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 don't feel like I'm in the South when I'm in Covington, KY. Hell, even Louisville only feels partially Southern.
right, but whats the deal with you splitting the bluegrass in half? have you ever been to cynthiana and then compared that to richmond? also, how can you call any part of mountainous eastern ky (ashland) "midwest"?
right, but whats the deal with you splitting the bluegrass in half? have you ever been to cynthiana and then compared that to richmond? also, how can you call any part of mountainous eastern ky (ashland) "midwest"?
Simple, the Bluegrass region is large.
Parts of Eastern Kentucky are Midwestern, parts of Western Kentucky could be considered Midwestern as well.
covington kentucky is midwestern, but it is not "eastern kentucky" it is northern ken tucky and is basically a suburb of cincinatti, eastern kentucky is the appalachian region of the state, and is not midwestern at all.
and it sounds like you dont know about the bluegrass regio, as its not that large at all. im not talking about the physiographic region (which still isnt that large), but the core cultural region. there is no way that cynthiana and richmond are in two different cultural regions, as they are part of the bluegrass region, which is a solid cultural entity. the bluegrass region really should not be spilt up when gauging culture. the map shown earlier simply drew a straight line from louisville to the southern border of delaware, thus splitting the bluegrass in half, which there is no reason at all to do.
and i cant think of any area of western kentucky that i'd call midwestern. really only the northern kentucky counties (across from cincy), and perhaps parts of louisville, come to mind.
this is the bluegrass
Last edited by JimmyJohnWilson; 06-03-2010 at 12:38 PM..
being a born and bread Pittsburgh'er I can tell you we are a strong Northeastern City....Pittsburgh identifies more with Philly, NYC, and DC than it does Chicago, Cleveland Indianapolis or Cincinnati....
Pittsburgh'er take day trips to VA Beach or Jersey shore, NOT to the lakes.. Pittsburgh'ers take shopping trips to NYC not to Chicago....
Pittsburgh's 3 largest hinterland cities are DC Philly and NYC in that order and Pittsburgh is in the 4 of of the same cities hinterlands....Pittsburgh and Cleveland are number 10 on each others Hinterland.
As close as Ohio is to Pittsburgh you will find many many born and bread Pittsburgh'er (myself included) that DO NOT go to Ohio..Ohio is not in our realm, we would rather track 5 hr across PA or 4hrs to DC rather than an 1hr Drive to OH.
You ask any native Pittsburgh'er where is Pittsburgh located they will tell you in the Northeast or on the East Coast...
covington kentucky is midwestern, but it is not "eastern kentucky" it is northern ken tucky and is basically a suburb of cincinatti, eastern kentucky is the appalachian region of the state, and is not midwestern at all.
and it sounds like you dont know about the bluegrass regio, as its not that large at all. im not talking about the physiographic region (which still isnt that large), but the core cultural region. there is no way that cynthiana and richmond are in two different cultural regions, as they are part of the bluegrass region, which is a solid cultural entity. the bluegrass region really should not be spilt up when gauging culture. the map shown earlier simply drew a straight line from louisville to the southern border of delaware, thus splitting the bluegrass in half, which there is no reason at all to do.
and i cant think of any area of western kentucky that i'd call midwestern. really only the northern kentucky counties (across from cincy), and perhaps parts of louisville, come to mind.
this is the bluegrass
1. Eastern Kentucky and Northern Kentucky are pretty much one region. Northern Kentucky is note as three counties, sometimes seven. So to say that it is it's own distinct region is like saying the Driftless Zone in Illinois is it's own distinct region.
2. I used Covington to show that Kentucky is partially Midwestern. Now just add that to the above point.
3. The Midwest is large and has many subregions, some of them reaching into other areas. The Appalachians are just one of them.
4. The Bluegrass Region might be cultural, but if you go from the
south part of it to the North part of it, that's a large enough cultural difference because it is fairly large.
1. Eastern Kentucky and Northern Kentucky are pretty much one region. Northern Kentucky is note as three counties, sometimes seven. So to say that it is it's own distinct region is like saying the Driftless Zone in Illinois is it's own distinct region.
2. I used Covington to show that Kentucky is partially Midwestern. Now just add that to the above point.
3. The Midwest is large and has many subregions, some of them reaching into other areas. The Appalachians are just one of them.
4. The Bluegrass Region might be cultural, but if you go from the
south part of it to the North part of it, that's a large enough cultural difference because it is fairly large.
5. It needs to be split somewhere.
thats all wrong. have you ever been to cynthiana, and then been to richmond? they are not in a different cultural region.
and to say northern kentucky and eastern ken tucky are same is ridiculous. how on earth is kentucky's appalachian eastern coal region the same and covington?
and no, appalachia is not now, and has never been a subregion of the midwest.
and no, the bluegrass region does not need to be split, because the top of it (cynthiana) and the bottom (the knobs) are part of the same, and part of the same subregion within it. the three northern kentucky counties are where the split is, maybe even a little down from them, but not through the bluegrass region.
and no, there is not a big difference between cynthiana and richmond, ive been saying that the whole time. the region is not very large at all, maybe 80 miles, and over those eighty miles its all one cultural region, and has been since KY's been a state.
it seems to me youve not spent much time in kentucky, ive never heard covington referred to as "eastern kentucky". ever. any kentuckian can confirm that. read these:
thats all wrong. have you ever been to cynthiana, and then been to richmond? they are not in a different cultural region.
and to say northern kentucky and eastern ken tucky are same is ridiculous. how on earth is kentucky's appalachian eastern coal region the same and covington?
and no, appalachia is not now, and has never been a subregion of the midwest.
and no, the bluegrass region does not need to be split, because the top of it (cynthiana) and the bottom (the knobs) are part of the same, and part of the same subregion within it. the three northern kentucky counties are where the split is, maybe even a little down from them, but not through the bluegrass region.
and no, there is not a big difference between cynthiana and richmond, ive been saying that the whole time. the region is not very large at all, maybe 80 miles, and over those eighty miles its all one cultural region, and has been since KY's been a state.
it seems to me youve not spent much time in kentucky, ive never heard covington referred to as "eastern kentucky". ever. any kentuckian can confirm that. read these:
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.
