Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.