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.
That's a very narrow point of view. And just a bit self-important (not you personally, but on the part of most people ... who I think would express the same opinion). They don't have MORE history. The earth all has the same history. Just because Europeans weren't in the west as early as they were in the east, doesn't mean there was no history going on. History didn't only happen in brick buildings.
I'm actually agreeing with you. What I'm saying is if you go by the date that the city was incorporated, then yes, Eastern cities have more history based on years of incorporation. But if you go by the history of the area, then every place has an equal length of history.
But if you go by the history of the area, then every place has an equal length of history.
I think this is the dumbest argument yet on this thread.
A brand new suburb of Phoenix has exactly the same history as Rome, Athens, and Istanbul, because they're all located on the same planet, which has the exact same age...
I find, for the most part, this entire country very interesting. I absolutely LOVE American History. My favorite thing about US History, so far, is the Civil War. It's so fascinating. No doubt the development of this country (specifically the Southern and North-Eastern states) is rich in history. In saying that, it really annoys me when I hear or see people say California, and the West, has no history.
I find California's history very interesting. The Gold Rush is a biggie, but no one cares to mention how obsessed the US was with California and getting California from Mexico, and the Western part in general (mainly California). The Mexican-American War is very rich in history, and it is associated with the West. One could also talk about all the people from the East/North-East that moved West in the nineteenth century. Native Americans, Mexico, settlements, the Gold Rush... In my opinion, the West's history isn't less historical or rich, just different. Even California's origin of its name is interesting.
In my opinion, the West's history isn't less historical or rich, just different. Even California's origin of its name is interesting.
You're free to your opinion, but it's an odd one. The Northeast was central to the development of the nation, and has a much, much older history, and legacy.
The West was mostly very lightly settled until the second half of the 20th century.
You're free to your opinion, but it's an odd one. The Northeast was central to the development of the nation, and has a much, much older history, and legacy.
The West was mostly very lightly settled until the second half of the 20th century.
I find the West's history just as interesting. I bet if people were to take a class solely on the West, their opinions would be different. I know the Northeast was central to the development of the US, but the West played its part. It seems that people don't find the West's history as rich because it didn't become significant to the US until the nineteenth century. I look at its history as a whole, not just specifically its relation to America.
Here in Los Angeles, Campo de Cahuenga, the place where Andres Pico and John C. Fremont met to end the Mexican-American War, has become a national landmark, and its original structure is still up. Its very intriguing.
You're free to your opinion, but it's an odd one. The Northeast was central to the development of the nation, and has a much, much older history, and legacy.
The West was mostly very lightly settled until the second half of the 20th century.
Whether written history or known through archaeological evidence, there was much human experience in the West prior to Europeans, whether a brand new suburb of Phoenix or an older Spanish founded city there's still the native past to consider. In my free opinion, I'm endlessly fascinated by Anasazi ruins but couldn't give two s***'s about the 13 colonies or some civil war battle.
I haven't read this thread, but based on the intial question, the obvious things the Northeast has that the West lacks (at least on a relative basis) are as follows-
1. World-class urbanity, transit and high culture
2. Greater history
3. Seasons
4. Huge depth and breadth of higher education
5. Vast amounts of fresh water
Oh lord. Another person who seems to think that the West consists only of the SouthWest corner.
Oh lord. Another person who seems to think that the West consists only of the SouthWest corner.
Uh, nothing on that list is limited to the SW U.S.
It's all detailing things that exist in the Northeast that (on a relative basis) don't exist in the West.
Where is the urban/density/transit equivalent to NYC in the western U.S.? Where is the four extremely distinct seasons equivalent to the Northeast? Where is the history equivalent? etc. etc.
Uh, nothing on that list is limited to the SW U.S.
It's all detailing things that exist in the Northeast that (on a relative basis) don't exist in the West.
Where is the urban/density/transit equivalent to NYC in the western U.S.?Where is the four extremely distinct seasons equivalent to the Northeast? Where is the history equivalent? etc. etc.
Nowhere. But there's nowhere else in the northeast like that either. San Francisco could probably stand up pretty well to Boston in "urbanity", density and transit.
Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri all have four distinct seasons, also northern Arizona and New Mexico.
History is everywhere. California has a long history of Spanish settlement, ditto Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. Idaho and Oregon have the Lewis and Clark exploration history; Oregon has a history of Spanish exploration as well. Washington has a history of Spanish exploration in the 1700s also Lewis and Clark. If you include all the states west of the Mississippi, there's the whole westward expansion, the Homestead Act, the sod-busters of the Great Plains, "Bleeding Kansas.Many of these states sent soldiers to fight in the Civil War.
etc, etc: Wyoming gave women the vote in 1869 and entered the union in 1890 with women voting. It's nickname is "The Equality State". Put that in your pipe and smoke it, easterners! Colorado was the first STATE to give women the vote in 1893. Utah and Idaho gave women the vote in 1896. Washington State in 1910, Californiain 1911, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Alaska (not yet a state) and Illinois in 1913, Montana and Nevada in 1914, New York in 1917; Michigan, South Dakota, and Oklahoma in 1918.
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.
