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.
Really? I think the Northeast and Midwest are totally different from each other. Different accents, personality types (with Midwesterners generally much nicer than Northeasterners), different industries, voting patterns. You name it two totally different regions.
Lol
Considering the most spread out "Midwest accent" reaches Connecticut and Rhode Island (Inland North dialect) the whole accent argument falls flat. Only isolated Coastal Northeast accents limited to cities like Boston, NYC, and Philly are different than the Midwest. Most New York state natives sound like Michiganders and most Pennsylvanians sound like Ohioans (except Pittsburgh which is its own unique dialect dissimilar to everyone Midwest or Northeast).
Voting patterns? Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota are historically Blue States. No different than Blue voters in Upstate New York or rural inland areas of New England. Ohio is a swing state like PA is. Also name me one true Red State in the Great Lakes?? Indiana possibly. Other than that there really are none.
The ethnic groups are the same. Poles, Jews, Irish, and Italians dominate the Great Lakes cities. Germans dominate PA like they do in the rest of the Heartland. The English stock is East Anglian descended which is the same as the NE.
There really isn't that much difference. In the 1800s people from the Northeast settled the Midwest AMD later immigrants who went through the Northeast also headed to the Great Lakes. Then there is the fact the Great Lakes a decent part of the interior Northeast.
So yeah, what are these huge differences? As far as niceness and general overall demeanor, none of that is measurable and the only city with a steadfast stereotype of that is New York and to a lesser extent Boston (because of people from New England who don't like Boston). It's not like people from Maine, Vermont, Pennsylvania, or even Maryland (if you consider that Northeast) have a stereotype of being jerks.
It's not like you walk through the streets of Chicago and everyone says hello or stops to talk to you. Do you honestly think things become like Mayberry once you leave Pennsylvania?
Last edited by EddieOlSkool; 03-15-2017 at 05:23 PM..
No snobs? Clearly you've never heard any southerners talk about Chicago. :P
Yeah but some people on this forum think Chicago might as well be an extension of Mississippi. They think it's all Blues, Barbecue, and people who talk country (I am not even making this one up). They think it's all BB King and Bernie Mac type of people as well. Some people think that Chicago might as well be just an extension of Memphis if you read their posts.
Then on top of that they think the other aspect of Chicago is agriculture because well Illinois. The negative stereotypes definitely exist from certain coastal elitists.
The issue is that "Great Lakes region" is being used to defined a cultural region as much as a geographic one. Cities like Columbus and St. Louis share a great deal with cities like Cleveland and Chicago in cultural terms due to economic and social ties. Meanwhile, cities like Chicago and Buffalo share a great deal with each other for the same reasons. The issue is that there isn't really a term that represents this cultural area, so faulty geographic terms like "Midwestern" or "Great Lakes" are used to describe it along with cultural terms that fit somewhat poorly like "Rust Belt".
I think we are finally beginning to narrow it down a bit. If we can reasonable agree that the Twin Cities are not Great Lake Cities, and as Mini-Chi-Bus says, Indianapolis and Columbus are not much different, then we can reasonably agree that cities even further away like St Louis and Cincinnati are not either. Cities and metro areas that are on or close to the Lakes like Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Cleveland are the real Great Lake cities.
Having said that, I think Enean you are a little too strict with the bolded. Detroit for instance does not actually touch one of the Great Lakes, neither does Niagara Falls. But I think they are close enough to be considered part of the Great Lakes.
I don't believe I ever said that St. Louis was a Great Lake city, so it's odd that this keeps getting harped on. I simply said that St. Louis shared a border with a Great Lake State (Illinois) and that many residents of the Metro East (St. Louis' Illinois Suburbs) were in fact residents of a Great Lake State (Illinois), technically making them "Great Lakers" (Is that a thing?). I even used the word "quasi" to describe St. Louis' status as a "Great Lake City", quasi meaning "being partly or almost" or "ostensibly", so it should be apparent that St. Louis isn't a true "Great Lake City".
What is factual, is that St. Louis shares many cultural, economical, historical ties to the most influential Great Lake Basin City, and Mississippi River Valley city.....CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, which really is the key to the whole Great Lakes Megapolis argument. Does St. Louis really have a lot of direct ties to Detroit or Cleveland? No, but neither does Milwaukee and Minneapolis. Most of the economic and cultural exchanges that glued the greater Plains and River cities to the Great Lake cities into one mega, Midwestern region occurred via Chicago, which explains why it is the largest and most important city in the region today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goat314
Well if you want to get that technical. About 800,000 St. Louisans live in the Metro East, making them citizens of Illinois and technically Great Lake Staters. So St. Louis could be seen as a quasi-Great Lake, river city but in all honesty I don't think it's that cut in dry. Chicago for example has way more historical, cultural and economic connections to St. Louis than it does to Cleveland or Buffalo, but the later are technically "Great Lake" cities and by definition should have more in common right?
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool
Yeah but some people on this forum think Chicago might as well be an extension of Mississippi. They think it's all Blues, Barbecue, and people who talk country (I am not even making this one up). They think it's all BB King and Bernie Mac type of people as well. Some people think that Chicago might as well be just an extension of Memphis if you read their posts.
Then on top of that they think the other aspect of Chicago is agriculture because well Illinois. The negative stereotypes definitely exist from certain coastal elitists.
Pff All they have to do is learn about the Nostalgia Critic to find out how wrong they are.
The issue is that "Great Lakes region" is being used to defined a cultural region as much as a geographic one. Cities like Columbus and St. Louis share a great deal with cities like Cleveland and Chicago in cultural terms due to economic and social ties. Meanwhile, cities like Chicago and Buffalo share a great deal with each other for the same reasons. The issue is that there isn't really a term that represents this cultural area, so faulty geographic terms like "Midwestern" or "Great Lakes" are used to describe it along with cultural terms that fit somewhat poorly like "Rust Belt".
Bingo, you beat me to it. A better definition would probably be to call it the Midlands or just simply the Midwest megapolis. I think calling it the Great Lakes region just causes a lot of people to get into the semantics instead of the general idea of a large socioeconomic Heartland spoke tied together by the mega hub of Chicago. It's just like calling the Southeastern megapolis centered around Atlanta, "the Piedmont", which implies that Savannah or Charleston, could not be included in this Southeastern megapolis because they don't sit on the geographic feature known as the Piedmont (But guess what? Philadelphia does). Just as the South is a huge region with many distinct regions and cities, the Midwest is no different. Cincinnati is way different than Minneapolis, but they share more commonality with each other than they do with Atlanta or Dallas.
Milwaukee and St. Louis tie into Detroit and Cleveland through similar development patterns and the ethnic origins of much of the population... these cities all peaked at the same time and in similar ways, so things like architecture and housing stock is similar, certain cultural institutions of ethnic origin are unique to cities in this area (it was recently Paczki Day, but only in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland and Buffalo). This isn't even getting into the cultural ties formed through sports or university alliances (most of what is called the Great Lakes region falls within the historic boundaries of the Big Ten conference and NL/AL West). You can also use the Great Migration, white flight and deindustrialization as commonalities between most of these cities.
Cities like MSP, Columbus and Indianapolis are grouped in because of out migration from those areas specified above. You can't really throw a rock in Columbus, for example, without hitting someone from Cleveland, Akron or Toledo or someone whose parents came from one of those areas.
Last edited by brodie734; 03-15-2017 at 05:55 PM..
The issue is that "Great Lakes region" is being used to defined a cultural region as much as a geographic one. Cities like Columbus and St. Louis share a great deal with cities like Cleveland and Chicago in cultural terms due to economic and social ties. Meanwhile, cities like Chicago and Buffalo share a great deal with each other for the same reasons. The issue is that there isn't really a term that represents this cultural area, so faulty geographic terms like "Midwestern" or "Great Lakes" are used to describe it along with cultural terms that fit somewhat poorly like "Rust Belt".
The Midwest map adds 7 Great Plains states to the Great Lakes. Minus Ontario, New York and Pennsylvania NOT Midwestern.
Still basically is not the Great Lakes Region, just a part of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic region. It's still difficult for many residents of these "Great Lakes" states? To see themselves as part of the Great Lakes vibe. Like mot of Pa. (including me in eastern Pa) and those probably in southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Michigan residents would probably link more to a Great Lakes state then Midwestern?
Clearly also to include All PA and NY with NYC in it. It's clear Great Lakes Region then IS MOST POPULATED. Then with Ontario yet it gets Toronto too.
But no one in Philadelphia and NYC - is going to see any link to the Great Lakes states. Heck, Philadelphians and New Yorkers. Place Pittsburgh as basically in the Midwest. LOL.
It all is a imperfect linking.
* The only kind of linking of ALL these Great Lakes states, to me? Is a Larger Catholic Population then other regions south, southwest, west or northeast with New England. Most of the Large cities in these states are with some of the highest % Catholic in religion links?
Bingo, you beat me to it. A better definition would probably be to call it the Midlands or just simply the Midwest megapolis. I think calling it the Great Lakes region just causes a lot of people to get into the semantics instead of the general idea of a large socioeconomic Heartland spoke tied together by the mega hub of Chicago. It's just like calling the Southeastern megapolis centered around Atlanta, "the Piedmont", which implies that Savannah or Charleston, could not be included in this Southeastern megapolis because they don't sit on the geographic feature known as the Piedmont (But guess what? Philadelphia does). Just as the South is a huge region with many distinct regions and cities, the Midwest is no different. Cincinnati is way different than Minneapolis, but they share more commonality with each other than they do with Atlanta or Dallas.
Midwest Megalopolis? It includes parts of the South and the Northeast. That makes as much sense as Great Lakes Megalopolis. Is there really that much in common between Buffalo and Louisville? Or Pittsburgh and Indianapolis for that matter?
Also, historically the term Midlands has carried a much different meaning. It usually ties to Pennsylvania origins and settlers. The lower Midwest fits this. The Upper Midwest does not since the majority of those settlers came from New York and further North and weren't really associated with the Quakers.
MSP is just MSP. It doesn't have to fit into two regions that it never was and currently isn't a part of. It's just the largest metro in Minnesota. Minnesota in and of itself is very unique. I would call it along with Eastern North Dakota, Western Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan the "North Central" region. Also the "true" Upper Midwest. Heck if you ask them, "The North" is also a local name they like to use.
Back in the early 1980s and before KSTP eyewitness news had a slogan opener that basically said "The Northwest News Leader" or something to that degree.
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.
). I even used the word "quasi" to describe St. Louis' status as a "Great Lake City", quasi meaning "being partly or almost" or "ostensibly", so it should be apparent that St. Louis isn't a true "Great Lake City". 
but in all honesty I don't think it's that cut in dry. Chicago for example has way more historical, cultural and economic connections to St. Louis than it does to Cleveland or Buffalo, but the later are technically "Great Lake" cities and by definition should have more in common right?
