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 04-01-2009, 09:39 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,901,869 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazoopilot View Post
The Dakotas and Kansas. Eastern OH has a lot of eastern influences, and you'll find a lot of cowboy boots in rural Indiana and Illinois too. There's not much of a difference culturally between Western Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska. It's all Midwestern corn belt territory.
Missouri also lies within that region, at least 3/4 of it is in the corn belt (Osage Plains and Central Till Plains). You'll find those so-called cowboy boots as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2009, 05:33 AM
 
1,694 posts, read 5,075,617 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXclimberX View Post
Alaska and Hawaii are not in the same region. And i've never seen them grouped together.

Alaska is part of the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii is just in a category of its own.
Sorry they are both considered a part of the Pacific West,The NW is a group within the Pacific West as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 08:39 AM
 
Location: British Columbia.
343 posts, read 1,262,388 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden-mind-State View Post
Sorry they are both considered a part of the Pacific West,The NW is a group within the Pacific West as a whole.

So what, Texas many times is grouped with part of the west, doesn't mean that most people put Texas in the same category with a state like California.

I'm just saying that putting Hawaii and Alaska together does not make sense, and you hardly ever see it.

States and regions are often times grouped together based on cultural/bio/geographical/fauna. For instance I think everyone pretty much agrees that the states of Idaho, Montha, Utah, and Wyoming, Colorado are part of the intermountain west.

I think most people would agree that Arizona, Nevada and a few other states constitue the SW.

Hawaii may be in the west, and it may be part of the pacific, but really its a category of its own. Geographically and ecologicaly speaking it has nothing in common with the other western states.

There are some states like the Dakotas or Utah that are more of a transition between two regions. For instance Utah is really a transition state between the Southwest and the intermountain west. Sometimes you even seen it thrown in as part of the NW.

The Dakotas are in a similar situation. They are really the border land between the western states and the midwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 01:46 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,901,869 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Ohio and N.D. don't seem that different for two places within the same region. I mean what about El Paso and Baltimore in the South! They're as different as you can get in the US.
Except Baltimore is not in the South
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,563,690 times
Reputation: 3232
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXclimberX View Post
Culturally and geologicaly speaking it is western.
No, it's not. ND culturally is very similar to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Michigan. It's part of the Upper Midwest. It has the same accents, same Scandinavian hertiage, same love of hockey. It has NOTHING in common with places like Washington State or California, or even Montana or Colorado. ND is both culturally and geographically Midwestern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 03:23 PM
 
1,694 posts, read 5,075,617 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXclimberX View Post
So what, Texas many times is grouped with part of the west, doesn't mean that most people put Texas in the same category with a state like California.

I'm just saying that putting Hawaii and Alaska together does not make sense, and you hardly ever see it.

States and regions are often times grouped together based on cultural/bio/geographical/fauna. For instance I think everyone pretty much agrees that the states of Idaho, Montha, Utah, and Wyoming, Colorado are part of the intermountain west.

I think most people would agree that Arizona, Nevada and a few other states constitue the SW.

Hawaii may be in the west, and it may be part of the pacific, but really its a category of its own. Geographically and ecologicaly speaking it has nothing in common with the other western states.

There are some states like the Dakotas or Utah that are more of a transition between two regions. For instance Utah is really a transition state between the Southwest and the intermountain west. Sometimes you even seen it thrown in as part of the NW.

The Dakotas are in a similar situation. They are really the border land between the western states and the midwest.
No,I definitely agree with you.all I am saying is they are apart of the same region but fall into very different sub regions. (Hawaii of course being in it's own)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 07:12 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,666,179 times
Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXclimberX View Post
Alaska and Hawaii are not in the same region. And i've never seen them grouped together.

Alaska is part of the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii is just in a category of its own.
uhm yeah it is
its called the pacific (or sometimes the west) region
look it up buddy
http://usa.usembassy.de/travel-regions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...signated_areas

you almost always see them together
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 07:56 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,130 posts, read 9,901,913 times
Reputation: 6423
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazoopilot View Post
No, it's not. ND culturally is very similar to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Michigan. It's part of the Upper Midwest. It has the same accents, same Scandinavian hertiage, same love of hockey. It has NOTHING in common with places like Washington State or California, or even Montana or Colorado. ND is both culturally and geographically Midwestern.
Actually in many ways the rural western plains of the Dakotas are probably more similar to the rural eastern plains of Montana and Colorado than the forested, dairy or urban landscapes of Michigan or Wisconsin. Whether you like it or not, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio etc. probably looks more like New York or Pennsylvania than the Black Hills, Sand Hills or the Badlands. Unfortunately, nature does not make it easy for us here on CD to put places in perfectly neat categories the way we might want too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 07:58 PM
 
5,858 posts, read 14,044,713 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazoopilot View Post
No, it's not. ND culturally is very similar to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Michigan. It's part of the Upper Midwest. It has the same accents, same Scandinavian hertiage, same love of hockey. It has NOTHING in common with places like Washington State or California, or even Montana or Colorado.ND is both culturally and geographically Midwestern.
Have you been there? Go to Williston or Dickenson some time and tell me they are not more like Bozeman or Sterling than they are like Fond du Lac or Mankato...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 08:13 PM
 
686 posts, read 1,515,617 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Actually in many ways the rural western plains of the Dakotas are probably more similar to the rural eastern plains of Montana and Colorado than the forested, dairy or urban landscapes of Michigan or Wisconsin. Whether you like it or not, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio etc. probably looks more like New York or Pennsylvania than the Black Hills, Sand Hills or the Badlands. Unfortunately, nature does not make it easy for us here on CD to put places in perfectly neat categories the way we might want too!

the only thing michigan, wisconsin and ohio have in common with ny and pa are dairy farms, forest and urban areas, those states including the dakotas are very flat compared to ny and pa even though southeast ohio
has some hills
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.
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