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 am not so sure about your statement "even remotely part of the Midwest core". I mean what is the Midwestern Core? And who gets to define it?
Who got to define eastern Colorado, northern Oklahoma and north central Montana as being part of the Midwest while excluding southern Illinois and southern Missouri? I mean, if we're going by strict definitions here, this thread shouldn't be 4 pages long, right? We could just say "nope, here's the official Census definition, thread closed" and be done with it.
Who got to define eastern Colorado, northern Oklahoma and north central Montana as being part of the Midwest while excluding southern Illinois and southern Missouri? I mean, if we're going by strict definitions here, this thread shouldn't be 4 pages long, right? We could just say "nope, here's the official Census definition, thread closed" and be done with it.
Not me.
I am just trying to point out that the "Midwest core" comment might mean something very different from someone in the Great Plains States than someone in the Great Lakes states.
In other words, someone from Kansas, with its wide open sky and huge rural areas, might say eastern Colorado looks more familiar to them than say the forests of Michigan or the factories of Ohio.
I'd say Minnesota and Wisconsin make up the "Midwest Core." Iowa is a Lower Midwest state with some Southern influence in the southern 1/3 of the state (I'm not saying Iowa is in the South, just that it has Southern influence typical of the Lower Midwest). Parts of Illinois are in the South.
Who got to define eastern Colorado, northern Oklahoma and north central Montana as being part of the Midwest while excluding southern Illinois and southern Missouri? I mean, if we're going by strict definitions here, this thread shouldn't be 4 pages long, right? We could just say "nope, here's the official Census definition, thread closed" and be done with it.
because they're more midwestern. north central montana is flat as hell and very agricultural. it's basically an extension of saskatchewan which is the canadian version of north dakota.
In other words, someone from Kansas, with its wide open sky and huge rural areas, might say eastern Colorado looks more familiar to them than say the forests of Michigan or the factories of Ohio.
You say "factories of Ohio" as if the state is completely covered in factories. Have you ever driven through rural Ohio? At least in the western and especially northwestern part of the state, It's mile after mile of flat open land and cornfields. It's one of the top 10 corn producing states in the U.S. A person from Kansas would not feel all that out of place in Ohio. It doesn't have quite the same wide-open feel and enormous sky of the high plains, but it is much closer in feel than many parts of the U.S.
It's a common misconception that the "rust belt" is completely covered with factories as far as the eye can see. The truth is that the industrial areas are concentrated in the big cities. Most of the land in the rust belt is used for agriculture or is forested.
A number of Midwestern states are in fact a combination of industry and agriculture, namely Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin..
The heart of the Midwest, I believe, lies in Illinois and Iowa; in contradiction to another poster, Iowa is not a southern Midwestern state, especially since part of the state shares a border with Wisconsin..
The traditional core of the Midwest also has a much higher population density in its rural counties compared to the hinterlands of the Great Plains- which have no economic diversification at all for the most part. Population densities in the rural Midwest core (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota) average around 30-50 people per square mile. Whereas, the High Plains (which I define as being strictly western) has an average of about 5 people per square mile. Also, irrigation derived agriculture is widespread in the West, including the High Plains region. Irrigation is nearly absent in most areas of the Midwest. Manufacturing is also not very prevalent at all in the Plains due to distance to market and geographical proximity factors. The Great Lakes economy historically was centered around the factory, farm, foundry economy due to the Great Lakes trade system. Ag products from the hinterlands were railed into the cowtown centers of KC, Omaha, Chicago, etc to be processed at the big packing plants. Then, the big commercial ag producers left the bigger cities by the late 70s and located back to the hinterlands for even lower costs and less regulation. This led to a big increase in labor needed as well as a rise in hispanic and asian immigration both illegal and legal in the big ag proccessing towns (feedlots, slaughterhouses, and packing plants). Examples would be Garden City, KS, Dodge City, KS, Liberal, KS, Lexington, NE, Dennison, IA, Worthington, MN, etc...
I don't get this Great Plains = West thing. The Plains are still far more similar to the Midwest than the true West (California, Nevada, Oregon, etc.). Agriculture is nearly nonexistent in the West (excluding CA's central valley), while it is very common in the Plains. Irrigation is necessary because of the drier conditions. The area's economy is still Midwestern (not Rust Belt, which is more Northeastern than anything .... NY, PA, OH, etc.). Culturally, the Plains are Midwestern. Even physiographically, North Dakota looks very similar to parts of Ohio and Indiana, but very different from California.
Also, as far as the whole "Midwest Core" thing. The Great Lakes states (MI, OH, IN, IL, WI) are very similar to each other (excluding areas below I-70). However, Minnesota is divided in half - with northern MN and the Twin Cities area being more like the Great Lakes, and the southern half of the state (excluding areas east of I-35) and western third are more like the Plains. Driving along I-90 from Chicago, you can see the landscape change from forested hills in SE MN to wide-open prairie in south central and southwest MN. Staying along I-90, La Crescent and Houston, MN are definitely Great Lakes, Rochester is transitional (but still more lakes) and by the time you get to areas like Blue Earth, Fairmont and Worthington, you're in the Plains. Iowa = 100% Plains (excluding the eastern FRINGE along the Mississippi). Are those areas "the West?" No. Still Midwestern.
Do you honestly think Fargo is more like Sacramento or Reno than Indianapolis or Columbus? No.
If anything, I would exclude eastern Ohio from the Midwest. It's the MidWEST, not the Mideast.
Last edited by northstar22; 10-05-2010 at 07:26 PM..
Do I think Fargo is more like Sacramento or Reno than Indianapolis or Columbus? Yeah, probably. Fargo isn't very big; the metro area has about 200,000; that's pretty similar to Reno. Size isn't everything, of course, but I don't think Fargo has much in common, culturally or economically, with cities like Columbus.
And as far as the appearance of California, there is no one "California" look; it's such a diverse state that it has everything, even plains.
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.
