Kentucky.... specifically Louisville...south or midwest? (Dixon: housing, rent, travel)

[Louisvilleslugger]

[quote=ECoast77;781095]

Your point is lost on most of us, because you will have a very difficult time finding people who will say that Louisville has no Southern elements.

Well I find it quite funny how this 4 day poll went from 23 (85%) people stating that it was Southern, while compared to only 4 (15%), and the margine only grew for about 80% of this poll's lifespan. Yet suddenly between 4 and 9 yeserday a sudden shift comes in with over 20 voters unanimously voting Midwestern? Doesn't it jsut seem wierd that it just defied the voting pattern in every aspect in such a small length of time? Another weird fact I found is how the post made on this thread in no way shape or form corresponds with the poll findings. Meaning 95% of people on this thread have said Louisville is Southern and that they voted Southern, yet with the sudden swift none of those voters decided to post any thing regaurding their opinion. No I'm not the only person who finds this fishy.

It is only logical to compare a city to its nearest neighbors - in the case of Louisville, those would be Cinci, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Memphis

.

When have I stated that it wasn't logical? I even stated that Louisville, Cincinnati, and St. Louis certainly do have a strong cultural bond. However I notice a hole in your argument while you'll acknowledge that Louisville is in a cultural buffer zone (being just South of the Mason Dixon) you treat Cincinnati as though it is a quentessential Midwestern city. When that most certainly isn't the case. However even with proximity there still are cultural differences between the two cities just because the are on opposite sides of what many people still consider cultural dividers.

Contrary to what you may think, there ARE a few things in common between Louisville and Minneapolis, just as there are a few things in common between Louisville and Jackson, MS. Regardless, it's still incredibly pointless to make such comparisons for the sake of rhetoric and argumentation.

What are the commonalities that Minneanapolis and and Louisville have besides the both of them being major cities? It certainly isn't History or Architecture. So what are the cultural ties that these two cities have between one another.

Birmingham and Louisville on the other hand a few signifigant similar traits.

• They were both major industrial centers of the South (Minneanapolis wasn't industiral)
• They are both grouped in with the South in just about every Linguistic study
• They both lost black population during the Great Migration North
• They both of their populations are majority Evangelical/Protestant (and both have a large Batpist population

)

A year has 365 days, and the Derby occupies one of them. And yet, this events pours untold millions into Louisville's coffers - what city WOULDN'T play on regional stereotypes in such a manner? It's a great tradition, but hardly one that defines the city. A great article on that very subject - how Louisville "attempts to flaunt Southern-ness for a day", and how much of a comical, superficial joke it really is compared to the real nature of the city - was written by a Louisville native in a NC newspaper. I can't find the link at the moment, but will post it as soon as I do.

Would it be better to ask would a Midwestern city play the part? I seriously doubt that residence of Indiana would defy their History, to doop a few visitors into thinking they were Southern. Accoring to this Dayton Ohio News Paper this event makes Louisville "Southern to the bone" Kentucky Derby & Louisville

Fair enough - just as I found an example, from a prominent company, with the "northernmost Southern city" part dropped off. As I said, those monikers - Gateway to the South, etc. - are nothing more than marketing methods, anyhow.

I actually found two sites that drop the Southern most Northern city part. The other site I'm referring two was a PDF that opened with the Kentucky unbridled Spirit Logo. I'll post that if I can find it latter.

That source (The North American Midwest: A Regional Geography) does not include TN in the Midwest per se, and a listing from very early in the book makes that very clear (defining the Midwest as the Northwest Ordinance states + the Great Plains states (not OK, though) plus Kentucky.

"Many of the settlers who moved into southern Illinois were from Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and the Carolinas. They were attracted to the Midwest by favorable descriptions of the area and by a land system which enabled the pioneer to purchase good land easily and cheaply from the public domain. "

The passage above is clearly referring to Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas, as the South. It is referring to the migration of Southerners into Midwestern states and Kentucky is in no way distinguished from the rest of the South.

"In a peripheral position with reference to the Midwest, the Upper Ohio Valley occupies the borderlands of eastern Ohio, western Pennsyl* vania, most of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and a small part of Tennessee."

In the Breakdown of the regions (by chapter) They clearly refer to Eastern Tennesee and Eastern Kentucky as the Midwest, is this not true? (keep in mind this is a direct quote from the source).

"The southern limits lie in the eroded hills of West Virginia, Ken* tucky, and Tennessee, far beyond the limits of continental glaciation, where, in general, the resi* dents of much of West Virginia face west for their contacts, rather than east. This is true through* out the hills of Tennessee and Kentucky as well, although in these parts there is a strong cultural kinship to the South."

Despite this source mentioning Kentucky over a dozen times (the majority of those times refer to climatic patterns rather than culture) they still link to Kentucky to the South, along with Tennessee. The proof is in the quote

Louisville is mentioned specifically well over a dozen times in that reference in the context of other Midwestern cities from Peoria to Detroit, whereas no cities in Tennessee are.

And I have plenty of other similar sources that include part or all of Kentucky, and the city of Louisville, in socio-cultural, economic, or demographic analyses of the Midwest.

Then please post them. I find it funny how even though this book you're referencing considers Kentucky Midwestern in a few aspects, they still don't include Kentucky on the Midwestern page of the Wikipedia article even though they are using the same source.

...I never said that. You, on the other hand, want to completely dismiss peer-reviewed scholarly research because it disagrees with your perceptions of things. Fine with me, but you do not hold more authority in these matters than a university professor of geography.

Eastcoast no I do not. It is a good source, and no one is denying that. But there is a better study (meaning more recent, accurate, and has been conducted much longer than the other), and what you are attempting to do is say that both sources are unconditionably of the same merrit when anyone with common sense can tell you different.

My entire point in introducing that study into the Wikipedia debate was to bring about some balance.

And I respect that

Far, far too much emphasis was being placed on the numbers from one study, conducted by one university.

But what you attempted to do was put the same amount of emphasis on a less accurate predated study.

I have studied statistics at a university level and am well-aware of how the structure and format of a question can greatly affect the types of responses generated. In the case of the Southern Focus study, no alternatives are provided to participants - it is simply "Are you Southern, yes or no?" "Is your state Southern, yes or no?" This precludes the possibility that something could be considered BOTH Southern and something else - quite a real possibility in a border state like Kentucky - and it forcefully pigeonholes people in places like Pikeville into the same boxes as people in Mobile, AL - even though their culture may share little in common. So yes, I am not bowing down before your one study - when in another peer-reviewed work, less than half of Kentuckians chose the term "South" to describe the state, and a full third opted for a Midwestern label.

I found it strange that when you attempted to justify how you merrit the two sources, was by saying that the lack of choices presented on the Southern Focus Study was too confusing for most Kentuckians to comprehend (which is what you were implying). Yet the respondants from state's like Missouri and Maryland (or states you were asserting were border states rather than Midwestern or Northeastern) which truely aren't Southern were much more capable of pointing that out in the poll. You refused to accept the signifigance of 80% of Kentuckians identifying with the South, and you insisted we were a border state rather than calling us Southern, which is what we are. It's easy to use buzzwords like "Pigeon hole" in these type of debates to, to stop another sides argument, But when it all comes down to it if it barks like a dog it is a dog if the most recent and accurate regional idneitfication study find that a state has 80% of it's residents idnentify with the South than that state is Southern (what a mouth full).

I said that it was almost exclusively people in Louisville and Northern Kentucky opting for the Midwest label.

Again don't be too sure of this. If you just look at the Kentucky South or Midwest thread, quite a few people strangely enough feel that Western Kentucky is the most Midwestern area of the state. Regaurdless, we should take your advice and say finding what specific region of a state identifies with what major U.S. region can't be measures.

People in Eastern Kentucky may not label themselves as Southerners, but I somehow doubt that they view themselves as Midwesterners to any extent.

Well 12% of West Virginians identified with the Midwest, and majority of the rest chose Northern lables regarudless, so with Eastern Kentucky and West Virginian culture being almost synonymous it's easy to conclude that this region played a major role in the findings for Kentucky.

But yes, that's another problem I have with the Southern Focus Study - as I said about, it makes NO distinction whatsoever between subregions of the South.

True that, But what's the big deal? Either you're the South or you're just not, from sterotypical responses on the subject, I think it's safe to say we all know what how the South is generally preceived, and 80% of Kentuckians identified that their culture is that of the South.


I

don't, as explained above. Professors of geography don't get published in peer-reviewed works by presenting spurious, fallacious, or poorly documented research. The Southern Focus Survey, on the other hand, is not peer-reviewed to my knowledge, and it is non-collaborated.

LOL No one said it was fallacious, or poorly documented, But I'm saying is that there a better (meaning more recent, more accurate, and has been conducted much longer) Study regaurding the same subject, Regional identity. With all those factors taken into account it should be safe to say that the Southern Focus Study is a bit more merritable than the "American labels" study riiight?

Early on, no. In modern times, however, in terms of immigration patterns Louisville is largely identical to Lower Midwestern cities

What modern immigration are you speaking of? Other than the current illegal immigration in the rural Bluegrass, the last immigration that kentucky took part in was the Great Migration, in which it lost black population like the rest of the South.

the only "odd" part would be slightly higher percentages of self-reported "American" ancestry.

That's a Midwestern trait, not a Southern one. On a Nashville-Cincinnati scale, Louisville leans far, far closer to Cinci in regard to its demographics.

Which is what I stated! Hence "It's is a Midwestern trait above all else", I must agree that Louisville's German and Irish populations are Midwestern traits. But they weren't unheard of in the South, namely Texas and Virginia.

This is not to say that there aren't some characteristics of Upper South cities present in the demographics, but Catholicized, German and Irish-heavy cities are not Upper Southern cities.

Richmond and Virginia Beach somewhat model after these demographics.

Yes, the plurality ancestry in the STATE of Kentucky is "American", but I'm speaking about Louisville here. You cannot judge a city by the state in which it is located.

Nor can you deny the state's influence it has on the city.

Nor was I trying to. I'm looking at where the cities stand now. However, cities in Texas with significant Hispanic populations today - Austin, San Antonio, El Paso

I never said El Paso, But San Antonio and Austin are still marginally considered Southern cities by quite a few people. Galveston Texas before that huge hurricane hit was also Heavily German during the time of the migration. Houston was also on the recieving end of this migration.

Again, Louisville's population was 11% slave at the time of 1860 - not what I would call "heavily black." You're making the same mistake again - using absolute numbers when instead you should use percentages. A county of 300 people is "heavily black" if it has 200 black people. A county of 150,000 people could have 2,000 black people - ten times 200 - and not be considered heavily black. Please don't continue to ignore this basic fact as you did in the Wikipedia discussion, it's 6th grade level math. The fact that Kentucky was NOT heavily black and thus had less to lose in terms of implications to the slave system is one of the most fundamental reasons why the state remained in the Union.

True the second largest city in the South at the time had a smaller percentage of slaves then Macon Georiga (sarcasim). But you completely disreguard the the only other major Southern city's slave population New Orleans. You don't acknowledge that this classical Southern city had a slave population of less than 10% at the time while compared to Louisville's 11%. None the less there was still a huge presence of slaves in Louisville (one of the largest) and that shouldn't be undermined.The city of Louisville had over 10,000 slaves, and on all the maps posted it that is the highest number on the scale. The fact is that there was a heavy presence of slavery in Louisville and New Orleans, case closed!

I'd suggest that you read a bit about the history of Birmingham and the role location played in its industrial development, this is a good link:

Birmingham Regional Chamber of Commerce - Visiting & Living - Birmingham "Quick Facts"

To quote the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce from that site - "Birmingham is the only place in the world where all the ingredients for making iron is present: coal, iron ore, limestone and dolomite."

So how does this back the claim that the only reason it was industrial was because of this? Better of what relevance is it to rather or not it was industrial and followed Rustbelt patterns, because it certainly did. That's just like saying the only reason Louisville is industrial is because it's on the river, The point is it's Industrial. So to say a city is Midwestern because is rustbelt is pretty much faulty. Not even taking into consideration the heavy reliance on Textile Mills in the Carolians cities during these heavy insutrialized periods.

[and the]

You don't acknowledge that this classical Southern city had a slave population of less than 10%

Isn't the Catholic influence in New Orleans too much for it to be considered a classical Southern city?

[ECoast77]

Originally Posted by SmerkyGrl

Louisvilleslugger,

I'd appreciate it if you didn't spam random people like myself from the VIRGINIA forums to vote in your favor. I don't know what complex you may have with your ego but a) I really dislike being spammed in private messages on a subject I don't really give a hoot about b) if I had an opinion on this subject at all, I'd say the city was midwestern and c) your act of spamming people only shows desperation.

Really, its quite pathetic. Stop it and leave me alone.

Well...this kind of speaks for itself. And yet, he's the one crying foul, when only 67 people vote despite 1,000+ views to this poll. Also, when I wrote my first post several days ago, the results were already split - I think it was like 60-40 at the time. I have debated him before on Wikipedia and other sites, and it's always the same. You just can't prove some people wrong.

Granted, polls like this are sort of pointless, anyhow. It's not as if we've just "solved" the eternal mystery about Louisville's culture - people will still be having this discussion 50 years from now. Though, this is just another one of many polls conducted over the years that show how perceptions of Louisville are split among Kentuckians.

But in truth...the only people with the right to label Louisville are the Louisvillians. People in Milwaukee who call the city Southern and people in Mobile, AL who would call it Midwestern aren't exactly the best sources about the city's culture. Not to mention the fact that polls like these are totally unscientific and not valid statistically. etc.

[Louisvilleslugger]

[quote=Coast;781132]Nobody has stated that Kentucky was a "safe haven" for blacks.

However, if a black was asked to rank preferentially the former slave states in 1950, Kentucky would have been near the top of that list.

For what reasons? If you are familiar with the diaries of Fredrick Douglas a Maryland Slave then you would see that the Upper South was just as bloody as the Deep South. If you mean that the opportunity to escape was greater, I would agree somewhat. While you had greater chance at escaping the odds were still greatly stacked against you. While in Maryland all you have to do is cross state lines, to get to freedom from one had to cross the Ohio River.

Jim Crow came about because of fears in the Deep South - where slaves often constituted a majority or plurality of the population

This none the less shows the cultural connection that Kentucky had with the Deep South. This shows that Kentucky's had a Southern attitude socially and culturally. Whereas it's northern counterparts were a bit more laxed, in this sector.

That Kentucky's blacks have largely been enfranchised since the 1870's and enjoyed a mostly peaceful, rapid desegregation in the mid 20th Century is hardly some small "anomaly" - it's the direct bi-product of a social structure in the middle, not Alabama, nor Michigan. Ever heard of Berea College? The same could be said of the other border states as well, all of which had Jim Crow but were "in the middle" in terms of their treatment of blacks.

Umm the state of Kentucky between reconstruction and around about 1940 had over a 140 lynchings 1914 as a result in 1914 the NAACP opens a branch in Louisville to protest lynching and mob violence against blacks and to fight a new housing ordinance reinforcing racial segregation. Under the ordinance, only members of the same race previously living in a house or apartment could move into it. As far as the Michigan and Alabama split being concerned, HUH no!

A great reference on Jim Crow can be found at The History of Jim Crow - in which you'll notice that ALL of the border states, including Maryland and Delaware, had some form of Jim Crow on the books up until the 1950's.

I don't see a connection between the "border states" on this site. When I clicked on Kentucky the first thing from the 1950's time line passes a state law prohibiting interracial marriage. This was around the same time most other Southern states passed the same law.

Regardless of KC spanning multiple counties, Jackson County, MO is the largest core county in the metro area by far - accounting for about a third of the metro's total population -

No No you misunderstood me Kansas city is a weird city, and I don't mean that culturally. I mean that it's city proper (actual city limits) does not have a main county, but spreads into four separate counties.

and it is heavier in Baptists per capita than Kentuckians principal county. But just for the sake of clarity, let's also look at the other counties that hold chunks of KC:

It also has more Catholics per capita than Louisville!

So we still have a problem, because Midwestern Kansas City is indeed heavily Baptist - and Southern Baptist, for that matter. Of course, so is the entire state of Missouri, right up to the borders with Iowa and Kansas and excluding the St. Louis area.

LOL this is similar to the argument being made regarding Louisville's early immigration patterns. You found a city in a marginally Southern state (but definantly not a Southern state or even half Southern) with a large Baptist population and attempt to argue that this makes the trait not Southern

So are many counties in lower parts of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. So no, Louisville's sizable SBC population is not "unheard of" among areas in the Midwest.

Yes the Southern areas of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio are heavily Baptist, hence my argument that these areas are more Southern than Midwestern (or at least have a strong Southern element as you put it). These are none the less rural areas, boardering a Southern state and for the most part seem to stream along the Mason Dixon Line.

Baptists do not dominate this city, however, in the manner that they do cities like Birmingham. They are a minority, albeit a sizable one.

Evangelical/Protestants do as they do in just about every Southern city. While Catholics dominate Cincinnati and St. Louis religiously. The mere presence of Baptist is without a doubt a Southern trait.

Notice also that other than LA, most "Southern" counties - principally in Florida and Texas - with Baptists as a minority to Catholics have seen tremendous population growth, have large Hispanic populations, or both.

The key element that made Louisville as Catholic as it is now, was the German migration, and I've also shown that Texas cities (Houston, Galveston, Austin, and San Antonio) were heavily settled by the Germans. However through waves of other migrations (such as the Illegal one) it has almost washed the evidence of this migration away.

South Midland is grouped together in that map, placing Louisville in the same area as Cincinnati, but also with Tennessee.

The sub-regional boundaries aren't declared - likely because, as the web site for your own sources acknowledge, there is ALWAYS some flex room around linguistic boundaries.

This linguistic map groups Louisville with Nashville, Birmingham, Knoxville, Greenville, Asheville, Chattanooga, Little Rock, and Columbia, SC. While compared to Cincinnati, being the only "Midwestern city" definantly within this boundary, Could this be suggesting something about good Ole Cincy

And in linguistic maps, Louisville is generally always directly on the border - hardly "safely tucked under" any barriers of importance.

Louisville is has always been placed below the line below the Southern boundary. When I said "safely tucked under" I was referring to this cultural map that not only includes Louisville, But Southern Illinois, and Indiana (which also backs my claim).

In my opinion, the reason that the Southern accent is still so widely heard in parts of this city is because of in-migration from other rural parts of Kentucky, not because it is something common among old-time Louisvillians.

Well that's your opinion, But from listening to the descendant of a former Kentucky slave and Louisville native Cassius Clay, we can see that the accent has always been strong within the city.

I contribute to Wikipedia, but I certainly don't use it as a primary source. And according to the experts at Weather base, Louisville still receives, on a long-term average, more snow annually than Cinci - even though recently, it hasn't gotten much snow at all. The links that I posted also show that the city is situated, from an ecological and botanical perspective, in the same climate/hardiness zone as areas in lower Illinois, Indiana, etc. But then again, even Philadelphia is sometimes included in the humid subtropical climate zone, due to its much closer proximity to the Atlantic and the associated moderating effects on its climate.

This goes back to what a another user said on the Wiki article and on the Velocity Blog, weather has nothing to do with culture. As you have even stated Philadelphia is even located with the Humid Sub Tropical Climate zone (typically Southern zone), and I doubt many would argue it's Southern for that purpose. However Louisville is located within the Southern climatic zone.





Fire ants inhabit Kentucky

That map does not use valid statistical samples, and according to it, people in Central Indiana - even north of and including Indianapolis - use "coke" and not "pop", something I know to be false.

Do you really know? LOL Talk about debunking a study's findings. regardless of if central Indiana pronounces it Coke, it's Above all else a Southern trait is this not true?

But while we're on specific cultural words, what could be more Southern than the use of "y'all"? And we do have data on where use of the Southern contraction "y'all" is most prevalent. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee did a comprehensive dialect survey across the US, asking randomly selected participants to answer 122 questions about certain linguistic habits. The chief coordinator of the study was Dr. Bert Vaux, Associate Professor of Linguistics, Harvard University. Question 50 of that survey asked “What word(s) do you use to address a group of two or more people?” The available choices were: a. you all b. yous, youse c. you lot d. you guys e. you 'uns f. yins g. you h. other i. y'all. There was an extremely strong correlation between states of the South and usage of the word y’all; no state outside of the South had more than 8% or so of residents report using the word “y’all”, while that word was used by a majority or plurality in most of the South. I ranked the results here and broke them into two groups – more than half, and less than half using “y’all.”

More than half using “y’all”: 1. Mississippi – 85.47% 2. Louisiana – 79.30% 3. Texas – 73.09% 4. Alabama – 72.81% 5. South Carolina – 71.83% 6. Georgia – 71.15% 7. Arkansas – 69.17% 8. North Carolina – 66.13% 9. Tennessee – 62.15%

Less than half using “y’all”: 1. Oklahoma – 46.35% 2. Virginia – 44.03% 3. Florida – 41.49% 4. Kentucky – 39.00% 5. West Virginia – 28.35% 6. Delaware – 20.93% 7. Maryland – 20.52% 8. Missouri – 13.44%

And, as a sort of “control group”, four non-Southern states: 1. California – 6.8% 2. Illinois – 6.05% 3. Colorado – 6.78% 4. Pennsylvania – 4.08%

LOL that's all fine and dandy, But with all these pronunciations taken into account Louisville and Kentucky are 9/10 grouped in with the South according to these linguistic maps.

This same study also asked the perennial soft drink question. Though it is true that more people in Kentucky say "coke" than true Midwestern states, more people in Kentucky say "pop" than in all but 2 other Southern states - West Virginia and Oklahoma, also marginal ones:

You forgot that the states of Virginia and North Carolina states that pronounces y'all more than Kentucky, says Coke less often than Soda (which is Northeastern).

Percent saying "pop" for generic soft drink term:
1. WV 49.17%
2. OK 32.91%
3. KY 16.16%
4. MS 6.14%
5. AR 6.02%
6. VA 4.91%
7. NC 3.87%
8. FL 3.76%
9. LA 3.48%
10. TN 3.37%
11. TX 2.43%
12. GA 1.98%
13. AL 1.75%
14. SC 1.47%

Notice the magnitude of the gap between Kentucky and Tennessee in terms of use of "pop" and "y'all." There are definitely some linguistic differences there, as others have attested to.

That research study is accessible at Dialect Survey Results

Here's the Soft Drink Pronunciation map in which Kentucky and Louisville are no different than the rest of the South.

pop.... soda .....coke..... other.... Total

Alabama 22 248 2093 195 2558 1.01%

Arkansas 88 166 999 46 1299 0.51%

Delaware 17 476 33 11 537 0.21%

Florida 207 2647 2596 255 5705 2.25%

Georgia 83 637 3442 266 4428 1.75%

Kentucky 662 279 1406 202 2549 1.01%

Louisiana 51 185 1934 393 2563 1.01%

Maryland 105 3139 525 149 3918 1.55%

Mississippi 52 98 1036 62 1248 0.49%

Missouri 1253 4483 402 156 6294 2.49%

North Carolina 138 1283 1408 665 3494 1.38%

Oklahoma 1022 352 1097 97 2568 1.01%

South Carolina 38 386 918 168 1510 0.60%

Tennessee 113 345 2559 215 3232 1.28%

Texas 220 2128 10339 586 13273 5.24%

Virginia 283 2998 1112 315 4708 1.86%

West Virginia 948 300 167 59 1474 0.58%

http://popvssoda.com:2998/stats/ALL.html

"View an excellent map (with statistics by county) created by Matthew Campbell and Prof. Greg Plumb of East Central University in Oklahoma"

http://popvssoda.com:2998/

There are variations within a region, but there is a fine line between "variation" and "fundamental difference", and I do believe that Louisville is on the other side of the line.

If that's your opinion than that's fine.

[Louisvilleslugger]

[quote=ECoast77;782476]

Well...this kind of speaks for itself. And yet, he's the one crying foul, when only 67 people vote despite 1,000+ views to this poll.

LOL answer this question does the sudden huge shift in votes in the poll that was almost unamanymously stating this city is Southern, came within the last daylight hours of the last of the four days this poll was alive seem just odd? Does it also seem odd that of those 20 voters that suddenly and unanymously voted Midwestern not a single voter left a single post to back their position (unlike the earlier Southern voters) It's just common sense that this poll was rigged!

Also, when I wrote my first post several days ago, the results were already split - I think it was like 60-40 at the time.

I'm asuming that you voted around about 10-11 morning on the 26th. Between 12pm- and 4pm, I was off and on writing my response to your post and between that time period the margine was still at 85% stating it was Southern (which Southern actually gained 2 votes while I was writing it which brought it to that margine, none the less the margine was growing) and that's the honest to God truth (from a Southern Christian ). So you couldn't have had voted before 4 P.M if you're insisting it was at that point when you did.

I have debated him before on Wikipedia and other sites, and it's always the same. You just can't prove some people wrong.

I'm just sticking with what my sources and knowledge of this cities history and culture have told me. you have provided extremely valid points to support your argument and I can't take that away from you.

[Louisvilleslugger]

Originally Posted by stx12499

Mods have no control over polls without leaving a mark that it has been edited, so nothing has occurred. We can see IP address, and control posts by flaming users. In other words, watch yourself and who you accuse, this is not a place to point fingers. I have kept this topic open because many people moving to Louisville want to know if it is South or North, and we have seen myriad opinions from both sides. Keep it civil.....

What's your Skyscrapecity/ Urbanplanet/ Or even Skyscraperpage account?

[SmerkyGrl]

[quote=Louisvilleslugger;784775]

Originally Posted by ECoast77

LOL answer this question does the sudden huge shift in votes in the poll that was almost unamanymously stating this city is Southern, came within the last daylight hours of the last of the four days this poll was alive seem just odd? Does it also seem odd that of those 20 voters that suddenly and unanymously voted Midwestern not a single voter left a single post to back their position (unlike the earlier Southern voters) It's just common sense that this poll was rigged!

I find it extremely interesting that you call the poll rigged when you are the one trying to rig the polls by soliciting random people to vote what you WANT them to vote. Very interesting indeed.

[missymomof3]

The difference in the polls could be because it started out in the USA thread and then the mods moved it to the Kentucky thread.

[missymomof3]

One thing I don't quite understand is why our closest neighbors are described as Chicago, St Louis, Cinci and Indy. I just did a mapquest search and we are closer to Nashville and Knoxville than Chicago and St Louis. Yes, we are closer to the other two but only by about an hour. I also don't understand for the life of me why we are said to have a midwestern influence because of Indiana but northern Kentucky has a midwestern influence because of Cinci. With Louisville being a much bigger city than say, Jeffersonville, IN and New Albany, wouldn't we be more of an influence on THEM? I guess I am just confused.

[Louisvilleslugger]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

One thing I don't quite understand is why our closest neighbors are described as Chicago, St Louis, Cinci and Indy. I just did a mapquest search and we are closer to Nashville and Knoxville than Chicago and St Louis. Yes, we are closer to the other two but only by about an hour. I also don't understand for the life of me why we are said to have a midwestern influence because of Indiana but northern Kentucky has a midwestern influence because of Cinci. With Louisville being a much bigger city than say, Jeffersonville, IN and New Albany, wouldn't we be more of an influence on THEM? I guess I am just confused.

Exactly, some people assert that there is somesort of cultural exchange between the two cities, when you have a city of over 700,000 compared an entire region of less than 300,000.