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.
The Pueblo region should start further to the East. San Diego is in the same coastal California region as Los Angeles--it has more in common with the rest of California then it does with somewhere like Albuquerque or El Paso--and while it's in the border region, it's just as Hispanic-dominated as Los Angeles is(the city of San Diego even less so then LA is many ways).
Borealis is way too big a region and shouldn't be part of the Great Lakes region. Somwhere like Duluth, MN would be part of New Scandinavia rather than being in the same region as Alaska and the Yukon. The idea of Northern Michigan and Wisconisin, most of Ontario, Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska and the Southestern Alaska coast all being the same region is a huge stretch.
Cascadia and the Intermontana regions are generally alright as far as boundaries--and giving most of California it's own region makes sense. Dixie should differentiate between some of the Southeastern coastal areas, Deep South, and places like Kentucky/Ohio Valley. There's some degrees of seperation between those areas.
This isn't a bad map per se--but I think in general the problem with some maps like these is that they'll throw in some of the more obvious specific smaller cultural sub-regions(Southern Louisiana, Acadia, South Florida) and then ignore other smaller geographic regions which get thrown into huge sprawling regions. I mean culturally, most of Utah and Southern Idaho(and parts of Nevada) sort of constitute a Mormon Belt. The Mississippi Delta is unique in it's own ways as is coastal Georgia and the Carolinas. But a map trying to find every small geo-cultural region in the US would show a pretty Balkanized jigsaw puzzle of the nation.
True, but one problem I see is that the Northeast is divided into tiny sub-culture areas but the South, Midwest, and West is pretty much left to one or two large divisions. If they can divide one region by it's smaller cultures then they could do the same for other regions.
What do you think? Anything you totally agree/disagree with?
While Oklahoma and Texas undoubtedly are in the same region (the farthest western part of the South, with portions associated with the SouthernPlains/Southwest), us Okies take exception with the "Tex" in Texahoma.
I'm guessing the Texans have a problem with the "Ahoma" in Texahoma as well.
I contend for a new name instead of "Texahoma," perhaps Football Heaven, with Oklahoma being the upper eschelon and Texas being the infernal lower abode. Me thinks it's time for the Red River Shootout! Bring on those Horns!
The Pueblo region should start further to the East.
Are the borders of the 'Pueblo' region cultural or climatalogical? I'm going with climatological since culturally it is a grab-bag of Anglo-Texan, Spanish, Native American, and Anglo-Californian. Much of the region displayed is decidedly not characterized by people of Spanish cultural origins, that's for sure.
The eastern border reflects the Spanish valley and mountain culture giving way to the high plains, cattle and oil Anglo-Texan (and Baptist) culture, but the Western limits skate over Navajoland, the Sonoran character of southern Arizona, and the Anglo-Californian influence of Phoenix, Las Vegas, et al.
Most (all) of American and southern Canadian 'Borealia' should be Lakeland, again, unless in this case, it is based on ecosystem (Boreal forest) but even then that map would be largely inaccurate because Borealia would then incorporate Quebec and Newfoundland/the Maritimes.
I think the maker of the map had a schizoid approach to his criteria for the different regions.
Are the borders of the 'Pueblo' region cultural or climatalogical? I'm going with climatological since culturally it is a grab-bag of Anglo-Texan, Spanish, Native American, and Anglo-Californian. Much of the region displayed is decidedly not characterized by people of Spanish cultural origins, that's for sure.
The eastern border reflects the Spanish valley and mountain culture giving way to the high plains, cattle and oil Anglo-Texan (and Baptist) culture, but the Western limits skate over Navajoland, the Sonoran character of southern Arizona, and the Anglo-Californian influence of Phoenix, Las Vegas, et al.
Most (all) of American and southern Canadian 'Borealia' should be Lakeland, again, unless in this case, it is based on ecosystem (Boreal forest) but even then that map would be largely inaccurate because Borealia would then incorporate Quebec and Newfoundland/the Maritimes.
I think the maker of the map had a schizoid approach to his criteria for the different regions.
Yeah, I'm not sure. If Pueblo is an attempt to put the entire Southwestern desert into one region based on climate it still shouldn't include the semi-Mediterranean coastal climate of San Diego either. The true desert starts on the other side of the mountains to the East. I guess you might be right with what the approach was to Borealis, but it still doesn't make sense considering the coastal island climate and vegetation of SE Alaska has more in common with the neighboring British Columbia Coast then it does with the Upper Great Lakes--it's not considered Boreal or Taiga.
There's been plenty of other attempts at maps like this and often they'll put Southern California and a good chunk of the Southwest into a sort of Mexi-fornia/Greater Mexico cultural region based solely on the Hispanic population. Not sure I really agree with that whole cultural approach either. It's hard to say because once you really dig in, culturally a lot of the West and South are more complex than these maps give them credit as being. The Rio Grande Valley could be it's own cultural region as could the Pueblo/Old Hispanic regions of Central and Northern New Mexico. The Navajo country could be it's own region almost as well. Utah and Southern Idaho is a Mormon Belt stretching into Northern Arizona and Eastern Nevada. And so on.
Appalachia needs to be subdivided into Dixielachia and Yankeelachia. I don't see what northern Georgia, east Tennesse, etc have in common with far northern Pennsylvania and New York State (into which Yankeelachia would extend).
Southern Mississippi should be thrown in with Louisana minor
Not really. Southern Mississippi is quite different from Southern Louisiana. Although you could possibly make an argument for a few counties along/near coastal Mississippi.
Not really. Southern Mississippi is quite different from Southern Louisiana. Although you could possibly make an argument for a few counties along/near coastal Mississippi.
Maybe. The culture gets a lot more watered down the farther you get away from Louisiana.
Last edited by Jimbo_1; 08-28-2012 at 10:46 PM..
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.
Me thinks it's time for the Red River Shootout!
Bring on those Horns!
