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)
 
Old 04-30-2007, 10:17 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,919,821 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
I know a few people from St. Louis and their speech patterns are quite similar to the ones found in Chicago. The Great Lakes region also tends to have a northern cities shift accent or NCSA.
Also you claim that 36N is the dividing line between the north and south. However, how can St. Cloud Minnesota and Springfield Missouri both be considered Midwest cities. St. Cloud Minnesota is located at 46N latitude and Springfield Missouri is located at 37N. Culture, politics, and language patterns are FAR different in these two cities considering you want to group nearly all of Missouri into the Midwest category. I wonder how many people from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Iowa would actually CLASSIFY a town like Springfield Missouri has a Midwest city. It would be interesting to find out...
It's a rough estimation and Springfield is more like a city along the Mason-Dixon. If you want me to give an even more approximate defintion, U.S. 60 across Missouri helps further make that boundary accurate...any city on it is semi-Southern/Midwestern. Springfield is in extreme Southern Missouri. I never said group all of Missouri in the midwest. I'd say group MOST of Missouri in the Midwest. Springfield is "really down there," very close to Arkansas. I've always considered Springfield to be half-and-half, maybe even more Southern than Midwestern. But anyway...37 degrees...to 36 degrees....U.S. 60 gives a good approximation of the Mason-Dixon. If you want an even more accurate picture, look up Southern American English in wikipedia. THe parts of Missouri that feature it are the ones I would not include in the Midwest culturally, or in any way basically, and these parts tend to be a noticeable minority of the state. a simple line doesn't separate a culture literally..there is some overlap but not nearly enough to cover even a quarter of Missouri. Minnesota is different from Missouri...we are a lower Midwestern state, they are upper Midwest. Clear differences. I would not include any major metropolitan area at or very near the latitude of Springfield's in Missouri with the rest of the Midwest. Good call with St. Louis though. St. Louis is unquestionably a Midwestern city. Yea I would say we don't sound all that different from Chicago. Hell...you can ever hear people from the MEtro East in Illinois...they talk like Chicagoans too. St. Louis and the areas of Missouri and Illinois surrounding it all tend to exhibit that speech pattern.

Last edited by ajf131; 04-30-2007 at 10:34 PM..

 
Old 04-30-2007, 11:03 PM
 
Location: IN
20,871 posts, read 36,023,332 times
Reputation: 13324
Post Springfield Missouri

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
It's a rough estimation and Springfield is more like a city along the Mason-Dixon. If you want me to give an even more approximate defintion, U.S. 60 across Missouri helps further make that boundary accurate...any city on it is semi-Southern/Midwestern. Springfield is in extreme Southern Missouri. I never said group all of Missouri in the midwest. I'd say group MOST of Missouri in the Midwest. Springfield is "really down there," very close to Arkansas. I've always considered Springfield to be half-and-half, maybe even more Southern than Midwestern. But anyway...37 degrees...to 36 degrees....U.S. 60 gives a good approximation of the Mason-Dixon. If you want an even more accurate picture, look up Southern American English in wikipedia. THe parts of Missouri that feature it are the ones I would not include in the Midwest culturally, or in any way basically, and these parts tend to be a noticeable minority of the state. a simple line doesn't separate a culture literally..there is some overlap but not nearly enough to cover even a quarter of Missouri. Minnesota is different from Missouri...we are a lower Midwestern state, they are upper Midwest. Clear differences. I would not include any major metropolitan area at or very near the latitude of Springfield's in Missouri with the rest of the Midwest. Good call with St. Louis though. St. Louis is unquestionably a Midwestern city. Yea I would say we don't sound all that different from Chicago. Hell...you can ever hear people from the MEtro East in Illinois...they talk like Chicagoans too. St. Louis and the areas of Missouri and Illinois surrounding it all tend to exhibit that speech pattern.
I have been to Springfield before and it definitely did not "feel" that Midwestern to me. Culturally and politically this area differs quite a lot from even Kansas City. This area tends to be much more conservative as well compared with the rest of the state, as they are included in the heart of the bible belt region. Southern accents were definitely more noticeable. The city is rather easy to get around in because of the "grid like" pattern of the road system. This area has the potential to become a little more mixed as it attracts more people in from the coasts because of cheaper real estate prices. I am not that familiar with the town, but if you need even more detailed information you should probably ask city data member MoMark!
 
Old 04-30-2007, 11:21 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,919,821 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
I have been to Springfield before and it definitely did not "feel" that Midwestern to me. Culturally and politically this area differs quite a lot from even Kansas City. This area tends to be much more conservative as well compared with the rest of the state, as they are included in the heart of the bible belt region. Southern accents were definitely more noticeable. The city is rather easy to get around in because of the "grid like" pattern of the road system. This area has the potential to become a little more mixed as it attracts more people in from the coasts because of cheaper real estate prices. I am not that familiar with the town, but if you need even more detailed information you should probably ask city data member MoMark!
I'm not even arguing that you are wrong about Springfield Plains10. i've never really considered Springfield Midwestern myself at all. IT definitely has a Southern demeanor to it. MAtt Blunt is from Springfield and I'll say that he has different attitudes from the rest of the state, as we have already agreed on yes? Springfield is barely in Missouri...Arkansas is less than 60 miles south of it. And the Southern accent is prevalant there too. Springfield is vastly different from St. Louis, Kansas City, and Missouri as a whole. Springfield lies squarely on what I would call where the real Ozark culture really begins. It definitely seems to lean more toward the South than the Midwest...something you don't see throughout most of the state except along with areas of Missouri due east of Springfield. Joplin kind of is a mish-mash.....it has sweet tea now but my father said it didn't when he grew up. It is located along the Tri-state area....Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri and is actually not a part of the Ozarks whereas springfield is. again, given where Springfield is located in Missouri it really doesn't surprise me that it leans more toward the South. It's very close to the Arkansas border.
 
Old 04-30-2007, 11:30 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,919,821 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
Once Missouri does get another governor they had better become more focused on economic development in rural Missouri considering that large amounts of people still live in rural counties with few jobs and are not migrating to urban areas in large numbers. Economic development in rural Missouri is not good at all when you compare the numbers with rural counties that are within the Midwest core. For example, New York State focused much of their economic development efforts on the New York City metro and the rest of the state has been on a long economic downturn. Most of upstate New York is just the eastern extension of the Midwest rust belt.
it's true. Rural missouri is lagging far behind the major metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City and if they want to keep up with the rest of the Midwest the time to act is now while they still have a fighting chance. Rural Missouri has always been somewhat lagging behind urban Missouri. THat needs to change. St. Louis and Kansas City could even benefit if rural Missouri decides to get off its ass and strive to achieve the statistics of the other Midwestern states. as far as rural Missouri goes, Missouri is an anomally in the Midwest with its poverty. Why it got to be this way in the Northern parts is beyond me.
 
Old 04-30-2007, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Dilworth - Charlotte, NC.
549 posts, read 2,191,537 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius View Post
Virginia, for example, is CLEARLY part of the South, historically, geographically, and culturally. They seceded from the Union with the rest of yous, had racially segregated facilities like the rest of yous, love thumping bibles, and even say "y'all" a lot. If VA doesn't belong in the South, where does it belong? Is it its own glorious region like Texas is??? What makes VA NOT Southern? Suburban sprawling mess in the northern portion of the state? Umm, name a major metropolis in the South that ISN'T a sprawling mess.
In your opinion would Baltimore MD be still considered Southern, since it also had segregation until the early 60's.
 
Old 04-30-2007, 11:40 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,919,821 times
Reputation: 660
Baltimore, MD to me is much more northeastern than Southern, as is Washington, D.C. Midwestern cities may not have all been racially segregated, but segregation pretty much existed in some form or another everywhere in the U.S. and blacks were not looked favorably upon anywhere during those times. White flight occured in every city in the country. Maryland and Virginia are very different states. Northern Virginia is more Northern than Southern. (around D.C.). Baltimore and d.c. may as well be the same city. you can't in common sense call anything north of the capital Southern.
 
Old 05-02-2007, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Dilworth - Charlotte, NC.
549 posts, read 2,191,537 times
Reputation: 241
I know that common sense says one can't call a city north of DC southern. Yet how can Maryland not be considered southern in some way, when they had segregation laws passed till the late 1950's. They lifted their ban on interracial marriages in 1967. Now it may seen more of a northeastern city but back then it seems they shared the same ethos of the deep south?
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/insidesouth.cgi?state=Maryland (broken link)

I know that the northeast also had another type of segregation that was not enforced by laws during that time. It was by neighborhoods, for example the Italians, Jews, Irish, lived usually in their own seperate communities within the city.
 
Old 05-02-2007, 01:45 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,919,821 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anigirli View Post
I know that common sense says one can't call a city north of DC southern. Yet how can Maryland not be considered southern in some way, when they had segregation laws passed till the late 1950's. They lifted their ban on interracial marriages in 1967. Now it may seen more of a northeastern city but back then it seems they shared the same ethos of the deep south?
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/insidesouth.cgi?state=Maryland (broken link)

I know that the northeast also had another type of segregation that was not enforced by laws during that time. It was by neighborhoods, for example the Italians, Jews, Irish, lived usually in their own seperate communities within the city.
Yes. Maryland historically is considered more Southern than it is today. I generally don't think that political attitudes or ways in which a city treats people should be used to classify "North" or "South" unless the attitudes are at the extremes. At one time Maryland was even completely Southern but that was ages ago. Pretty much every historical border state except for Kentucky and West Virginia leaned considerably much more towards the North than the South after the Civil War (Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware). Kentucky is the only border state I am aware of to lean more toward the South after the war (they claim they are Southern, but Louisville and Lexington and Northern Kentucky certainly don't seem incredibly Southern to me, but they say they are so I give them the benefit of the doubt and rule that both Kentucky and West Virginia should still be considered border states.) West Virginia pretty much has stayed neutral.
 
Old 05-02-2007, 08:07 PM
 
5,861 posts, read 14,070,390 times
Reputation: 3491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anigirli View Post
I know that the northeast also had another type of segregation that was not enforced by laws during that time. It was by neighborhoods, for example the Italians, Jews, Irish, lived usually in their own seperate communities within the city.
There is a HUGE difference between the ethnic segregation in the NE and the racial segregation in the South. In the NE, immigrants like my ancestors grouped together in the same areas of the city with their countrymen because they shared a common langugae and went to the same churches. In the South, blacks were physically separated from whites whether they liked it or not.

Today's segregation in the NE and South is due mostly to economic circumstances. A black family or an Italian family's money is just as green as the next guy's.
 
Old 05-08-2007, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Richmond
1,489 posts, read 8,131,260 times
Reputation: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmexandproud View Post
Here's my proposal--these count as the South:
-Tennessee (more than 20 minutes south of Kentucky)
-North Carolina (in towns and rural areas with fewer than 75,000 people)
-Florida (north of I-10 then the Gulf Coast west of Panama City)
-Arkansas (south of I-30/I-40 east of Little Rock)
-South Carolina
-Georgia
-Alabama
-Mississippi
-Louisiana

Do not count:
-Texas: it's so great, it's its own region and country. It's like eight states in one with ten different cultures and types of topography.
-Virginia: It is now a mid-Atlantic state.
-West Virginia: hillbilly and country doesn't mean southern. And, they say "pop." More industrial in history, like the northeast and upper midwest.
-Kentucky: They say "pop," don't know what grits and sweet tea are, and it doesn't have a great deal of that Southern hospitality. Ever been to Louisville, Lexington, and Owensboro?
-Arkansas: western Arkansas is more like Oklahoma and east Texas.
-Florida: south of I-10, it's now New York South
You know, some people are calling North and South Carolina Mid Atlantic these days? Virginia and North Carolina are not Mid Atlantic though they are Southeastern States. Virginia was Southern long before Alabama was even a state.
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.


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