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.
Ohio: It's the easternmost "Midwest" with driving proximity to places on the East Coast like Washington, D.C. It's literally at a crossroads of the Midwest, the East and the South and that creates a nice dynamic. Plus it has a healthy mix of beautiful big cities (Cincy, Cleveland, Columbus) along with quaint small towns, idyllic college towns, elite museums, the world's best amusement park, varied topography, a Great Lake, the Ohio River, the massive forests of the southeast, Amish country and even a few islands. And there are amazing things to do in the five states it borders.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,094,873 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCentralNEGuy
Yes I have been to Missouri and no I did not find the cornfields to be as big as in other states. A good 60% of the state is south of I-70 and has a lot more forests and lakes. I am not calling Indiana, Illinois, Iowa completely flat but the flat cornfields that to me seem to be stereotypically Midwestern seem absent from Missouri. I saw bluffs/rock formations on I-70 in Missouri that I've never seen in Eastern Ohio or elsewhere. It should be something you should be happy about making Missouri unique. It may be technically and culturally Midwestern but I don't feel like it shares much in common with Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Northern/Central Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, etc based on the physical landscape of the place.
Once again, your use of stereotypes to define what is and isn't Midwestern is misguided. And again, your arguments of saying it's something to feel proud about, I have no feelings on the matter whatsoever. I'm not going to feel proud about something that's not true. As far as rock formations along I-70 go, I never thought somebody would use that in the context of I-70. As far as the cornfields go, regardless of whether or not they are as big, they are still big. Missouri is in the top ten corn producing states. As far as glaciation is concerned, all of the state north of the Missouri was glaciated, as well as some parts of it to the south of the Missouri. I again implore you to look at the Allegheny Plateau in EAstern Ohio, which is VERY hilly and has some similar rock formations. And regardless of what you feel or don't feel, it shares a substantial amount in common with these other states. It's among the leading producers of corn and soybeans, has a fairly similar climate (with some differences due to it being further south than the extreme, northern portions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, and Iowa. I always expected someone to use the Ozarks as a point of differentiation from the rest of the Midwest, but never the northern half. I would doubt you have driven that far away from the Missouri River either in the northern portions of the state...the reason the cornfields are not as flat near I-70 is because I-29 and I-70 both run in the Missouri River valley. As far as lakes go, have you ever been to Minnesota? And as far as forest goes, the upper Midwest, especially the UP and Northern Wisconsin are heavily forested. THe Ozarks didn't have forests cleared for two reasons...preservation, and soil that isn't farmable. However, the Osage Plains are farmable like Kansas.
Again, Eastern Kansas and far eastern Nebraska are not flat, and eastern Kansas sports rugged topography and rock formations, an issue which you seem to have dodged...Eastern Kansas is actually very hilly, with similar rock formations in a few spots to some of what you see along I-70 in Missouri. To say a state is or isn't Midwestern based on topography alone, and especially with regards to northern Missouri, is just wrong. And you've again failed to notice the differences with Nebraska, Kansas, and then the states to the east. iowa is not ironing board flat like Illinois and Indiana. Ohio is actually hillier than those two states. Also, Illinois and Indiana are much more forested than Nebraska. Nebraska has cornfields MUCH larger than Illinois does. Trees essentially are nonexistent here...I'm also not sure that Kansas and Nebraska were ever substantially forested. The Great Plains were once referred to as the "Great American Desert" I believe. You are focusing solely on Missouri's differences and not enough on the differences between the rest of these states, which are substantial. What you feel is not heavily grounded in fact. Missouri is part of the Midwest, regardless of topographic differences...I've been to every Midwestern state, and for the most part, driving I-70 feels like driving through the Midwest. Not every part, but I wouldn't call it so substantially different you feel like you're in another region. Far eastern Iowa along the Misssissippi, as well as a good chunk of Western Illinois, especially in the driftless area and all along the Mississippi, has many rock formations and large, rugged hills and topography. Overall, there are more similarities between northern Missouri and the rest of the Midwest than differences..you seem interested only in maximizing the differences.
Last edited by stlouisan; 03-07-2012 at 10:47 AM..
As you can clearly tell, there are not as many vast differences between northern missouri and every portion of the rest of the Midwest as you emphasize: there is almost always a state in the Midwest with similar topography or crop acreage to northerm Missouri at some point. I will agree that Iowa and Illinois and Indiana and some of Ohio have more extensive cropland than Missouri, but to say all of the Midwest does is just untrue. The Allegheny and Appalachian Plateaus in Ohio are significantly different from the rest of the Midwest. You also have mountainous areas in Northern Michigan: the porcupine mountains to be precise. Stereotypes are not the best way in the world to classify a region. Kansas is no more of a major crop area than Missouri is. And the major crop areas don't cover most of Nebraska either.
Last edited by stlouisan; 03-07-2012 at 11:11 AM..
I'm sure that there are counties in these states that are still completely forested.
Well yes, I know, but there's still a large swatch of these states that are more corn and soybeans than trees. I think it would have been interesting to have seen the states when they were still more-heavily forested.
Once again, your use of stereotypes to define what is and isn't Midwestern is misguided. And again, your arguments of saying it's something to feel proud about, I have no feelings on the matter whatsoever. I'm not going to feel proud about something that's not true. As far as rock formations along I-70 go, I never thought somebody would use that in the context of I-70. As far as the cornfields go, regardless of whether or not they are as big, they are still big. Missouri is in the top ten corn producing states. As far as glaciation is concerned, all of the state north of the Missouri was glaciated, as well as some parts of it to the south of the Missouri. I again implore you to look at the Allegheny Plateau in EAstern Ohio, which is VERY hilly and has some similar rock formations. And regardless of what you feel or don't feel, it shares a substantial amount in common with these other states. It's among the leading producers of corn and soybeans, has a fairly similar climate (with some differences due to it being further south than the extreme, northern portions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, and Iowa. I always expected someone to use the Ozarks as a point of differentiation from the rest of the Midwest, but never the northern half. I would doubt you have driven that far away from the Missouri River either in the northern portions of the state...the reason the cornfields are not as flat near I-70 is because I-29 and I-70 both run in the Missouri River valley. As far as lakes go, have you ever been to Minnesota? And as far as forest goes, the upper Midwest, especially the UP and Northern Wisconsin are heavily forested. THe Ozarks didn't have forests cleared for two reasons...preservation, and soil that isn't farmable. However, the Osage Plains are farmable like Kansas.
Again, Eastern Kansas and far eastern Nebraska are not flat, and eastern Kansas sports rugged topography and rock formations, an issue which you seem to have dodged...Eastern Kansas is actually very hilly, with similar rock formations in a few spots to some of what you see along I-70 in Missouri. To say a state is or isn't Midwestern based on topography alone, and especially with regards to northern Missouri, is just wrong. And you've again failed to notice the differences with Nebraska, Kansas, and then the states to the east. iowa is not ironing board flat like Illinois and Indiana. Ohio is actually hillier than those two states. Also, Illinois and Indiana are much more forested than Nebraska. Nebraska has cornfields MUCH larger than Illinois does. Trees essentially are nonexistent here...I'm also not sure that Kansas and Nebraska were ever substantially forested. The Great Plains were once referred to as the "Great American Desert" I believe. You are focusing solely on Missouri's differences and not enough on the differences between the rest of these states, which are substantial. What you feel is not heavily grounded in fact. Missouri is part of the Midwest, regardless of topographic differences...I've been to every Midwestern state, and for the most part, driving I-70 feels like driving through the Midwest. Not every part, but I wouldn't call it so substantially different you feel like you're in another region. Far eastern Iowa along the Misssissippi, as well as a good chunk of Western Illinois, especially in the driftless area and all along the Mississippi, has many rock formations and large, rugged hills and topography. Overall, there are more similarities between northern Missouri and the rest of the Midwest than differences..you seem interested only in maximizing the differences.
So you want to say that Missouri which was once heavily forested is the same as Nebraska which you admit was never substantially forested. Where I live there used to be no trees but now there are more because they were planted or we no longer have the wildfires we once had. Both are Midwest but differences do exist. There's a lot of parts of Nebraska that aren't flat which I know from living here but we do have large swaths of flat cornground which are highly productive. Also if the two states are so similar why is Missouri's unemployment rate nearly double that of Nebraska's?
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,094,873 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCentralNEGuy
So you want to say that Missouri which was once heavily forested is the same as Nebraska which you admit was never substantially forested. Where I live there used to be no trees but now there are more because they were planted or we no longer have the wildfires we once had. Both are Midwest but differences do exist. There's a lot of parts of Nebraska that aren't flat which I know from living here but we do have large swaths of flat cornground which are highly productive. Also if the two states are so similar why is Missouri's unemployment rate nearly double that of Nebraska's?
I never said Missouri was the same as Nebraska. Northwest Missouri, however, and southwest Iowa, are not that different from eastern Nebraska along the Missouri River. I said that Nebraska and Kansas are Great Plains states and different from the Midwestern states to the east...I was implying differences from Missouri as well when I said that, but I guess you wanted an explicit acknowledgement. There, you just got it. And yes, I know Nebraska has many parts that are flat as a board. I've driven I-80 all the way from Lincoln to Cheyenne. Another factor for why farmland might be larger in Nebraska is much of it could be corporate-owned, not family owned. Another big difference between Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas and the rest of the Midwest is that without irrigation, growing crops would be much more difficult..Missouri does not require irrigation, and like the rest of the midwest states on similar or further east longitudes, was heavily forested before it was cleared for cropland, the exception of course being the Ozarks. And I agree that in Nebraska there are much more extensive areas of cornfields, but Nebraska has much larger cornfields than even Illinois.
Finally, Missouri's unemployment rate being higher than Nebraska's I would attribute largely to the Ozarks. The Ozarks may be among the poorest areas of the eastern U.S. for crop growth.The soil is terrible for crops, the mining that once took place there is now largely dried up...there really just is not a lot of economic benefit to living in the rural parts. I'm not even too certain if the timber industry is that great any more...the only thing I could imagine the Ozarks have going for them besides the trucking industry is timber, but with much of those forests now protected, even that's complicated. Brick-making is about all I can think of. And in the northern Ozarks, along the Missouri River and slightly to the south, vineyards. You might think I'm using it as a crutch, but you have no idea how third world much of it is in the rural parts compared to the rest of the country. Many houses don't even have indoor plumbing. This not even something you typically see in the Appalachian mountains, at least as far as cropland as concerned. THey are still culturally mixed between the Midwest and south, but the topography is largely responsible for the biggest differences.
I never said Missouri was the same as Nebraska. Northwest Missouri, however, and southwest Iowa, are not that different from eastern Nebraska along the Missouri River. I said that Nebraska and Kansas are Great Plains states and different from the Midwestern states to the east...I was implying differences from Missouri as well when I said that, but I guess you wanted an explicit acknowledgement. There, you just got it. And yes, I know Nebraska has many parts that are flat as a board. I've driven I-80 all the way from Lincoln to Cheyenne. Another factor for why farmland might be larger in Nebraska is much of it could be corporate-owned, not family owned. Another big difference between Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas and the rest of the Midwest is that without irrigation, growing crops would be much more difficult..Missouri does not require irrigation, and like the rest of the midwest states on similar or further east longitudes, was heavily forested before it was cleared for cropland, the exception of course being the Ozarks. And I agree that in Nebraska there are much more extensive areas of cornfields, but Nebraska has much larger cornfields than even Illinois.
Census of Agriculture - 2007 Census Publications - Ag Atlas Maps, Farms (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Farms/Land_in_Farms_and_Land_Use/07-M082.asp - broken link)
One quibble: Nebraska is entirely different from Kansas and the Dakotas in terms of irrigation. The difference is easily explained by looking at maps of corn and wheat operations:
Census of Agriculture - 2007 Census Publications - Ag Atlas Maps, Crops and Plants (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Crops_and_Plants/Field_Crops_Harvested/07-M163.asp - broken link)
Census of Agriculture - 2007 Census Publications - Ag Atlas Maps, Crops and Plants (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Crops_and_Plants/Field_Crops_Harvested/07-M172.asp - broken link)
Corn requires more water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan
Finally, Missouri's unemployment rate being higher than Nebraska's I would attribute largely to the Ozarks. The Ozarks may be among the poorest areas of the eastern U.S. for crop growth.The soil is terrible for crops, the mining that once took place there is now largely dried up...there really just is not a lot of economic benefit to living in the rural parts. I'm not even too certain if the timber industry is that great any more...the only thing I could imagine the Ozarks have going for them besides the trucking industry is timber, but with much of those forests now protected, even that's complicated. Brick-making is about all I can think of. And in the northern Ozarks, along the Missouri River and slightly to the south, vineyards. You might think I'm using it as a crutch, but you have no idea how third world much of it is in the rural parts compared to the rest of the country. Many houses don't even have indoor plumbing. This not even something you typically see in the Appalachian mountains, at least as far as cropland as concerned. THey are still culturally mixed between the Midwest and south, but the topography is largely responsible for the biggest differences.
How's that conclusion working out for you?
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/map/la/1331160058658_map.png (broken link)
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/map/la/1331160090072_map.png (broken link)
There's no need to argue about that though, the unemployment rate doesn't make a state any more or less Midwestern.
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.
