaware aren't either from a geographic standpoint. It'd be the equivalent of saying Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia are not the South, which is just not true. If those states are considered the Upper South, than MO, KS, MD, and DE are the Lower North.
From a geographic standpoint, I would agree. The religion does make it less Northern, but you have to consider that it is only one influence. You can't say Texas, Florida, and Louisiana compare to Missouri...their Catholic presence are due to characteristics very out of place in the rest of the south. To say that makes Missouri stand out less is just wrong. Florida's Catholics are primarily composed of people not native to the state...louisiana's Catholics come from their French and Creole influences. Texas' come from Hispanics. Missouri's come from their own American natives, so there is a HUGE difference. I'm not really sure how you came to the conclusion that states west of the Mississippi can't be considered northern under your criteria other than from a geographic standpoint. In any case, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I have admitted Missouri to have stronger Southern influences than the rest of the Midwest. if we are to say Missouri and Kansas aren't the North, we're going to have to say Maryland and Delaware aren't either from a geographic standpoint. It'd be the equivalent of saying Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia are not the South, which is just not true. If those states are considered the Upper South, than MO, KS, MD, and DE are the Lower North.
MO is more out of place in the North because no Northern states have Southern Baptist percentages even close to MO's 14%. The next closest is KS with not even 4% The ARDA | Maps and Reports | Create Map
Yes, FL, LA, and TX stand out in the South because of religion, but those are 3 states, so they dont stand out as much individually. And plus they're so far South that they cant be anything but the South. (Although some people may consider TX as Southwestern, but that's a whole different issue.) If MO were where MN is, then people would definitely consider it a Northern state, but also an anomaly because of its high Southern Baptist population.
If you wanna get technical, Louisiana's Catholics are just as "native" as MO's Catholics. They both came through immigration, neither are truly "native"
We could argue all day, but it wont change the fact that most people's perception of MO is that it's neither in the North nor the South. I've always thought of MO as further North (because it's North of Memphis) but not in "The North" However, when I go to St. Louis, I do start to feel like I'm in the North, slightly. That was originally the point I was trying to make. Most people voted that MO was not Northern but I was trying to point out to them that if they go to St. Louis, they might feel like they're in the North.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll
MO is more out of place in the North because no Northern states have Southern Baptist percentages even close to MO's 14%. The next closest is KS with not even 4% The ARDA | Maps and Reports | Create Map
Yes, FL, LA, and TX stand out in the South because of religion, but those are 3 states, so they dont stand out as much individually. And plus they're so far South that they cant be anything but the South. (Although some people may consider TX as Southwestern, but that's a whole different issue.) If MO were where MN is, then people would definitely consider it a Northern state, but also an anomaly because of its high Southern Baptist population.
If you wanna get technical, Louisiana's Catholics are just as "native" as MO's Catholics. They both came through immigration, neither are truly "native"
We could argue all day, but it wont change the fact that most people's perception of MO is that it's neither in the North nor the South. I've always thought of MO as further North (because it's North of Memphis) but not in "The North" However, when I go to St. Louis, I do start to feel like I'm in the North, slightly. That was originally the point I was trying to make. Most people voted that MO was not Northern but I was trying to point out to them that if they go to St. Louis, they might feel like they're in the North.
However, TX, LA, and FL have Catholics for very different and unique reasons, whereas Missouri's reasons for having them are essentially the same as much of the rest of the Midwest. In fact, looking at Missouri's Catholic makeup, it appears quite similar to Indiana. So to say it make MO stand out less would be false. MO has Catholics for the same reasons the rest of the Midwest/North does. Louisiana's catholics came from the French and Creole influences, so actually, your argument fails. Missouri's Catholics came for the same reasons as the rest of the North. No other state in the country besides Louisiana has native Catholics for the reasons it has them. Same thing for Florida, same thing for Texas. Three Southern states, three Catholic populations from vastly different ethnic backgrounds, one native, two non-native. I'm not sure what your goal is here, but it seems to be to say that Missouri's Catholic population can be dismissed because three other states that have little to nothing in common with Missouri have Catholic populations for very different reasons. That is a weak argument at best. I am quite interested to know how Maryland and Delaware qualify as Northern but MO and KS do not. What I will agree to is that from a historical standpoint, MO is nor northern. KS is up in the air there too. So are MD and DE. In any case, it's quite clear both of us are wasting our time reaching an agreement. So I'm calling an end to our little debate. At least the one thing we agree on is that MO is not southern, and definitively a part of the Midwest. But you need to keep in mind that MO and KS are grouped into a region that includes Northern states only besides them. If that's not proof of where the consensus is, I'm not sure what is. This is just one poll...you'd get quite possibly get a different result with a different batch of people. In any case, the simple fact MD and DE 50% of the votes for north compared to MO and KS being below 30% is evidence enough that I would question how knowledgable some of these voters actually were.
However, TX, LA, and FL have Catholics for very different and unique reasons, whereas Missouri's reasons for having them are essentially the same as much of the rest of the Midwest. In fact, looking at Missouri's Catholic makeup, it appears quite similar to Indiana. So to say it make MO stand out less would be false. MO has Catholics for the same reasons the rest of the Midwest/North does. Louisiana's catholics came from the French and Creole influences, so actually, your argument fails. Missouri's Catholics came for the same reasons as the rest of the North. No other state in the country besides Louisiana has native Catholics for the reasons it has them. Same thing for Florida, same thing for Texas. Three Southern states, three Catholic populations from vastly different ethnic backgrounds, one native, two non-native. I'm not sure what your goal is here, but it seems to be to say that Missouri's Catholic population can be dismissed because three other states that have little to nothing in common with Missouri have Catholic populations for very different reasons. That is a weak argument at best. I am quite interested to know how Maryland and Delaware qualify as Northern but MO and KS do not. What I will agree to is that from a historical standpoint, MO is nor northern. KS is up in the air there too. So are MD and DE. In any case, it's quite clear both of us are wasting our time reaching an agreement. So I'm calling an end to our little debate. At least the one thing we agree on is that MO is not southern, and definitively a part of the Midwest. But you need to keep in mind that MO and KS are grouped into a region that includes Northern states only besides them. If that's not proof of where the consensus is, I'm not sure what is. This is just one poll...you'd get quite possibly get a different result with a different batch of people. In any case, the simple fact MD and DE 50% of the votes for north compared to MO and KS being below 30% is evidence enough that I would question how knowledgable some of these voters actually were.
See the religion thing is complicated, especially for MO. MO is just a unique state because it's the only one with "All-American" native Catholics & Southern Baptist populations that are nearly equal. I'll leave it at that...
Baltimore might be considered Northern my most people because it's in the BosWash. As for the rest of Maryland & Delaware, I'm not sure. I've never been there and I havent talked to many people from there. But I have one friend from rural Maryland that claims it's in the South... Also, Maryland & Delaware extend nearly as far North as MO does, but they dont extend nearly as far South. So maybe that's why a lot more people consider them Northern.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll
See the religion thing is complicated, especially for MO. MO is just a unique state because it's the only one with "All-American" native Catholics & Southern Baptist populations that are nearly equal. I'll leave it at that...
Baltimore might be considered Northern my most people because it's in the BosWash. As for the rest of Maryland & Delaware, I'm not sure. I've never been there and I havent talked to many people from there. But I have one friend from rural Maryland that claims it's in the South... Also, Maryland & Delaware extend nearly as far North as MO does, but they dont extend nearly as far South. So maybe that's why a lot more people consider them Northern.
Never thought I'd say this, but we've finally reached an agreement.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan
Never thought I'd say this, but we've finally reached an agreement.
Just to make a correction, I also still see this is just a single modern trait Missouri has distinguishing it from the other states on this list. That's really it...I still feel like it's not enough to completely exclude Missouri from this list.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon
So California is right there with Arkansas? Montana is right there with Connecticut?
*looks at your location* OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH... That explains it.
I'm sorry but the West is very much it's own entity here in the states.
I agree to a point. I think the west can still be split into north and south quadrants for geographic purposes. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming could all be considered the "Northwest." Arizona and New Mexico could definitely be considered the Southwest. What becomes tricky is when we figure out where to put California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. I'm not sure if any other grouping makes sense besides Central West, because I certainly would not consider either Salt Lake City or Denver to be part of the Southwest. My temptation is to put Colorado in with the Northwest because topographically it is a lot like Wyoming...plains and the Rockies. New Mexico is sandy desert, canyons, and mountains. Utah definitely is its own animal together. With all those Mormons, and being firmly entrenched in the rockies, while bearing some similarity to northern Arizona. Nevada definitely topographically resembles the Southwest more. I guess if i had to make any classification, I'd put Colorado, Utah, and Nevada in the center West. San Francisco and Northern California I feel belong in the Northwest, whereas southern California belongs in the southwest. It's hard to simply say California is the southwest because its in Mexico, when its northernmost tip is closer to Canada.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,543,919 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan
I agree to a point. I think the west can still be split into north and south quadrants for geographic purposes. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming could all be considered the "Northwest." Arizona and New Mexico could definitely be considered the Southwest. What becomes tricky is when we figure out where to put California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. I'm not sure if any other grouping makes sense besides Central West, because I certainly would not consider either Salt Lake City or Denver to be part of the Southwest. My temptation is to put Colorado in with the Northwest because topographically it is a lot like Wyoming...plains and the Rockies. New Mexico is sandy desert, canyons, and mountains. Utah definitely is its own animal together. With all those Mormons, and being firmly entrenched in the rockies, while bearing some similarity to northern Arizona. Nevada definitely topographically resembles the Southwest more. I guess if i had to make any classification, I'd put Colorado, Utah, and Nevada in the center West. San Francisco and Northern California I feel belong in the Northwest, whereas southern California belongs in the southwest. It's hard to simply say California is the southwest because its in Mexico, when its northernmost tip is closer to Canada.
I agree. For geographic purposes it makes perfect sense.
It's the regionalism which is based heavily in history, culture and location combined where the West becomes a solid mega region.
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.
