U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2016, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,839 posts, read 6,181,041 times
Reputation: 6117

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by U146 View Post
Texas and Oklahoma are Southern culturally, linguistically, and demographically. They are Southern states.
Well hello St. Louisian. This sounds familiar. I won't argue with you about Texas but Oklahoma is not completely southern and at best a watered down south. But more specifically at the time of the first two land runs (1889 and the Cherokee Strip) northerners outnumbered southerners by a significant number. Even today the NW quadrant of Oklahoma (excluding the panhandle isn't really southern to any extent). Most of the landowners have roots in the northern plains states and Missouri.

I don't know why it is so hard to realize that eastern Oklahoma and east Texas are much more similar to the south and western Oklahoma and west Texas are more similar to the great plains (and in the case of Texas' Big bend area the southwest).

This idea that only "cultural" heritage defines this is simply an arbitrary concept. Weather and terrain and natural resources influence the economy and the way people live. I dare say that while a Texas cotton farmer in the south plains may have some similarities to cotton farmers in the traditional south, the Texas wheat farmer in the northern panhandle and for certain the Oklahoma wheat farmer has more in common with the Kansan and Nebraskan.

So the "Southeast" they sure aren't, and even the "South Central" designation isn't entirely accurate to Oklahoma and Texas' western halves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2016, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
6,053 posts, read 3,379,100 times
Reputation: 7690
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
Well hello St. Louisian. This sounds familiar. I won't argue with you about Texas but Oklahoma is not completely southern and at best a watered down south. But more specifically at the time of the first two land runs (1889 and the Cherokee Strip) northerners outnumbered southerners by a significant number. Even today the NW quadrant of Oklahoma (excluding the panhandle isn't really southern to any extent). Most of the landowners have roots in the northern plains states and Missouri.

I don't know why it is so hard to realize that eastern Oklahoma and east Texas are much more similar to the south and western Oklahoma and west Texas are more similar to the great plains (and in the case of Texas' Big bend area the southwest).

This idea that only "cultural" heritage defines this is simply an arbitrary concept. Weather and terrain and natural resources influence the economy and the way people live. I dare say that while a Texas cotton farmer in the south plains may have some similarities to cotton farmers in the traditional south, the Texas wheat farmer in the northern panhandle and for certain the Oklahoma wheat farmer has more in common with the Kansan and Nebraskan.

So the "Southeast" they sure aren't, and even the "South Central" designation isn't entirely accurate to Oklahoma and Texas' western halves.
I agree with that. Even if they have different accents, and follow different religious beliefs, or have different ethnic backgrounds, a Texas wheat farmer and a Kansas wheat farmer will have a lot in common because they're shaped by the similar climate, terrain, economy and their job.

One thing I love about Texas is how diverse its geography is. If I was to film a movie in this state, I can set it in Mississippi, in Missouri, in Nebraska, in New Mexico, in Mexico, in many different locations, and I just have to go to one area of the state. It's the southern crossroads of America, and southern in terms of general southern latitude, not in the concept of "Dixie." The plains from the north end here, the swamps of the deep south end here, the deserts of the west end here. It's a geographic mozaic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2016, 10:54 PM
Status: "RIP Solomon Tekah" (set 4 days ago)
 
1,223 posts, read 578,430 times
Reputation: 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
If that's the case, then you should be consistent and apply that line of reasoning to the North. All the Northern states in EST should be the Northeast (OH, MI, IN), and all the ones in CST should be Midwest.

As was stated, the Mississippi and Ohio rivers are most often seen as the regional boundaries for the Southeast, more or less. Most definitions of the Southeast align with that.
I do have another layer in my reasoning. OH, MI, IN stays Mid-West because they weren't a part of the far Eastern original colonial states. Also, the Mid-West designation fits the region better.

Most of the Southern states are obviously East of the MS so it's a given. My problem is that a lot of people use Southeast and South interchangeably. Just focus on the South for a minute. There is an East South Central (or Mid-South?) which is AL, KY, TN, and MS. There's a West South Central (TX, AR, OK, and LA) which can be the Western part of the South. I'm now left with the South Atlantic, (a term that a person uses if they want to be technical) which is easily the Southeast or Eastern South (used by no one) if a person was informally naming the three main groups of the South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2016, 11:19 PM
 
2,070 posts, read 1,590,455 times
Reputation: 3348
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerFilms View Post
I agree with that. Even if they have different accents, and follow different religious beliefs, or have different ethnic backgrounds, a Texas wheat farmer and a Kansas wheat farmer will have a lot in common because they're shaped by the similar climate, terrain, economy and their job.

One thing I love about Texas is how diverse its geography is. If I was to film a movie in this state, I can set it in Mississippi, in Missouri, in Nebraska, in New Mexico, in Mexico, in many different locations, and I just have to go to one area of the state. It's the southern crossroads of America, and southern in terms of general southern latitude, not in the concept of "Dixie." The plains from the north end here, the swamps of the deep south end here, the deserts of the west end here. It's a geographic mozaic.

There are parts of Texas are southern in terms of both general latitude and in the concept of Dixie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 06:06 AM
 
7,693 posts, read 4,551,558 times
Reputation: 8371
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80s_kid View Post
I do have another layer in my reasoning. OH, MI, IN stays Mid-West because they weren't a part of the far Eastern original colonial states. Also, the Mid-West designation fits the region better.

Most of the Southern states are obviously East of the MS so it's a given. My problem is that a lot of people use Southeast and South interchangeably. Just focus on the South for a minute. There is an East South Central (or Mid-South?) which is AL, KY, TN, and MS. There's a West South Central (TX, AR, OK, and LA) which can be the Western part of the South. I'm now left with the South Atlantic, (a term that a person uses if they want to be technical) which is easily the Southeast or Eastern South (used by no one) if a person was informally naming the three main groups of the South.
The 13 colonies definitely inform my perception of the southeast. That's why I only include the coastal states (and WV, which was part of VA).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 03:20 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,154,807 times
Reputation: 4349
Can't we all agree that east of the Mississippi makes the most sense? It's the only line ever officially established as a boundary between east and west, and still has much of that same use today.

People may think it's more appropriate to place AR and LA in the southeast, but they fit in just fine in the south central region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 03:42 PM
 
29,874 posts, read 27,333,728 times
Reputation: 18427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Can't we all agree that east of the Mississippi makes the most sense? It's the only line ever officially established as a boundary between east and west, and still has much of that same use today.
This.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2016, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,839 posts, read 6,181,041 times
Reputation: 6117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Can't we all agree that east of the Mississippi makes the most sense? It's the only line ever officially established as a boundary between east and west, and still has much of that same use today.

People may think it's more appropriate to place AR and LA in the southeast, but they fit in just fine in the south central region.
I understand why their is a "south central" region, but it's a bit frustrating because the Delta region and southern Arkansas are way more similar to what everybody agrees is the southeast as compared to west Texas and Western Oklahoma. Both southeastern Oklahoma and east Texas are the same way. Much more similar to the SE than even to their own state's western environs.

But of course all the plains states and the eastern Rocky Mountain states have an east west dichotomy which makes you pretty much have to cram the whole state into a certain designation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 04:39 AM
 
7,693 posts, read 4,551,558 times
Reputation: 8371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Can't we all agree that east of the Mississippi makes the most sense? It's the only line ever officially established as a boundary between east and west, and still has much of that same use today.

People may think it's more appropriate to place AR and LA in the southeast, but they fit in just fine in the south central region.
If we limit the Northeast to the 13 colonies, why not the Southeast?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 07:31 AM
 
29,874 posts, read 27,333,728 times
Reputation: 18427
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
If we limit the Northeast to the 13 colonies, why not the Southeast?
Except not all of the states categorized as Northeast were part of the 13 colonies (Maine, Vermont). Same for the Southeast with Florida, at the very least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top