Great Plains region: differences from the midwest (2013, live)

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by cameolover

I never got how Akron, Ohio is supposedly more akin to Williston, ND than it is to New York City or even Erie.

Erie I can understand. Erie is more a part of the Midwest than it is part of the Northeast. It's basically like saying Louisville is more akin to Indianapolis than it is to Mobile, Alabama...it's what you'd think but it's not true. Both of these areas really lie more in the Midwest transition zones instead of the Midwest itself. Akron may not be more akin to ND but it is more akin to the Eastern Midwest.

[TheBeagleLady]

Originally Posted by michigan83

This is a great topic. I think the two areas can appear to be similar, or very different, depending on how much you pay attention to details or are familiar with rural areas. Someone from an urban area on the east coast might see both places as being "flat and agricultural" without really giving it any further thought.

In reality, though, both have very different terrain, weather, culture, etc.

I live in a very agricultural part of Michigan, and also have some relatives in western Kansas, where you either work in agriculture or move somewhere else. Agriculture is a common thread, but aside from that, they are like different worlds. Fortunately I like to take pictures, so here is a photo comparison of the two places.

Rural Michigan:














And rural western Kansas:














I think the most striking thing about the Great Plains compared to the Midwest is the feeling of vast, open space, the sky appears to be about twice as large (obviously it isn't), being able to see for miles and miles, and the feeling of isolation. There are also much greater changes in elevation, even in areas that appear to be "flat." I've seen much larger hills in Kansas than anywhere in lower Michigan.

Nice pictures. The rural areas of Eastern Nebraska look more like your pictures of Michigan than western Kansas. It changes in the middle of the state (just like South Dakota and I'm sure North Dakota), and you can tell when you've crossed from the "midwest" to the "west."

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

Erie I can understand. Erie is more a part of the Midwest than it is part of the Northeast. It's basically like saying Louisville is more akin to Indianapolis than it is to Mobile, Alabama...it's what you'd think but it's not true. Both of these areas really lie more in the Midwest transition zones instead of the Midwest itself. Akron may not be more akin to ND but it is more akin to the Eastern Midwest.

I'm actually revising that statement, because I just looked up Williston. That part of North Dakota I would actually consider the West. But both are on the ends of the Midwestern states. However, Akron can definitely be considered a legitimate part of the Midwest. The eastern part of the Midwest consists of all the states in that area and includes the far western portions of Pennsylvania and New York I would say. Whereas parts of the Great Plains states actually extend slightly outside of the midwest. West Texas and the Oklahoma panhandle also are not entirely the south.

[Blue Earth]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

I agree, but what I don't understand is why people take such issue with the Midwest when you can look at other regions and clearly see there is the same variety of difference in them. For example, the differences you just described between the Great Lakes and Great Plains states of the Midwest can be found to the same degree between Texas, Oklahoma, and the rest of the South (which itself varies widely...the Upper, Mid, and Deep South have very distinct cultures and feel to them, yet not different enough to be considered not at all the same). Yet few raise issues with them being part of the south. Even the Great Lakes states have large differences between them. Most of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois have a noticeably different culture and feel to them as opposed to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. There is also a noticeable difference among the three Midwest states west of the Mississippi, but in between the Great Plains, both amongst each other and from the states to the east and west. Much of the conservative nature of the Great Plains I've always felt has been due to how rural they are. Also, none of these states are 100% Great Plains. Eastern KS, Eastern, NE, Eastern SD, and Eastern ND are very much like that the states immediately to the east of them. I've always felt the Midwest as about as well-defined as it can be now. The only opposition I have to any census bureau grouping is Maryland and Delaware in the South. They should be part of the Northeast, which itself contrasts widely. New England the Mid-Atlantic states have noticeable differences culturally, politically, and economically, although not to the point where they can be considered not at all the same. The Upper, Central, and Southern Midwest have differing cultures, but not to such a degree that I'd say they all are 100% unalike. Same thing goes for all the states West of the Mississippi and east of the Mississippi. No two states in this country are 100% alike, and no one region of this country is a homogeneous mixture. Same thing goes for each individual state.

Well said. And your other comments in this thread are good as well. People make too much out of the differences between the eastern and western Midwest. The regions are different, but not so different that they aren't part of the same overall region.

[Colts]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree then. Perspective is everything...and since there's no hard and fast rules about what is or isn't the Midwest, all I can do is offer things from my perspective. And, in my opinion, the Midwest constitutes Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Maybe eastern Minnesota and Iowa, but that's it.

This is a large country, after all, and I just don't believe four regions is enough to classify things. In my mind, the Pacific NW is quite distinct from the interior West...New England is quite distinct from the Mid-Atlantic...Appalachia is quite distinct from the Deep South...etc.

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by Colts

Then we'll have to agree to disagree then. Perspective is everything...and since there's no hard and fast rules about what is or isn't the Midwest, all I can do is offer things from my perspective. And, in my opinion, the Midwest constitutes Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Maybe eastern Minnesota and Iowa, but that's it.

This is a large country, after all, and I just don't believe four regions is enough to classify things. In my mind, the Pacific NW is quite distinct from the interior West...New England is quite distinct from the Mid-Atlantic...Appalachia is quite distinct from the Deep South...etc.

there is both an eastern and a western Midwest. There is no magical change when you cross the Mississippi River. I could have sworn that at one time or another, you had a different position...I've been following you long before I joined this site...at one point I remember you including all of Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri in the Midwest. In any case, saying only the Great Lakes constitutes the Midwest is akin to saying only the Deep South constitutes the South. It's just not true. Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri, are not in the Great Plains. They are between the Great Lakes and Great Plains states, but still have more in common with the Great Lakes states, especially from a political point of view. St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Lincoln, and Omaha are all solidly Midwestern cities.

[Colts]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

I've been following you long before I joined this site

I know. I have a huge fanbase.

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by Colts

I know. I have a huge fanbase.

i will give you this. The states and territory you classify as Midwestern are the Midwest in the truest sense of the word. But Iowa is usually considered the most quintessential Midwestern state by just about everyone Missouri, Minnesota, and Iowa have been accepted as part of the Midwest for over 100 years. I would your definition of Midwest the "eastern midwest." I'd call the states in between the Great Plains and Mississippi River the central Midwestern states, and the Great Plains states to the west of them the "western Midwest." IF we don't see eye-to-eye, that's fine. Btw...thanks man

[Colts]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

i will give you this. The states and territory you classify as Midwestern are the Midwest in the truest sense of the word. But Iowa is usually considered the most quintessential Midwestern state by just about everyone Missouri, Minnesota, and Iowa have been accepted as part of the Midwest for over 100 years. I would your definition of Midwest the "eastern midwest." I'd call the states in between the Great Plains and Mississippi River the central Midwestern states, and the Great Plains states to the west of them the "western Midwest." IF we don't see eye-to-eye, that's fine. Btw...thanks man

I'll agree that eastern Minnesota, eastern Iowa, and northeast Missouri are Midwestern.

In Missouri's case, the southern influences begin around Rolla or so. By the time you get down to Cape Girardeau, it becomes full blown Dixie.

[AllenSJC]

The Great Plains economy is more based on agriculture, while the Midwest is more of an industrial region (not saying that there isn't agriculture in the Midwest, or industry in the Great Plains).