What do Native Pittsburghers Consider Themselves? (Philadelphia, Erie: hoa, work, home)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by JoeP

If we get out of the mindset of I-95 = the Northeast, then we can all recognize the diversity of the Northeast.

But then I think we are just talking about an issue of semantics. Basically, I think we are agreeing the East Coast is not the same as, say, Upstate New York. You are raising that point to suggest the "Northeast" as a whole is more diverse than the East Coast alone. But an equally valid conclusion from the same premise would be that what you are calling the "Northeast" actually contains multiple regions, which is precisely why it is more diverse as a whole.

The question then becomes whether the "Northeast" remains a useful term in light of these internal differences. Personally, I'd say no, but again that is a semantic debate.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by Katiana

That is partially true of the east coast cities, but not of the more inland cities of upstate NY, e.g. Albany, Rochester, Buffalo.

But when I think of "Northeast" I really don't think of Buffalo. It's not because I have no idea what its like there, either. I lived in Erie for 6 years. Went to Buffalo many times. I think of Buffalo as being an "Upper-Midwest" kind of city. I've never been to Rochester of Albany, so I can't comment on those places. In fact, I don't even limit this to conceptions of the US. To me, this region extends into Ontario as well.

What is a "midwestern" attitude? As opposed to a northeastern one. The economies of the small towns around Pgh were at one time based on steel. West of Chicago, e.g. Minneapolis, there's not much steel making going on in the midwest. Chicago itself has long had a much more diverse economy than Pgh had in the steel days.

Manufacturing isn't just about steel. Granted, Pittsburgh's economy was mostly based on steel (obviously) but so was Cleveland's, most of the Eastern Ohio's and Toledo (the Pittsburgh Steelers logo was actually the logo for a Cleveland based steel company "Republic Steel"). Certainly, many midwestern cities had more diverse economies, but the idea was still the same, manufacturing, and Pittsburgh was far from exclusive on its reliance on steel production.

The best way to sum up "midwestern" attitude, though this is quite the generalization, is "socially conservative, economically liberal".

[JoeP]

Basically, I think we are agreeing the East Coast is not the same as, say, Upstate New York. You are raising that point to suggest the "Northeast" as a whole is more diverse than the East Coast alone. But an equally valid conclusion from the same premise would be that what you are calling the "Northeast" actually contains multiple regions, which is precisely why it is more diverse as a whole.

Yes I am raising that point. Why can't a region be diverse?
And there are also similarities in the region.

Growing up in Pittsburgh, I identified with other Northeastern cities. I also had families in other Northeastern cities. The only time proximity to Ohio came up is when the Steelers played the Browns.

I see the similarities between Pittsburgh and its eastern neighbors. That there is even this thread still amazes me. I don’t think it’s semantics to admit that regions have variations and most certainly cities along areas that “border” other regions might have some influence come in.

Basically it's insulting to say, well Rochester is not like NYC so it must not be Northeastern.

Again, I think some people have a very narrow definition of place.

[Katiana]

Pittsburgh was far from exclusive on its reliance on steel production.

Save Gary, IN, I can't think of a midwestern city that was so reliant on steel as Pittsburgh. And Gary was never in the same ballpark, sizewise, as Pittsburgh. But that is probably a topic for a different thread. Point is, the midwestern cities all have a lot of farm-related economic activity, that Pittsburgh doesn't have. I have lived in Illinois. I've seen it.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Yes I am raising that point. Why can't a region be diverse?
And there are also similarities in the region.

Growing up in Pittsburgh, I identified with other Northeastern cities. I also had families in other Northeastern cities. The only time proximity to Ohio came up is when the Steelers played the Browns.

I see the similarities between Pittsburgh and its eastern neighbors. That there is even this thread still amazes me. I don’t think it’s semantics to admit that regions have variations and most certainly cities along areas that “border” other regions might have some influence come in.

Basically it's insulting to say, well Rochester is not like NYC so it must not be Northeastern.

Again, I think some people have a very narrow definition of place.

Don't take this personally, but have you considered that your own familial connections with the Northeast have led you to identify more with that region than the Midwest? The only distant relations I have who don't live in Western, PA are in North Carolina and Tennessee, so I don't feel personally pulled towards any other regions similar to Pittsburgh.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Save Gary, IN, I can't think of a midwestern city that was so reliant on steel as Pittsburgh. And Gary was never in the same ballpark, sizewise, as Pittsburgh. But that is probably a topic for a different thread. Point is, the midwestern cities all have a lot of farm-related economic activity, that Pittsburgh doesn't have. I have lived in Illinois. I've seen it.

But you missed my point which was that it doesn't matter (I reject the premise of your statement anyway, but....). The point is about manufacturing as a cultural phenomenon. Almost every city in the Midwest was heavily dependent on manufacturing, as was Pittsburgh (set aside the notion of steel as a "raw material" for a second). Very few Northeast cities had the same level of dependency on manufacturing by the end of the 19th century as Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth did.

[fleetiebelle]

The best way to sum up "midwestern" attitude, though this is quite the generalization, is "socially conservative, economically liberal".

I don't know. Based on my personal experiences it's more "socially conservative, economically conservative." Agricultural vs. industrial. The northeast has more cities closer together, whereas the midwest has a lot of driving through cornfields between cities. I know my hometown of Cincinnati has manufacturing (it was founded on meat packing and soap) but it feels different, more Midwestern, more conservative, more red-state than Pittsburgh does in a way that I can't explain.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

I don't know. Based on my personal experiences it's more "socially conservative, economically conservative." Agricultural vs. industrial. The northeast has more cities closer together, whereas the midwest has a lot of driving through cornfields between cities. I know my hometown of Cincinnati has manufacturing (it was founded on meat packing and soap) but it feels different, more Midwestern , than Pittsburgh does in a way that I can't explain.

Again, I personally favor the notion that Western PA, Eastern Ohio, Northern West Virginia and Western New York are their own region, but....

[JoeP]

Don't take this personally, but have you considered that your own familial connections with the Northeast have led you to identify more with that region than the Midwest? The only distant relations I have who don't live in Western, PA are in North Carolina and Tennessee, so I don't feel personally pulled towards any other regions similar to Pittsburgh.

I would agree with you except that nobody I know ever associated themselves with the Midwest. Yes there’s steel, but Buffalo had such industry too, as did Baltimore and Eastern PA communities. I went to Duquesne where I met people from all over the country, but I knew a lot of people from Jersey as opposed to Ohio. Again outside of sports – despite proximity, Pittsburgh isn’t exactly on Ohio’s mind either.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Yes I am raising that point. Why can't a region be diverse?
And there are also similarities in the region.

This is why it is basically a semantic issue. The entire United States shares some cultural similarities, and there are often cultural differences between neighboring towns. The concept of a region is something between a single city/town and the nation as a whole, and what regions we decide to define is really just a matter of where we think the most useful lines can be drawn.

Growing up in Pittsburgh, I identified with other Northeastern cities. I also had families in other Northeastern cities. The only time proximity to Ohio came up is when the Steelers played the Browns.

I see the similarities between Pittsburgh and its eastern neighbors. That there is even this thread still amazes me.

Again, I'd just note that the fact that people from the area can never seem to agree on this issue is prima facie evidence that we need to define a third region in between.

I don’t think it’s semantics to admit that regions have variations and most certainly cities along areas that “border” other regions might have some influence come in.

No, the semantics comes at a prior point, when deciding exactly what regions it makes sense to define and where those borders should be located.

Basically it's insulting to say, well Rochester is not like NYC so it must not be Northeastern.

First, my proposal would be to drop the term "Northeastern" entirely. NYC could be part of the "East Coast" (although I actually prefer "Northeast Corridor"), and the claim would just be that Rochester is not part of the East Coast (or not part of the Northeast Corridor).

Second, I'm not sure what is supposed to be insulting about any of this. I guess if you start with the premise it is better to be "Northeastern" than not, then you might consider it an insult to be excluded from the Northeast. But if you don't start with the premise that any given region is better than any other given region, then it shouldn't be considered an insult.

Again, I think some people have a very narrow definition of place.

Well, obviously we define "places" both narrowly and broadly and everything in between. My house address is a meaningful place term, and so is my zipcode, and so is my city, and so is my state, and so is the United States, and so is North America, and so is the Earth, and so is the Solar System, and so is the Milky Way, and so on.

Again, a "region" is typically going to be broader than just a single city, and narrower than the entire country. But I am aware of no rule about how broadly or narrowly we should be defining "regions" within this range--indeed, in some cases such as Alaska and Hawaii, a region could be limited to just a single state. Rather, I would suggest it makes sense to define whatever regions strike us as useful, and again I think the eternal nature of the Northeast versus Midwest debate suggests that limiting the possible regions to just those two is not such a useful thing to do.