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.
I picked Midwest but really both terms are pejorative and silly. Generally speaking flyover country implies the mountain west and midwest to me more than anything.
Midwest has Mall of America, Navy Pier, Mount Rushmore, Art Institute of Chicago and Resort areas in the Upper Midwest which attract international tourist.... Wisconsin Dells and International Falls and Ely, MN to name a few
The South has Charleston, New Orleans, Smokey Mountains and Graceland.
Its pretty close but the South i believe is more flyover
TBH,
I think that Chicago and MSP are probably the only two cities in the entire midwest region, that is anchoring that region, as far as tourism, and their international appeal. Especially, Chicago.
OK I get ya, however I think outside of Florida the south really has no international destinations nor does the midwest, that's the basis of this thread
Ummmm, huh? A few things, now the derogatory term "flyover country" is about international destinations??? How did your basis become international tourists btw? You said nothing about this in the OP or the title... If we're just going to magically not include cities or states to aid in the bashing, what happens to the international tourists in the NE without NYC? Maybe drop LA or SF from the west? See how this is dumb? And again, why is international now your big focus, domestic travelers (the majority) don't matter now or what?
Furthermore, not the end-all be-all but...
The two busiest airports in the US are in Atlanta and Chicago...
To the brilliant post that said you can't argue with the literal definition of "flyover." There isn't a magical wall around the coasts. Boston is probably the city I flyover the most actually... When I go back and forth between Paris and the US I fly over the East coast cities all of the time, and I've flown over California quite a few times as well on other trips. This thread seems to be very selectively using international/domestic travel to bash sections of the US which is sad....
Again, the two busiest airports in the US are in what two regions???
Its a term that I did not invent, so no need to attack the OP, my definition of flyover country comes down to an area with little in terms of tourist destinations, so that is why I put these 2 areas against one another since neither area is really known for tourist destinations for the exception of Florida
I hope you don't get too carried away with this illogical line of reasoning in real life, thinking terms won't be taken badly or are ok to say just because you didn't invent them might not go over so well for you with certain terms and groups...
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,270,446 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Calif
This thread excludes Florida, which can't really be considered fly over as it's on the coast .
The Carolinas and Tennessee are not at all known for attracting international tourists. Minnesota and Illinois are better known for this. There is a large cultural scene in the Twin Cities and of course Chicago. For instance, Minneapolis has the third largest number of theatres outside of Chicago and New York.
Then you have the monument of Mount Rushmore and then the Black Hills in the Dakotas, which are beacons of tourism. On top of that you get tourists in Indiana as a result of the Indy 500.
The population is also larger in the Midwest, which means more people total probably fly there than into the south - I do believe.
Tennessee most definitely is. Memphis and Nashville alone attract many tourists and appear on many tour itineraries. Same with the Great Smokies, and Charleston, SC. Non Americans aren't interested in the Indy 500. Ditto for Minnesota except for Canadians, and Chicago doesn't compare to the coasts for international tourism. Even taking Florida out of the equation I'm sure you'll find the South is well ahead of the Midwest for international tourism.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,270,446 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliSon
How have I been proven wrong? When tourists come to the U.S. there are only a handful of cities they want to visit imo, NYC, LA, SF, MIA, and Orlando the rest fight it out for scraps but even then cities like Boston, SD, Las Vegas get most of that
How the heck would you know? I'm Aussie and have spoken to people of all nationalities who have either been or want to go to cities like New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Austin, Savannah, Charleston.etc. I never hear of anyone wanting to go to Cleveland or Minneapolis. The South has far more to attract folk.
I guess it all depends on where you fly most often. If you are flying from Las Vegas to NYC, then probably a big chunk of the Midwest is flyover country. If you are flying from Seattle or SF to LA, then a good portion of the West coast and/or California is flyover country. Personally, I've flown most often from Chicago to Boston, so a lot of Ontario and the Northeast/New England are flyover country for me.
I guess I would consider the Great Plains the most stereotypical flyover country. The Upper Midwest has a lot of cities and a lot of airports, so I don't consider it flyover.
You do know that the South is the largest region in the country in terms of population. Also, for anyone who will debate, I don't care what your definition of the South is.
And, either way, the term flyover country is IMO used to refer to the Midwest because of the flight between NY and LA.
This number is highly contingent on the definition of the South.
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.
Ummmm, huh? A few things, now the derogatory term "flyover country" is about international destinations??? How did your basis become international tourists btw? You said nothing about this in the OP or the title... If we're just going to magically not include cities or states to aid in the bashing, what happens to the international tourists in the NE without NYC? Maybe drop LA or SF from the west? See how this is dumb? And again, why is international now your big focus, domestic travelers (the majority) don't matter now or what? 
.
