Missouri...Southern or Midwestern? (St. Louis, Springfield: college, earthquake, salaries)

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by cheryljo

It doesn't bother me at all. It's amazing to study the history around us. We have underground railroad rooms in the houses around the square where I grew up. We had such a clash of cultures right here in these 2 square miles. Order 11 destroyed so much of the southern minded family homes but there is still alot left to learn from. Everyone should come see Independence and deside.

Missouri = Southern and Midwestern, plain and simple. I feel like cracking up whenever somebody attempts to call this state 100% Southern or over 50% Southern...it simply cannot be done, especially today. Can't we just put this to bed. The simple answer is that it is both, not one or the other, however it is not both everywhere you go. St. Louis is 100% Midwestern.

[wisconsinwoman]

Having lived in the midwest for 40 years (11 in MO) and the south for 10, I can say that Missouri is a blend of midwestern and southern. It definitely has some southern feel to it, in terms of culture. It's not the same feel you get, say in northwestern Ohio where I grew up and attended undergraduate school. Midwestern is a hard thing to articulate, and it varies even within the same state. For example, northwestern Wisconsin is far more midwestern in some respects than eastern Wisconsin, although both share similarities in culture. Eastern Wisconsin is noticeably more "eastern." I think southern Missouri probably is more southern in culture than the central portion of the state, though I haven't spent any time there. But, the northwestern corner of Arkansas is not too removed from feeling midwestern either, I think due to the university.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by wisconsinwoman

Having lived in the midwest for 40 years (11 in MO) and the south for 10, I can say that Missouri is a blend of midwestern and southern. It definitely has some southern feel to it, in terms of culture. It's not the same feel you get, say in northwestern Ohio where I grew up and attended undergraduate school. Midwestern is a hard thing to articulate, and it varies even within the same state. For example, northwestern Wisconsin is far more midwestern in some respects than eastern Wisconsin, although both share similarities in culture. Eastern Wisconsin is noticeably more "eastern." I think southern Missouri probably is more southern in culture than the central portion of the state, though I haven't spent any time there. But, the northwestern corner of Arkansas is not too removed from feeling midwestern either, I think due to the university.

I pretty much agree with your assessment. Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio are also not immune to Southern culture either in parts of their states. Southern Indiana and Southern Illinois in particular have a lot of Southern culture but are still overall Midwestern. Missouri has more of it since it is extends slightly geographically further south than these states (excluding the bootheel part of Missouri,that technically is a part of Arkansas)...Missouri below U.S. 60 I think is 100% Southern. Missouri between U.S. 60 and U.S. 50 is a transition zone....my impression is that it is still Midwestern but has a significant amount of Southern influence to it. But north of Highway 50 Missouri is unquestionably Midwestern. There is no question that Missouri leans more toward the South than any other Midwestern state, but it still is far, far less Southern than the South. Most of it to me can be included in the Midwest except the parts that are completely south of Kansas and Illinois. To me, places like Joplin an Springfield are both Midwestern and Southern. The only part of the state I continue to find exclusively and predominantly Southern are the Southeastern portion roughly around Cape Girardeau. In these areas, the agricultural economy is almost no corn or grain and composed of cotton and mining I believe. The landscape is completely flat like Arkansas, Southern cuisine and Southern cuisine exclusively are served, and most people speak with a Southern accent. Southwest Missouri, by contrast, is a whole bunch of things at once time. It is Midwestern, Southern, Great Plains, and Southwestern. Most of Southern Missouri to me is both Midwestern and Southern, but only exclusively and predominantly Southern in the extreme South-central and Southeastern areas. In its northern half, including St. Louis, Columbia, and K.C., Missouri to me is 100% Midwestern. The Lower Midwest is influenced by a significant amount of Southern culture compared to the Upper Midwest, which to me comprises Northern Illinois, Northern Indiana, and Northern Ohio, all of Iowa, and any state due north of one of these. I still think Missouri is in the Midwest overall. It is a Midwestern state with a decent Southern component blended into to it in its Southern half, but I still don't think that most of its Southern half has anywhere near enough characteristics to be considered mostly or exclusively Southern.

[GraniteStater]

In my opinion, I really do not think that Kansas City is 100% Midwestern. It has many more southern influences than even St. Louis has. In fact, the southern influences appear to be getting stronger in my opinion. Kansas City really does not have very much in common with Midwest cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, South Bend, Minneapolis, or Cedar Rapids. Kansas City has southern influences along with Great Plains influences. I always tend to think of KC as a Great Plains city with a lot of extra trees planted! I would agree that towns like Kirksville, Chillicothe, and St. Louis are solidly in the Midwest camp. However, I do not feel that you can put percentages on every town and region because it is quite hard to estimate for the most part.

[Northwoods Voyager]

Interestingly we again approach this subject matter with varying opinions. I still prefer to think of Missouri as being termed a Southern Midwest state.

Spoke with a gentleman this evening from Chicago. He referred to Missouri as being Southern in some respects during our conversation concerning cuisine, habits, and mannerisms such as speech and movement. He and others, involved in the discussion agreed that native Missourians in particular, were less inclined to speak rapidly and appeared less frantic than say, native Chicagoans and those from Wisconsin.

May I still refer to Missouri as being a Southern Midwest state? OK?

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Northwoods Voyager

Interestingly we again approach this subject matter with varying opinions. I still prefer to think of Missouri as being termed a Southern Midwest state.

Spoke with a gentleman this evening from Chicago. He referred to Missouri as being Southern in some respects during our conversation concerning cuisine, habits, and mannerisms such as speech and movement. He and others, involved in the discussion agreed that native Missourians in particular, were less inclined to speak rapidly and appeared less frantic than say, native Chicagoans and those from Wisconsin.

May I still refer to Missouri as being a Southern Midwest state? OK?

Yes you can, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, i have to say that it wouldn't surprise me that Missourians are not as Midwestern as places like Chicago and Wisconsin, and that people from there would consider us Southern, because compared to people that far north, we probably seem Southern. On the other hand, I know plenty of people, young and old alike, from Chicago who think Missouri isn't Southern at all and have been all over here. Guess it depends on who you ask. The one thing I agree on is that Missouri is not as Midwestern as the Upper Midwest. And almost everybody I know from the "true South," thinks Missouri is almost exclusively Northern, and many have visited here. I've heard many people from Chicago and even Wisconsin even say that anything below Interstate 80 is Southern, and that's not a joke either. I guess everybody has their own point of view about what the South and the Midwest really are. THat's the one thing I've come to realize the whole time I've been on this forum. I personally think Kansas City is much more Midwestern than Southern...all my friends and my father's friends and my friends from there agree Kansas City is either part of the Plains or the Lower Midwest, but that it does have Southern characteristics to it. Kansas City still has far more in common with Chicago than Louisville. All of the Lower Midwestern cities, with St. Louis as the exception (apart from its climate and not being on the Great Lakes, St. Louis to me is actually more characteristic of an Upper Midwestern city, resembling Milwaukee and Cleveland more than KC or Cincy). St. Louis is very Northern for a city in its location. Most lower Midwestern cities have certain Southern components to them, St. Louis has absolutely zero I think today. Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Kansas City all to me have a bit of Southern flavor to them but are overall Midwestern. In Ohio I've heard slightly southern accents as far north as Dayton and Columbus. THe Lower Midwest (by my definition of it), especially in Central and Southern Indiana and Central and Southern Ohio, and of course Southern Illinois and Southern Missouri has noticeable Southern characteristics to it. To me, they do not overwhelm the Midwestern components. but I guess we will have to agree to disagree over this issue..i'm not invalidating anyone's points, just giving my two cents worth on what my experience tells me to further add to the discussion. KC to me is a city half in the Plains, half in the Midwest. I guess it can be considered South depending on how strong its Southern characteristics come across to people, so that one could be up for grabs. I always felt it KC had far more in common with other lower Midwestern cities like Cincinnati and Indy than Louisville though. i could agree at least that it has more Southern characteristics than St. Louis. It has more Baptists, is bigger on barbecue, and is doing very well economically for a Midwestern city right now...never experienced the rustbelt I don't think. I've heard a select few people consider U.S. 40 the southern boundary of the Midwest (which I don't believe for a second), I've heard more consider U.S. 50 the southern boundary), but I've heard U.S. 60 much more often considered the Southern boundary of the Midwest by practically everybody I know. The rough northern boundaries of true Southern American English being the dominant speech pattern, however, (this is fact), are roughly along U.S. 60 from West Virginia all the way to Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle (in Virginia the boundaries of it cut off just below D.C., other than that, this map backs my point up almost perfectly). I always felt the truth South never began until below U.S. 60 except in the case of Virginia and west of the Texas Panhandle. But I won't dispute that Southern characteristics exist as far north as U.S. 40 and 50, and that Southern speech patterns do exist in these areas...they just to me don't come across as dominant north of U.S. 60. THe historic border states of the Civil War continue to cause confusion to the boundaries of North and South because it is still apparently disagreed upon by many if they are still border states or not. I say no. Except in the case of West Virginia, I think each border state leaned more toward a certain region after the Civil War. But I agree that Missouri has retained a number of Southern characteristics to it. I honestly think we oughta put this issue to bed...since nobody seems to agree on it. Everybody just go with their own thoughts. here is the map for southern American English.

Image:Southern American English.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by ajf131

It wouldn't surprise me that Missourians are not as Midwestern as places like Chicago and Wisconsin, and that people from there would consider us Southern, because compared to people that far north, we probably seem Southern. On the other hand, I know plenty of people, young and old alike, from Chicago who think Missouri isn't Southern at all and have been all over here. Guess it depends on who you ask. The one thing I agree on is that Missouri is not as Midwestern as the Upper Midwest. I've heard many people from Chicago and even Wisconsin even say that anything below Interstate 80 is Southern, and that's not a joke either. I guess everybody has their own point of view about what the South and the Midwest are. THat's the one thing I've come to realize the whole time I've been on this forum. I personally think Kansas City is much more Midwestern than Southern...all my friends and my father's friends and my friends from there agree Kansas City is either part of the Plains or the Lower Midwest, but that it does have Southern characteristics to it. Kansas City still has far more in common with Chicago than Louisville. All of the Lower Midwestern cities, with St. Louis as the exception (apart from its climate and not being on the Great Lakes, St. Louis to me is actually more characteristic of an Upper Midwestern city, resembling Milwaukee and Cleveland more than KC or Cincy). St. Louis is very Northern for a city in its location. Most lower Midwestern cities have certain Southern components to them, St. Louis has absolutely zero I think today. Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Kansas City all to me have a bit of Southern flavor to them but are overall Midwestern. In Ohio I've heard slightly southern accents as far north as Dayton and Columbus. THe Lower Midwest (by my definition of it), especially in Central and Southern Indiana and Central and Southern Ohio, and of course Southern Illinois and Southern Missouri has noticeable Southern characteristics to it. To me, they do not overwhelm the Midwestern components. but I guess we will have to agree to disagree over this issue..i'm not invalidating anyone's points, just giving my two cents worth on what my experience tells me to further add to the discussion. KC to me is a city half in the Plains, half in the Midwest. I guess it can be considered South depending on how strong its Southern characteristics come across to people, so that one could be up for grabs. I always felt it KC had far more in common with other lower Midwestern cities like Cincinnati and Indy than Louisville though. i could agree at least that it has more Southern characteristics than St. Louis. It has more Baptists, is bigger on barbecue, and is doing very well economically for a Midwestern city right now...never experienced the rustbelt I don't think. I've heard a select few people consider U.S. 40 the southern boundary of the Midwest (which I don't believe for a second), I've heard more consider U.S. 50 the southern boundary), but I've heard U.S. 60 much more often considered the Southern boundary of the Midwest by practically everybody I know. The rough northern boundaries of true Southern American English being the dominant speech pattern, however, (this is fact), are roughly along U.S. 60 from West Virginia all the way to Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle (in Virginia the boundaries of it cut off just below D.C., other than that, this map backs my point up almost perfectly). I always felt the truth South never began until below U.S. 60 except in the case of Virginia and west of the Texas Panhandle. But I won't dispute that Southern characteristics exist as far north as U.S. 40 and 50, and that Southern speech patterns do exist in these areas...they just to me don't come across as dominant north of U.S. 60.

Image:Southern American English.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I would say that Kansas City has a lot of different regional infleunces because it happens to be in the middle of the country. That is a disadvantage in my opinion. The city does not have a solid identity, and is not even on the radar screen as a city to move to by many people in other parts of the country. However, I have noticed that the southern infleunces seem to be getting "stronger" over time and appear to be migrating a little further to the north as well in other areas of Missouri. I attribute some of this to the "southern town shift." Many people who live in the KC metro take vacations and own houses in south central Missouri in the Ozarks area. This area is even more influenced by the south in terms of cuisine and speech patterns. I think these attitudes then get transfered further to the north because of the bias toward taking trips their and moving there compared with other regional areas. The bias is exactly the opposite in the Midwest core. Many residents who live in Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, or Detroit will go north for vacations on the lakes and forests of the northwoods. They would not go to the south because they would have to travel through all the corn fields which takes too much time. So I think the Midwest and the Plains are really starting to become even more different overall in terms of politics, culture, and regional attitudes. You are exactly right about the I-80 dividing line. Many people who live in Chicago and points further north say that this area represents the "downstate" Illinois people. The Chicagoland area dominates the Illinois economy. I lived in NW Indiana and that area was often looked at differently even compared with the Illinois side. Then you had the time zone and daylight savings problem in Indiana which was not good. The central time zone was extended into NW Indiana because they wanted to be included in the same time zone as Chicago. The problem is that you can go through three counties and be in 2-3 different time zones depending whether the county observed DST or not. Fortunately, I think they fixed that problem now.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Plains10

Yes, I would say that Kansas City has a lot of different regional infleunces because it happens to be in the middle of the country. That is a disadvantage in my opinion. The city does not have a solid identity, and is not even on the radar screen as a city to move to by many people in other parts of the country. However, I have noticed that the southern infleunces seem to be getting "stronger" over time and appear to be migrating a little further to the north as well in other areas of Missouri. I attribute some of this to the "southern town shift." Many people who live in the KC metro take vacations and own houses in south central Missouri in the Ozarks area. This area is even more influenced by the south in terms of cuisine and speech patterns. I think these attitudes then get transfered further to the north because of the bias toward taking trips their and moving there compared with other regional areas. The bias is exactly the opposite in the Midwest core. Many residents who live in Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, or Detroit will go north for vacations on the lakes and forests of the northwoods. They would not go to the south because they would have to travel through all the corn fields which takes too much time. So I think the Midwest and the Plains are really starting to become even more different overall in terms of politics, culture, and regional attitudes. You are exactly right about the I-80 dividing line. Many people who live in Chicago and points further north say that this area represents the "downstate" Illinois people. The Chicagoland area dominates the Illinois economy. I lived in NW Indiana and that area was often looked at differently even compared with the Illinois side. Then you had the time zone and daylight savings problem in Indiana which was not good. The central time zone was extended into NW Indiana because they wanted to be included in the same time zone as Chicago. The problem is that you can go through three counties and be in 2-3 different time zones depending whether the county observed DST or not. Fortunately, I think they fixed that problem now.

Plains, for the first time in awhile in this discussion I can say that I absolutely and unabashedly agree 100% on every single thing that you just said. Btw, thought I'd say this, I'm currently taking a class on meteorology and considering a possible changeover to that field. I'm quite impressed you picked up on the trip thing, that is an angle that I had not considered to this issue, and in many ways it makes sense. Very interesting field, meteorology...have liked what i've learned thus far...is it true btw that it pays very well these days? I forgot that many people take vacations in the Ozarks and I guess it does make sense that Southern influence is growing further north. And not to say anything about the Midwest at all, I feel that Southern influence is spreading further and further north of the Ohio River as well, maybe not at quite as rapid a rate as in Missouri but I know for a fact that Southern characteristics exist as far north as the central parts of Ohio and Indiana. Sweet tea is even served in Terre Haute, Indiana. Feel free to message me via my profile about the meteorology questions i've asked...I'd rather not have it interrupt the thread here. Kentucky exerts a significant amount of Southern influence on Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

[JohnKing67]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Plains, for the first time in awhile in this discussion I can say that I absolutely and unabashedly agree 100% on every single thing that you just said. Btw, thought I'd say this, I'm currently taking a class on meteorology and considering a possible changeover to that field. I'm quite impressed you picked up on the trip thing, that is an angle that I had not considered to this issue, and in many ways it makes sense. Very interesting field, meteorology...have liked what i've learned thus far...is it true btw that it pays very well these days? I forgot that many people take vacations in the Ozarks and I guess it does make sense that Southern influence is growing further north. And not to say anything about the Midwest at all, I feel that Southern influence is spreading further and further north of the Ohio River as well, maybe not at quite as rapid a rate as in Missouri but I know for a fact that Southern characteristics exist as far north as the central parts of Ohio and Indiana. Sweet tea is even served in Terre Haute, Indiana. Feel free to message me via my profile about the meteorology questions i've asked...I'd rather not have it interrupt the thread here. Kentucky exerts a significant amount of Southern influence on Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

In Ohio I generally thought you had to get pretty close to the Ohio river before you started hearing any trace of a southern accent but it's been awhile since I've been to southern Ohio. Any particular reason why the Southern influences are moving further north? I don't think Sweet tea has caught on here in Northeast Ohio. Anyway, sorry for getting off the Missouri topic.

[britdaw]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Yup. THat's exactly what I observed about those areas of Missouri as well. Most of the state however from what I've seen is a lot different than that area. That's not a bad part of the state at all...you actually reside in the few parts of Missouri that have sweet tea, which I love to death. I always stop at Lambert's Cafe there whenever I pass through that area on I-55 on the way to Memphis. SE Missouri is beautiful from what I noticed, very flat and the sky seems big. Hopefully it will stay that way as long as the New Madrid fault remains quiet. Here in St. Louis, Cracker Barrels are the only place to get sweet tea. Sweet tea needs to become available I think everywhere. Splenda and Equal, or any type of sugar put in cold iced tea just doesn't get that sweet mouthwatering flavor...oh well...probably will take another drive down there this summer

I love SE Missouri. I'd give anything to move back... You're right, it's very flat (which SUCKS during tornado weather!) but we do have the best sweet tea you can find anywhere. I remember going to New York a few summers ago and ordering iced tea in a TGI Friday's up there. When the waitress brought it back, it was some kind of herbal tea that they normally served hot and she just put some ice in it. It wasn't even sweet! I was like "WHOA, I need to teach you guys how to make tea." LOL And if you do go to Lambert's next time you're down that way, be sure to eat a roll for me! I'm 6 months pregnant and I've been craving some Lambert's something fierce! LOL
I hope the New Madrid fault stays quiet. No one up there has earthquake insurance (most companies won't offer it, surprise surprise), so it would be a travesty if a big earthquake happened.
Oh yeah, which part of STL are you in? One of my cousins lives in Creve Couer (sp?).