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.
DC has lost A LOT more Southern traits than the rest of the South, enough to notice a considerable difference. The difference between D.C. and the South is that you can still tell the South is Southern even though it may have become "less Southern" than before. D.C. has nothing Southern about it today WHATSOEVER.
The patterns of speech in the established black areas of dc and surrounding areas are no different than any other northeastern city.
They most certainly are. Sit in an predominantly black elementary school in DC and then a black elementary school in Philadelphia, and tell me the children don't talk differently.
With all due respect, I found nothing southern about D.C. There may be reminants of southern buildings and cuisines, but we have that here in Evansville, Indiana too, and it's not the south. They also have southern architecture even in parts of chicago.
Humidity does not make a place Southern, nor does the fact that slavery was once in the region. there was slavery in several parts of southern illinois as well, and that's not the south.
The difference is that Evansville or Chicago have never been in the South. Very few people would argue that Indiana or Illinois have EVER been Southern. Few people would argue, however, the DC has never been a Southern city.
My point was trying to prove that DC has changed significantly over the past three decades, but it is still as Southern city. JFK called DC a city with "Northern charm and Southern efficiency." There are a lot of Northerners moving to Atlanta, but it still is and always will be a Southern city.
A lot of people actually do argue that southern Illinois and Indiana are southern. There is no doubt that many from there have southern accents. However, Ill and Ind stayed in the union. People from those states fought for the north in the Civil War. They are northern states and their cities are in the north. Ditto southern Ohio, e.g., Cincinatti.
I don't think there's a clear-cut argument that D.C. was ever a truly Southern city. The same thing with places like Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri ever having been true Southern states, because while they had slavery in them, their economies didn't depend on them (at least Missouri's didn't), and all were ultimately pro-Union. THe simple truth is that while many may have considered them Southern at one time, others considered them border states. And they more less "joined" the North after the Civil War. Atlanta has a clearly established history as being Southern and nothing else, and while it has had a lot of Northern immigration to it, still has a very well-established Southern identity. That is the difference between a place like ATlanta and D.C. D.C. at one time could have been argued either way...from a modern standpoint it's pretty ridiculous to call Atlanta as well as the other three states that I mentioned Southern. Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia have absolutely nothing in common.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 814,128 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131
DC has lost A LOT more Southern traits than the rest of the South, enough to notice a considerable difference. The difference between D.C. and the South is that you can still tell the South is Southern even though it may have become "less Southern" than before. D.C. has nothing Southern about it today WHATSOEVER.
It was deliberately created and built and situated as a national Capital to appease both the Old South and North back in the day, the earlier days of the nation. There have always been both traits there originally, but today to reiterate what I have before said and will now try to expand,, the city and its metro is national and int'l, it changed as the nation expanded to receive influence from the West, MidWest and all regions, with senators and congressmen/women that need to live in the area both DC, Va, MD to represent their states.
In addition there has always been a heavy int'l presence due to foreign embassies, diplomacy, military attache's, and big govt and corporate aviation, etc. The Dulles Airport corridor in Va is a mecca for high tech and industries from all over the world.
DC never was an industrial based economy as NE cities were or the Great Lakes and MWest were. That detracts from a manuf trait that used to be found further North up the coast. In fact much of the entire state of Va has always had its Southerness broken up or diluted by a heavy presence of miitary and transients in the DC area and elsewhere. Yes, computers have changed everything.
DC also lost much of its Northerness as well, to fill the role of a global power center.
The border area of this region is a relic, and those that arrive there that want to be reluctant and hesitant about being so close to the South or in it or not, act as if the end of the world ends there in simple prejudice. In this day and time it's just the beginning and a gateway to areas that will far surpass what those who feel is still so stubbornly North centric.
The booming areas everyone hears about in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston ,Phoenix and the Sunbelt, much of it can be found too in Va (South if you will or not , one's choice and matters not) with similar explosive growth and construction and new freeways and the like. It's just centered around DC as the core city but vast areas of Virginia beyond, S, E and SW are in the same explosive economic growth with office and hotel towers galore built and being built for miles and miles.
I will say Virginia though tries to keep it greener. But that's big in the corporate world now.
But many elements have fused together to create the atmosphere of our nation's capital and its region today. Much more besides what was traditionally 'northern' or 'southern', there's major other influences in the last 50 years that is accelerated daily now with telecommunications advancements.
Last edited by StuyTownRefugee; 11-07-2007 at 11:01 PM..
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 814,128 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131
I don't think there's a clear-cut argument that D.C. was ever a truly Southern city. The same thing with places like Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri ever having been true Southern states, because while they had slavery in them, their economies didn't depend on them (at least Missouri's didn't), and all were ultimately pro-Union. THe simple truth is that while many may have considered them Southern at one time, others considered them border states. And they more less "joined" the North after the Civil War. Atlanta has a clearly established history as being Southern and nothing else, and while it has had a lot of Northern immigration to it, still has a very well-established Southern identity. That is the difference between a place like ATlanta and D.C. D.C. at one time could have been argued either way...from a modern standpoint it's pretty ridiculous to call Atlanta as well as the other three states that I mentioned Southern. Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia have absolutely nothing in common.
I agree with just about everything you asserted except this part <<Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia have absolutely nothing in common.[/quote]>>
Care to explain?, I think in many ways they did and do.
However, DC never had like NE cities an industrial based economy, but ironically Richmond did share that aspect with many of its NE rivals up the corridor.
Both cities today are well linked, however, physically and culturally. You have to remember more than half of DC's metro population live in Virignia, an hour's drive or less from Richmond and its suburbs to the Southernmost suburbs of DC, that's even less and becoming less all the time.
I don't know why people have this relic "border mindedness" about North and South in the East.
The service and IT economy has changed both so much, the NE is not what it used to be, and the South is now the Sunbelt. That's a more accurate term.
I agree with just about everything you asserted except this part <<Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia have absolutely nothing in common.
>>
Care to explain?, I think in many ways they did and do.
However, DC never had like NE cities an industrial based economy, but ironically Richmond did share that aspect with many of its NE rivals up the corridor.
Both cities today are well linked, however, physically and culturally. You have to remember more than half of DC's metro population live in Virignia, an hour's drive or less from Richmond and its suburbs to the Southernmost suburbs of DC, that's even less and becoming less all the time.
I don't know why people have this relic "border mindedness" about North and South in the East.
The service and IT economy has changed both so much, the NE is not what it used to be, and the South is now the Sunbelt. That's a more accurate term.[/quote]
D.C. is nowhere near as laid back as Richmond is, the climate is not the same, the attitudes and culture of the people in D.C. compared to Richmond are different. D.C. is leans more liberal I'd say, Richmond is conservative. What else needs to be said? I visited both cities and they felt worlds apart from one another. D.C. feels much more closely linked to Philadelphia and Baltimore than Richmond.
I don't think there's a clear-cut argument that D.C. was ever a truly Southern city. The same thing with places like Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri ever having been true Southern states, because while they had slavery in them, their economies didn't depend on them (at least Missouri's didn't), and all were ultimately pro-Union. THe simple truth is that while many may have considered them Southern at one time, others considered them border states. And they more less "joined" the North after the Civil War. Atlanta has a clearly established history as being Southern and nothing else, and while it has had a lot of Northern immigration to it, still has a very well-established Southern identity. That is the difference between a place like ATlanta and D.C. D.C. at one time could have been argued either way...from a modern standpoint it's pretty ridiculous to call Atlanta as well as the other three states that I mentioned Southern. Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia have absolutely nothing in common.
Correction...I did not mean Atlanta...I meant D.C. in place of Atlanta...from a modern standpoint it's pretty ridiculous to call D.C. as well as the other three states I mentioned Southern. Atlanta is definitely very Southern.
there was slavery in several parts of southern illinois as well, and that's not the south.
The extent of slavery is a tremendously important factor in whether a place is "southern" or not. Referring to Illinois or Indiana as "southern" trivializes the impact that slavery had on the south.
I really can't think of a more important factor - southern music, food, language, politics, demographics and religion all stem from the hundreds of years of interaction between Africans and Europeans. It is really difficult to overstate the impact of it.
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.
