Where is the Midwest? (home, vs, moving)

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The culture, demographics and linguistics are not the same either.

Said the man who did no research. Southern Baptist coupled with professional lingustics maps which place the Southern accent there, southern cuisine, southern state of mind, etc. What else do you need? I've been to Elk City, Oklahoma, and Amarillo...you could get sweet tea and grits at many places. I'm sorry, you can place the Oklahoma panhandle in its own region, but to claim Oklahoma doesn't belong in the south is like claiming Virginia doesn't. In a survey done by the University of North Carolina, a sample of a couple hundred Oklahomans was selected...around 70% as I recall identified as southern. You can find the study if you do a search.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

Said the man who did no research. Southern Baptist coupled with professional lingustics maps which place the Southern accent there, southern cuisine, southern state of mind, etc. What else do you need? I've been to Elk City, Oklahoma, and Amarillo...you could get sweet tea and grits at many places. I'm sorry, you can place the Oklahoma panhandle in its own region, but to claim Oklahoma doesn't belong in the south is like claiming Virginia doesn't. In a survey done by the University of North Carolina, a sample of a couple hundred Oklahomans was selected...around 70% as I recall identified as southern. You can find the study if you do a search.

Well considering I'm sitting 20 miles away from Elk City right now, and have lived there and own a business there I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

Again I said NORTHWEST Oklahoma was not southern. And I would consider Elk City to be more Southwestern than southern but again, if you are going to classify Amarillo as "southern" then I guess I'll have to agree.

[GraniteStater]

I've said this before on other related threads. To the east of 100 degrees longitude it is mostly Midwest and to the west of that area it is mostly the West. The southern extension of the Midwest can always be argued, but the Ohio River is a better demarcation zone. West of there is more of a challenge to define.

[garmin239]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

Baltimore doesn't really have a lot of cultural ties to the Midwest...it has more in common with Philadelphia and D.C. Baltimore aside, I would still say that most of the Northeast didn't experience the type of economic devastation that the Midwest did. While it's true that the Bos-Wash corridor certainly was greatly impacted by the loss of manufacturing, they weren't dependent on it to the degree much of the Midwest was, and seemed to weather it better. And I certainly can't think of many big cities in the the Northeast that experienced the type of long-term decline that Detroit, Cleveland, or St. Louis experienced. Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Erie, and Rochester did, but these cities really have much more in common culturally with Cleveland than with Boston, NYC, or Philly.

Not at all. As somebody living in Rochester and has traveled all over the place, I have very little in common with somebody from Cleveland other than saying "pop" every now and then.
I have more in common with somebody from Providence, Long Island or Albany than I do with somebody from Cleveland. Cleveland does have some northeastern traits though and I could see some minor comparisons.
Some people mistakenly think that rust belt= midwest. This couldn't be farther from the truth since the rustbelt extends into multiple regions.
I don't see how people seem to think that the northeast only includes Boston Philly and NYC. There is a whole other area that includes the northeast that has little in common with the I-95 corridor but also has little in common with midwestern cities.
Demographically and culturally the cities of western NY fit more in with the northeast.

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by steel03

You're right that the Midwest is divided, but most of us would call Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois the Upper Midwest, not part of the Great Plains (which would be the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and probably Missouri). Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio would also be in their own group.
But truly, you probably wouldn't be able to tell Ohio countryside from North Dakota or Missouri countryside.

Are you serious? That is laughable. If you think North Dakota in any way looks like Ohio, you probably haven't been to either.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

Are you serious? That is laughable. If you think North Dakota in any way looks like Ohio, you probably haven't been to either.

Ya, I don't think Mansfield, OH looks anything like Minot, ND.

[robertpolyglot]

Midwest -
to the east of MT, WY, CO and NM
to the north of TX, OK and AR
to the west of PA, WV, and TN

I think it's pretty defined and I don't think states are "blended." They either are or they aren't Midwestern.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

Midwest -
to the east of MT, WY, CO and NM
to the north of TX, OK and AR
to the west of PA, WV, and TN

I think it's pretty defined and I don't think states are "blended." They either are or they aren't Midwestern.

I think you meant to say KY instead of TN.

[TheBeagleLady]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

Midwest -
to the east of MT, WY, CO and NM
to the north of TX, OK and AR
to the west of PA, WV, and TN

I think it's pretty defined and I don't think states are "blended." They either are or they aren't Midwestern.

This is not the case. Spend some time in Sioux Falls and Rapid City and you will see the difference.

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by TheBeagleLady

This is not the case. Spend some time in Sioux Falls and Rapid City and you will see the difference.

The Dakotas are typically claimed as the Midwest, though Mt. Rushmore and some of the Ponderosa pine studded land might be more Western. Ohio is always claimed as the Midwest, though its eastern border feels more like Pennsylvania.