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.
=CountryFisher;31205711]New England:
Maine
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Northeast:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Mid-Atlantic:
Maryland
Delaware
New Jersey
Virginia
North Carolina
The South:
Virginia
North Carolina
Tennessee
South Carolina
Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Eastern Texas
Kentucky
Southern half of West Virginia
The Deep South:
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Northern Florida
Great Lakes/Rust Belt region:
Michigan
Indiana
Wisconsin
Illinois
Ohio
Minnesota
Great Plains region:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana
West:
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Pacific northwest:
Alaska
Washington
Oregon
Northern California
Pacific:
Hawaii
Interesting opinion, but Texas is absolutely NOT part of the Midwest. The very upper part of the Texas panhandle (roughly north of Amarillo), has some lower Plains Midwestern qualities (because of settlement patterns), but historically and culturally, Texas (and to a bit lesser extent, Oklahoma) has little at all in common with Kansas or Nebraska, much less Ohio, Iowa, and the Dakotas, etc.
Western Texas (trans-pecos part exempted) is not even part of the "Southwest" if by the term one means a regional affiliation and commonality with New Mexico and Arizona. About the only thing shared in that realm is some connection with the term itself. But when applied, they mean two different "southwests". One being the western South (Texas and Oklahoma), the other (New Mexico and Arizona) being the "southern West." And this is backed up by, according to the most recent and extensive self-identification surveys/studies ever done, that the clear majority of residents in the former identify with the South as being where they consider themselves to live in, and think of themselves as, Southerners...while the latter clearly identity with the West and being westerners.
Infamous92;31209808]South:
Virginia (Southern)
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas (Eastern half)
Tennessee
Kentucky
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Missouri (Southern)
Great Plains:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
The "Great Plains" is not a true region in the sense of that the states share a common history and culture in the sense of self-identification with one another.
Topographically speaking? Yes, there might be something to it. As is the reputation for severe weather! LOL. But seriously, about all real similarities in the important realms of what makes a region a region, either fade or outright stop with that all were part of what is known as the "Frontier Strip." and the superficial characteristics involved.
Anyway, Texas overwhelmingly, and Oklahoma predominately, were settled by pioneers from the southeastern United States, and such was the definite major impact on the said history and culture. On the other hand, Kansas and the Dakota's were a product of the eastern Midwest.
What I'm beginning to wonder is why do most people consider the North to be synonomous with the Northeast and don't consider the Midwest to be part of the North.
As far as Southern Culture goes, I consider it to start at Virginia and goes all the way down to George and North Florida, as well across west to Texas. I don't really consider Florida as a whole to really be Southern, it's more Spanish and Caribbean overall.
Looking at the map Maryland has more Catholics than Baptist, which is a trend that most non-southern states have when it comes to religious affiliation.
Wiki's numbers (23% Catholic) and that map can't be right for an obvious reason.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore, which is comprised of Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Allegany, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard and Washington Counties is only 16 percent Catholic according to Catholic Church's own data (2010).
The Archdiocese of Washington, which is comprised of the District of Columbia, Prince George's, Montgomery, St. Mary's, Calvert and Charles Counties is 22% Catholic according to the Church's own data (2010).
How do you get 23% from that? Even excluding DC completely from the analysis (since it's not in Maryland after all), you end up with a state that's 19% Catholic, which is almost identical to the state's non-African American Baptist population (AA religious denominations are excluded from the ARDA's calculations).
What's even more interesting is that once you exclude the Hispanic and Filipino populations in Maryland, you wind up with a Catholic population that's around 8%. If you do the same for Pennsylvania (excluding Hispanics and Filipinos), you get a Catholic population that's around 25%.
So what's the point, you ask? Because when people talk about "Catholics" in the Northeast, they are often using that as a proxy for white ethnics such as Italians and Irish. It means nothing to say "California is every bit as Catholic as New Jersey" since reasonable people understand that you're talking about two very different types of populations (even though as a technical matter the statement is a very accurate one). When we delve into a deeper level of granularity, we see that there's a striking--perhaps even fundamental--difference between Maryland and traditional northeastern states here.
Well the fact remains that the Germans primarily chose to settle in Northern states as oppose to the Southern states. You can't say that doesn't mean anything and then accept that one of the traits you will find in the Northern states is a large Italian American population. You can't have it both ways.
That's not completely true. Check out the data.
Massachusetts (419,090/6,646,144) = 6.30%
Rhode Island (50,414/1,050,292 = 4.18%
New York (2,106,847/19,570,261) = 10.76%
New Jersey (993,407/8,864,590) = 11.20% Maryland (885,690/5,884,563) = 15%
Virginia (974,917/8,815,866) = 11.90%
North Carolina (1,036,724/9,752,073) = 10.63%
South Carolina (472,525/4,723,723) = 10.00%
Georgia (709,558/9,919,945) = 7.15%
As you can see, not many Germans chose to settle in Massachusetts and Rhode Island (and the rest of New England for that matter). And on the flipside, the Carolinas and Virginia had just as much German settlement as New York and New Jersey. If you drive through the Carolinas, you will find all types of little towns with German-sounding names.
Quote:
The colonists of Orangeburg County and town were mostly German and Swiss, who came over from Europe in a large body, occupying several vessels, and even to the present day their descendants are easily recognized by their unmistakable German names, and are found to be the principal owners and occupants of the soil in this portion of South Carolina.
So German settlement in some southern states was not dissimilar to German settlement patterns in much of the Northeast (the major exception being Pennsylvania). Maryland is actually much closer to Virginia and the Carolinas than it is to Pennsylvania in this regard (25%).
Besides, Maryland falls below the national average for German ancestry anyway (17.1%). It's not until you get to the Midwest where you start seeing percentages of German ancestry that are well above the national average (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio).
If there's any demographic trend that distinguishes the Northeast, Midwest and the South, it's that the Northeast has Italian, Irish and Jewish percentages above the national average while the Midwest has a German population well above the national average. Most of the South falls below the average for all of these populations. The South has a black population that far exceeds the national average (12%).
Maryland has an Italian population that falls below the national average, an Irish population that's right at the national average, a German population that's below average, a Jewish population that's above average, and a black population that's well above average (30.5%). Take that as you will.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 09-01-2013 at 01:14 PM..
As far as Southern Culture goes, I consider it to start at Virginia and goes all the way down to George and North Florida, as well across west to Texas. I don't really consider Florida as a whole to really be Southern, it's more Spanish and Caribbean overall.
Southern Culture goes DEEP into Florida. All the way down to South Florida. Yes. Florida is part of the South. The history of Florida is in line with the South.
What I'm beginning to wonder is why do most people consider the North to be synonomous with the Northeast and don't consider the Midwest to be part of the North.
Good question. There could be a variety of reasons (not saying any of these are the reason).
Part of it may be historical. We started out with 13 colonies. New England (NH, RI, CT and MA), the Middle Colonies (NY, NJ, PA and DE) and the Southern Colonies (MD, VA, NC, SC and GA). At the time, the Northwest Territory was largely unsettled so it probably wasn't even on the radar for most people then. The Southern Colonies were large slave economies while the other colonies were not, which created the great cultural divide that eventually erupted in a Civil War. While it is true that Ohio, Michigan, etc. were part of the Union during the Civil War, the beef between North and South predated the admission of most of the Midwest, so the animosity from the South was largely directed towards people in Boston, Philadelphia and New York rather than Cleveland or Chicago. I still remember an image from my middle school history book showing Senator Preston Brooks from South Carolina bludgeoning Charles Sumner from Massachusetts over the head with a cane. When I think of abolitionism and the "North," I think of Boston and Philadelphia more than any two cities.
In conclusion, perhaps that historical orientation still lingers with a lot of people today. It's the same way people refer to the lower central part of Philadelphia as "North Philly" even though that's not technically true in a geographic sense today (and hasn't been true ever since the the county and city consolidated in 1854).
I too noticed that Southerners who have animosity toward the North generally only hold hard feelings for the Northeast, not the Midwest. In fact, a lot of Southerners feel a common bond with Midwesterners.
Wiki's numbers (23% Catholic) and that map can't be right for an obvious reason.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore, which is comprised of Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Allegany, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard and Washington Counties is only 16 percent Catholic according to Catholic Church's own data (2010).
The Archdiocese of Washington, which is comprised of the District of Columbia, Prince George's, Montgomery, St. Mary's, Calvert and Charles Counties is 22% Catholic according to the Church's own data (2010).
How do you get 23% from that? Even excluding DC completely from the analysis (since it's not in Maryland after all), you end up with a state that's 19% Catholic, which is almost identical to the state's non-African American Baptist population (AA religious denominations are excluded from the ARDA's calculations).
What's even more interesting is that once you exclude the Hispanic and Filipino populations in Maryland, you wind up with a Catholic population that's around 8%. If you do the same for Pennsylvania (excluding Hispanics and Filipinos), you get a Catholic population that's around 25%.
So what's the point, you ask? Because when people talk about "Catholics" in the Northeast, they are often using that as a proxy for white ethnics such as Italians and Irish. It means nothing to say "California is every bit as Catholic as New Jersey" since reasonable people understand that you're talking about two very different types of populations (even though as a technical matter the statement is a very accurate one). When we delve into a deeper level of granularity, we see that there's a striking--perhaps even fundamental--difference between Maryland and traditional northeastern states here.
Ether way Maryland has a pretty large catholic population similar to how other Northern States like New Jersey and Massachusetts. Also Blacks tend to be protestant regardless of what region it is.
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.
Even excluding DC completely from the analysis (since it's not in Maryland after all), you end up with a state that's 19% Catholic, which is almost identical to the state's non-African American Baptist population (AA religious denominations are excluded from the ARDA's calculations).
