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.
I'd add Hawaii. Smallest region, certainly, but with geography, history, and culture, something rather other. I feel Alaska has more ties and historical similarities with states like Washington than Hawaii has with places elsewhere on the continent.
Southwest:
(Hawaii), California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico
South:
Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana
Southeast:
Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina
Missisippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida
Don't know where to put Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
I think you could reclassify West as West Central, and East as East Central. I actually think it might make more sense to just call Michigan the North. Truthfully, I also think the Upper Peninsula of Michigan ought to be made part of Wisconsin. It seems to me like it has more in common with Wisconsin than with lower Michigan.
You could make a strong case for The Plains being a "region" of their own.
Likewise for splitting the Atlantic Southeastern states: FL, GA, SC, NC, VA - into their own region. Slowly but surely, those states are culturally evolving away from the states that border them to the west, in particular the Deep South states.
Third - Appalachia. As a region it wouldn't correspond to state lines, so it would be a bit fuzzier in the definition, but Appalachia - specific parts of AL, GA, TN, KY, NC, VA, WV, MD, and PA - have a fairly distinct and unified culture that differs very strongly from other regions of those states. There are towns along Sand Mountain, AL and in Garrett County, Maryland that have more in common with each other, culturally and geographically, than they do with (say) Birmingham or Baltimore.
Texas is weird and fascinating to try to categorize. Parts of it are Plains (if not lower Midwest), parts of it are Deep South, parts of it are Southwest.
I would think the South would be the area that would make the most sense to break apart Southeast and Interior South. The South is the most populated and largest land area and to me would make more sense than seperating a rather small population in the Pac NW from the west coast. Just my two cents
The west is larger in land area than the south (even w/o Alaska)
but I agree, I would split the south.
The west could also be split between the Pacific coast (with Arizona) and the Interior West.
I think you could reclassify West as West Central, and East as East Central. I actually think it might make more sense to just call Michigan the North. Truthfully, I also think the Upper Peninsula of Michigan ought to be made part of Wisconsin. It seems to me like it has more in common with Wisconsin than with lower Michigan.
I used to live in upper Michigan and it has no more in common with Wisconsin than lower Michigan. In fact at one time there was a movement to create a seperate state for Upper Michigan, as people who live in the UP see the UP as unique. Lower Mi and Wi are however important to the tourism economy of the UP, and they are often the destination of yoopers seeking medical care or big city shopping. People in the eastern UP are more tied to lower Michigan, and people in the western UP are more tied to Wisconsin. I would say that neither Wi or lower Mi has more influence over the UP, but they both do have an influence. Im not sure it matters anyway as lower Mi and Wisconsin are very similar to each other as well.
Likewise for splitting the Atlantic Southeastern states: FL, GA, SC, NC, VA - into their own region. Slowly but surely, those states are culturally evolving away from the states that border them to the west, in particular the Deep South states.
Not so sure I agree with this. SC and GA are overall more conservative than NC, VA, and FL. With the current grouping, AL and TN could also fit.
Quote:
Third - Appalachia. As a region it wouldn't correspond to state lines, so it would be a bit fuzzier in the definition, but Appalachia - specific parts of AL, GA, TN, KY, NC, VA, WV, MD, and PA - have a fairly distinct and unified culture that differs very strongly from other regions of those states. There are towns along Sand Mountain, AL and in Garrett County, Maryland that have more in common with each other, culturally and geographically, than they do with (say) Birmingham or Baltimore.
Didn't think about Appalachia, but this is a good one. The region also extends into NY. SC has a small sliver of it, but not as much as the other states.
You mean the people from Bawl-more Murralind? Yes, absolutely. The first time I heard a white guy from Baltimore talking, I thought he was joking!
IMHO, the regions should be: Northeast Snobs (Maine-Connecticut), Mid-Atlantic Brawlers (NY-Washington, D.C., including PA from Harrisburg - Philadelphia), Southern Charm (VA - FL - TX - TN), Great Lakes Grandeur (PA west of Harrisburg, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Eastern Minnesota), Western Expanses(IA, OK, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas Idaho, and all the boring states), The Great American Desert (Arizona, Nevada, etc), West Coast Trail Mix (plenty of fruits and nuts) (Washington/Oregon - San Diego), and Misfits (AK, HI, Puerto Rico, Guam, all other protectorates). There, is everybody good and insulted?
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.
MY regional divisions.
