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.
It nonetheless is true. In the case of Louisiana, approx half of the entire state's tourism dollars came from the one area, and when Katrina hit and when the oil spill happened, that why it was such a HUGE blow to the entire state. There had been a longstanding history of that part of the state generating the bulk of tourism revenue all by itself, with other parts combining to add the rest. The "lopsidedness" if one wants to call it that of Gulf tourism is a common factor between LA, MS, and AL.
Again you are still assuming. New Orleans and the sorrounding area were hit hard by Katrina and the oil spill upset marine life and the seafood industry. Seafood is one of the staples of New Orleans food and many people were afraid to eat seafood. This obviously would be a big blow to the state since the New Orleans area has a decent amount of the tourism visitors and seafood is a way of life in the state (and somewhat of a draw for tourist). But New Orleans only accounts for 8 million out of the 24.5 million visitors to Louisiana. I will also say again that Louisiana's tourism has nothing to do with the Gulf of Mexico except for some seafood. It is a misconcieved notion that New Orleans accounts for the majority of Louisiana's tourism. I have also said that the casinos in North Mississippi make just as much money as the casinos along the Gulf coast of Mississippi. Then that the Shreveport casinos are close behind the Mississippi ones. Actually I see that you said "approx half of the entire state's tourism dollars came from the one area" but it seems like this statement would also be true for most of the sorrounding states and I also see that that is different from when you were saying the "overwheming bulk" of tourism. So I see you are beginning to understand but still I have mostly presented facts with sources while you are still mostly making assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
So good, what I said was true, and you added some additional information. Nevertheless, what I said was true and thus makes for a valid link between them. Extra information is all well and good, but it doesn't eliminate the truth of the link I presented.
But why in the World would someone decide to link these three states together when it comes to SEC football (when the question is regarding "culture" as a whole). Many of the sorrounding states have this in common as well. It is a commonality between the majority of Southern States with SEC teams. So maybe we should link FL, GA, and SC together for the one reason that they all might have this SEC thing in common unlike the other SEC states, but then people will say what?, these states have very different cultures (especially Florida). It would make no sense to group those three states together based off of this one little football subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
Apparently because you're having a tough time with the notion of something being common NOT REQUIRING or not being the same thing as something being exclusive to. The question asked for commonality, not for exclusivity. The two are different concepts. Nonetheless, I PUT the commonalities I presented into the context of them NOT being able to be brushed off as every southern state having it or every state in the vicinity having it. That's extra information on my part, but the bottom line is that commonality does not REQUIRE exclusivity.
But many Southern states in the vicinity do also have this in common. Do you not understand that this is one of the saddest reasons that these three states should be grouped together. The question asked for for if people group these three states together regarding the typical ideas of culture, not if they have some random SEC thing in common. When looking just has the nature of SEC football, then this might be a great grouping (even though you would have to add many other states to this side as well), but not when regarding "culture" at a whole. You know what, it really does not even matter any more. You can take this small factor and say that it is some big factor that screams these three states should be grouped together (even though it really screams that most Southern states with SEC teams should be grouped that way). Just make sure not to tell any one why you grouped these three states that why (when regarding "culture") because they will probably laugh at you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
Example: What is a common link between Denver and Nashville? One is that both are state capitols. It doesn't matter that EVERY state in the US has a state capitol, the question was what is common to those two cities. Every city is not a state capitol, but those two are. Commonality does not require exclusivity. The SEC thing is a common factor among LA, MS, and AL, even though it is not 100% exclusive to those 3. Commonality was asked for, and exclusivity was not a condition. To the extent one can distinguish between commonality and exclusivity, one can understand how this factor can cause these 3 states to be grouped together, just as one might undestand how the state capitol factor could cause Denver and Nashville to be grouped together if such a question was asked about them.
See with this example when you bring up culture (which the OP's question is asking about) you will then see that those two state capitals have very different cultures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
I agree with you. Actually the Augusta area is more like the AL and MS state capitols in terms of size and feel, and of course Augusta is not a state capitol but a secondary GA city.
Actually I think an anecdotal factor that seems to speak of a city's advancement and movement out of being just a small town, usa town is the extent to which it has a loop around the city, meaning whether it has one as well as how much of a loop it is. As a state gets 3 cities with a decent sized loop, it seems that state in general has had good advancement. It seems that the most laggard of deep south states appear to be "loop-challenged." Perhaps "loop challenged" is another similarity LA, MS, and AL have in common. I think Georgia has emerged from being "loop challenged."
What in the World are you talking about? Now you are judging cities (and how many cities) by if they have loops which some how makes the whole state advanced. That is a ridiculous idea. New York's two biggest cities do not have loops. Massachusetts does not have three cities with a loop and I can go on and on. Loops are usually for big sprawling messes of a city which are usually fairly new cities. New Orleans will never have a loop (geographical problem/but actually there is a loop around the very big lake), Shreveport actually has most of a loop, Baton Rouge citizens do not want a loop (years and years of work/have to up-root communties and tear down houses). Also Louisiana has for a long time had three established cities that have not been small towns for quite some time. Augusta's loop is fairly small and why would cities that size really need a loop. Can I also ask what is the third city in Georgia that has "a decent sized loop"? I do not want to start another big debate about this but you have to know how ridiculous some of your ideas are and how far you are stretching these supposed similarities.
Bottom line- it is true that tourism revenue is lopsided towards the Gulf for these 3 and the SEC factor I mentioned is also true. These factors don't have to ONLY be in these 3 states (exclusivity) for them to be a common link. They ARE a common link, and they are not common to all southern states. There still seems to be some obstacle to differentiating exclusivity from commonality. I provided examples of commonality, and they are real examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1
Actually I see that you said "approx half of the entire state's tourism dollars came from the one area" but it seems like this statement would also be true for most of the sorrounding states and I also see that that is different from when you were saying the "overwheming bulk" of tourism.
Half from one place IS what I was referring to as the overwhelming bulk of tourism. These states are heavily tourism loaded from the Gulf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1
I do not want to start another big debate about this but you have to know how ridiculous some of your ideas are and how far you are stretching these supposed similarities.
This from someone who refuses to acknowledge the difference between commonality and exclusivity. Exclusivity is NOT required for commonality. But pardon me for repeating this reality again, it's not as if multiple repeats of the same truth is going to automatically result in any real breakthrough in understanding of the concept. But I do believe most thinking posters in here will easily understand the difference between commonality and exclusivity. The items I presented ARE common links between the 3 states whether you like it or not.
And yes, LA, MS, and AL are loop-challenged. What few places in LA have loops- they are not extensive. MS has one in Jackson, and that's about it. AL does the best out of the bunch with Birmingham, but that and Mobile are about it. By contrast, GA has Atlanta, Augusta, Macon, Columbus. South Carolina has Columbia, North Augusta/Augusta, Greenville, Charleston. We know FL, NC, TN, and TX have at least 3 cities with loops. LA, MS, and AL are just found lacking. AR is too, but the OP didn't ask about AR. So yes, being loop-challenged is another factor common to LA, MS, and AL. You don't have to like it, but it's the reality.
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama came in "Far Below Average," the worst ranking on the scale. Missisippi was the worst in the entire nation. These 3 states did worse than Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Looks like underachievement is another common link between them.
Yeah see that was my point the gulf areas of Mississippi and Alabama are culturally akin to South Louisiana, Louisiana is more known because it has the largest Gulf coast out of these 3 states and New Orleans is the largest city. If you split North and South Louisiana but not the Gulf of Mississippi and Alabama from the northern areas of their states you kind of miss the larger picture.
Is below New Orleans LA? NO, Mobile AL? yes.. Mobile is a Savannah, Charleston size city. It's history is colonial French and Spanish like New Orleans thus come from the same cultural cloth. As I said earlier not only does Mobile has it own Mardi Gras but it's older! but check this out. Basically New Orleans has it's own version of Mardi Gras because a few folks from Mobile came there which ironic to this topic Obviously New Orleans Carnival is more famous and larger New Orleans is the larger city.
It's a darned shame Mobile didn't preserve more of its historic architecture. It could have easily been mentioned in the same breath as Charleston and Savannah today.
It's a darned shame Mobile didn't preserve more of its historic architecture. It could have easily been mentioned in the same breath as Charleston and Savannah today.
I agree a lot of Mobile`s architecture was destroyed by fire and urban renewal in the 50`s and 60`s.Fort Conde Village in Mobile was very identical and still is some what identical to the French Quarter in New Orleans only 2 or 3 blocks remain today.Fort Conde Village was destroyed for the I-10 Wallace tunnels and the Mobile civic center.Mobile also had a warehouse district that was very similar to the warehouse district in New Orleans and the district was lined with cobble stone streets and it was destroyed for urban renewal as well.The African American heritage trail in Mobile runs through old creole neighborhoods.There are Creole firehouses,schools,and churches that are in the heritage trail well what is left.There are several Creole cottages that are in the old historic districts of the city.Mobile has lost so much and the city`s past leadership has allowed so much of Mobile to be destroyed and one of the saddest lost to the city was the Fort Conde Village.Mobile had a lot more Iron work on it`s buildings but most of it was sold to other countries through the great depression.There is a book and a section in the Museum of Mobile that will explain about the history of Mobile`s iron work and what happened to it.The Camp ground Historic district was just added to the National register of Historic places and that neighborhood which is a very poor neighborhood was full of shotgun houses that were occupied by former slaves only a few shotguns remain today. And for the record Mobile is predominantly Catholic.
It is truly sad that Mobile may never be the historic gem that it once was but it is completely different culturally than any city in Alabama.
If one was to pictures of downtown Mobile before the 60`s you will see that the city had blocks and blocks of building that were laced with ironwork what a shame !!!!!
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.
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.
